The Duran Podcast - Striking Iran and selling an unpopular war to America

Episode Date: February 28, 2026

Striking Iran and selling an unpopular war to America

All right, Alexander, we had the talks in Geneva between the United States and Iran, Wittkov and Kushner, with Adakshi, the foreign minister of Iran. The early reports were that the U.S. was not happy with what Iran was pitching. The U.S.'s demands to Iran were pretty pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, demanding, pretty strict, what the U.S. was demanding in order to avoid a conflict, at least the document that the Wall Street Journal managed to get a hold of. And then the two parties, they broke for a recess. They came back and they spoke for a few more hours. And then the reports were that progress was made and that the atmosphere was a bit more positive than how it was

in the beginning of the day, at least those were the reports that we got from Oman, as well as from the United States and Iran. But when you dig into the issues that they're both discussing and what they're both offering, you can still see that they're very far apart, at least on the key issues. What are your thoughts on where we are with the negotiations? Well, I think the first point to say is we've had what Donald Trump, who, said about Iran in the State of the Union address. And his comments about Iran was so overwhelmingly hostile. I mean, he called them terrible people. He spoke of them as being sinister. He made it fairly clear that he doesn't accept that the government in Iran has any legitimacy. He spoke about

how Iran is an actual danger to the United States itself. I have to say that to me, reading those words, I wonder how important these negotiations ultimately really were. Because as you rightly say, the Americans came to these negotiations with a set of demands so extreme that it was impossible to the, that the, that the, Iranians would agree to them, especially as the United States is not offering anything in return. Basically, what the United States wants is Iran to give up all nuclear enrichment, Iran to give up all its ballistic missile capability, Iran to give up much of its foreign policy

in the Middle East, to capitulate entirely. And no guarantees in return. that the United States will lift any sanctions. No guarantees that Iran would be protected from any further future attacks. I mean, if the Americans made those sets of demands and said, like, in return, we're going to lift all sanctions on Iran, and we're going to negotiate some kind of security treaty with Iran, whereby Iran could be confident that it will not be attacked itself in future, a security treaty with safeguards attached to it. Something of that kind. I am not saying the Iranians would have agreed to that, but at least there would have been something to negotiate about. The American demands are pitched instead at such a high level.

that they don't really look like negotiations. They look more like an ultimatum demanding what is in effect Iran's total capitulation and its submission to the United States. And of course the Iranians would say, well, if we agree to any of this coming from a government and a president that's made perfectly clear that they don't accept the legitimacy of our own government, then we are setting ourselves up for future overthrow. And why should we do that? Why should we agree to these things, which will put us at such a critical position of weakness in the future?

So, of course, the Iranians said no. They rejected the ultimatum. They did come with proposals. The proposals are the same proposals that we were hearing last year. that Iran would, well, with a few things added, they will suspend enrichment for three to five years. They will dilute their nuclear stockpile, their existing stockpile. They will agree when they resume enrichment in three to five years, that it should be conducted through a consortium, which will involve the local Arab states and perhaps the Russians.

These are, if your focus is the nuclear issue, these are perfectly workable proposals. They are an off-ramp for the Americans. But obviously, they fall far short of Iran capitulating to the kind of ultimatum that the Americans, that the Americans presented to them. Now, the big question is this. Is the United States serious about this ultimatum? Because if it is, then we're going to have an attack on Iran. I mean, this is inevitable. It is certain. Or is the ultimatum, was the ultimatum, ultimately some sort of bluff, which has now been called, in which case, we might move forward towards a serious negotiation and an agreement which would be very similar

to the one based on the kind of proposals that the Iranians are making and which by the way would not be that different from the JCPOA, just as a say. I don't know. I don't think the Americans themselves know. I think that there are disagreements within the United States. We know already that there are within Trump's team, some people, some senior people who are advising him that this would be politically and electorally disastrous, that the American people do not want to see a war with Iran, that he won the election on the basis that he would be the peace president, not become the war president, and a warning him about the electoral consequences of moving forward. We also know that the military, General Kane and the intelligence people, John Radcliffe and the CIA, are also very nervous. They say we can't guarantee an outcome. The war might last a long time. We don't really have the resources or the will to sustain a long war.

This could all turn out very, very bad. So there is the pressure from those people to say, look, this isn't Iran capitulating, but it's a lot better than nothing. Let's take it. We can package it as a win. That might get us through the midterms. But, of course, there's the others, the hardliners. There's people like Lindsay Graham.

