The Duran Podcast - Trump to 'clean out' and own Gaza - Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: February 9, 2025

Trump to 'clean out' and own Gaza - Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

What is Trump doing in the Middle East? Well, to discuss this, I am joined by Alexander Mercuris and Sayyad Mohamed Marandia, professor and an advisor to the Iranian nuclear negotiation team. Also, can add both of them prolific analysts who are definitely worth following. So, I'm not sure how to read this new outburst of Trump. he's seemingly deliberately appearing unpredictable or he just might be improvising. I'm sometimes reminded of President Nixon's madman theory in which the idea was if he acts erratic, unpredictable, this would be intimidating to his adversaries, they would be cautious not to provoke,

as he could lose control at any time. And again, so convincing your adversaries you might be irrational, which makes them cautious. On the other sign of that coin, of course, is that unpredictability is not great for political stability, which is why everyone doesn't behave like a madman. Of course, I could