There's people like Mark Levin and all of that, all people like that, all people like that, who say this is nowhere near enough, you've got, the Iranians are not accepting our ultimatum. We need to attack them and we need to attack them now and we need to move forward towards regime change. So because there are these two forces, each arguing over this, with the president caught in the middle, we have these mixed signals initially because the Iranians rejected the ultimatum, annoyance, disappointment, hints that the United States is going to move forward and attack Iran. And then as the hours pass, you get the sense of the other side, the other people, the military, the intelligence, people, the people who are closer to the electoral dynamics in the US, they come in and they say to

Trump, we can't afford this. This isn't achievable now. Let's take what we can. And I'm going to, I'm going to guess that the swing person in all of this is not Trump himself, but he's chief of star Susie Wilds. Why would Trump be moving all of this military hardware into the region if there wasn't going to be a strike? Well, I think he made it. I mean, is that the bluff? Is that what the Iranians are calling?

And is that Trump's way of upping the stakes? You see, I don't think it was a bluff. I think there was absolutely an absolute determination, a clear decision made, probably in December that the Iranian government, let's call it the Iranian regime, even the Iranians, when they talk about regime change, refer to their own government as a regime, that the regime would not survive this year and that it would be overthrown as soon as possible. And, you know, they made all these commitments. They gave the promises to the Israelis, to Netanyahu, They gave the promises to the donors.

They gave the promises to people like Lindsay Graham that this is what would happen. And I think that this massive movement of men and machines, which is still ongoing, what's absolutely intended to result in a military strike against Iran, which would result in regime change in Iran. What I think has thrown this all into confusion is, as I said, the electoral dynamics in the US are bad, but also the big shock, which is the meeting

that took place last weekend in which the military and the intelligence people said, if you try this, we cannot guarantee that it will work. The Iranians seem to be getting a significant amount of help now from their BRICS allies. They have the situation. within Iran itself under control. And we don't know for sure that a military strike, which we might not be able to sustain for very long, because we have all of these equipment shortages, our missile cupboard is empty, almost empty.

We have problems with the Gerald Ford, the aircraft carrier, which is in Crete now. We've got all these... No, it's in... it's in the region now. It's in the region. Yeah. It was in Crete. It was in the region.

Okay. But anyway, it's had all of those problems. The crews are already tired there. We can't promise that this will necessarily succeed. So I think the president, Trump himself, wants to attack Iran. I mean, that's his visceral desire to do. But he's got all of these other people around him. the intelligence people, the people who understand the electoral dynamics in the US, who are

saying, for heaven's sake, don't do this thing. It would be an absolute disaster if you did. It would be an electoral disaster. And if it fails, it will be an even bigger disaster. It will be the end of your presidency. So he is not sure. And I suspect that, as I said, the person who's ultimately going to be the advice, the person is going to give him the key advice. He's going to be his chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Well, what's Wittkoff and Kushner going to say? They're going to go back to D.C. And they're going to brief Trump on the negotiations.

And they're going to say, what, that it was a positive. Positive progress was made. And because Trump was putting it on them. He was saying, you know, if the talks go well, if Kushner and Whitkoff, if they come back and tell us that progress was being made, okay, maybe we'll postpone whatever. military activity or move more towards diplomacy. I mean, that was what he was hinting at. And so we are getting reports that the talks, at least the second part of the talks,

were positive. Those are the reports that we're getting. I'm not saying that's what happened, but at least those are the public statements that are being made. Yes. Well, here's what I think about Kushner and Whitgolf. Obviously, they're very pro-Israel. I mean, we can take that's absolute red, they probably share a lot of the negative feelings about Iran that people in Israel have, and the people like Netanyahu in Israel have. So that probably predisposes them to take a very, very hard line against Iran. But they are involved in a negotiation, and their role is as negotiators. And my own experience of people who conduct negotiations is that beyond a certain point, they always want the negotiations to continue because that is what they

do. And if negotiations stop, there is no role for them anymore. So there is that psychological factor in play too. So they went into the meeting. Whit Goff has already said that Trump is frustrated and doesn't understand why the Iranians haven't already capitulated. I suspect that Witkoff was also talking about himself, just to say, I think, because I don't think these people have fully understood the issues here. I don't know that they really understand, you know, the Iranian thinking and psychology and motivations very well. So they expected that it would be an easy win that the Iranians would capitulate. but the Iranians are not capitulating, I think that despite their strong visceral feelings about Iran, which is still there, I think that probably because they don't want to come back and say, we have failed, they will say to Trump, well, look, it didn't go so well at the beginning, but the atmospherics got better afterwards. The Ammanis are still doing very hard and good work. Let's give it another go. Let's meet again next week.

So I think that's probably what they're going to say. Well, we are going to have technical talks in Vienna next week. Exactly. Exactly. Whatever that means. Well, it was during the technical talks last time. They were in the seventh round of talks, and there were technical talks that the 12-day war started. Yes.

What's to stop? I mean, what's to prevent Israel from just attacking first? Well, I mean, we already know that there are people. That will definitely draw in the United States. There's no doubt about it. We already know that there are people in the United States who are saying that that's how to do it. Exactly. That we get Israel to attack first.

And by the way, you know, these are the sort of very hardline people who are who want to see the attack on Iran. It isn't just about explaining this to the American people saying, you know, that once Israel attacks Iran and Iran then hits our own bases, that means that we have to defend ourselves. This isn't about elections. The attack on Iran is in order to get the war against Iran started, in order to draw the president and the United States in, as happened in June. So it's entirely possible that this is exactly what will happen

and that these people will be saying to Netanyahu and the Israelis, is, look, Trump is dithering. He can't make up his mind. Susie Wiles is unsure. We need to knock out Iran now, attack Iran. You do it. You go in first. And then we can guarantee that we will follow. The plan seems to be not so much about whether to start a conflict, the second round of the conflict with Iran. It seems to me that the discussions that are taking place are revolving. more around how do we get the American public to support this. That seems to be what's really eating away at them, whether it's Trump or whether it's anyone on his team, the polling numbers and the fact that they're heading into midterms and the fact that this conflict is so unpopular or this possible conflict would be so unpopular and so catastrophic to the Republican Party and to Trump's presidency. That is what's.

concerning them. And they're trying to figure out how do we sell this conflict? How do we sell this war so that we don't take a big hit come November? Or so that Trump's presidency doesn't turn into a complete catastrophic debacle. Well, indeed. And they thought they could do that because they expected a quick and easy win. They thought that there would be a quick and easy win. Trump would then go to China and meet Xi Jinping as a triumphant victor. Knocking out a pricks member. Knocking out of bricks. Exactly.

And this was the plan. The polling is extremely bad and getting worse, by the way, just to say. And to their dismay, the military have come. and they said we might not be able to deliver. So this is the problem. But you're completely correct. The urge, the need, we're not need, the urge to attack Iran,

to overthrow the government there, to change the political system is absolutely overwhelming. And in the end, even if they can't get the polling round, even if they can't, they're not satisfied, you know, the military is still hesitant about this. Well, we said this many times about the neocons. They have no reverse gear.

They want a war. And I've never known a situation, by the way, never known a situation in modern American history where the neocons didn't get the war they wanted. The neocons always get everything they want. The neocons always get everything they want. And the other thing with the neocons is they'll play left and right. They'll play Republican and Democrats.

So you've got to imagine that the neocons, they're sitting around saying, you know what, even if this does turn out to be a disaster for the Republicans, for Trump, for you, Lindsay Graham, whatever, who cares? Learning stuff. Right? So Trump takes the hit. so the remainder of his presidency is a complete catastrophe, so be it. Absolutely. Well, they never really trusted him like Trump very much anyway.

Yeah, because the window of opportunity in their minds to start the war with Iran is closing. It's now or never. That's the way they see it. Exactly. So they're not going to care about Trump, the midterms, anything like that. For them, the time is now. Exactly. Because, I mean, the window, as you rightly say, about Iran is closing.

And that is the thing that they are worried about most. Because now, finally, very belatedly, the Iranians are doing what they should have done five years ago. They're starting to import weapons properly. They're starting to get military and security arrangements with their BRICs, partners. There's been the latest reports about them doing this deal with China to obtain super, robotic anti-ship missiles. There's lots of reports that they're going to, that the Suhoi 35s are now finally on their way. So the window for an attack on Iran is closing.

And that's ultimately the thing that is really important for them. If the Republicans do badly in the midterms, what does it matter? Joe Biden's administration was a neocon administration. So was Barack Obama's. I mean, whichever side of the political aisle comes out, the neocons are always in charge. Yeah. All right. We'll end the video there.

The durand.com. We are on X and Telegram and Rumm. We are also on Substack, so check us out on our Substack and go to the Duran Shop, pick up some merch. The link is in the description box down below. Take care.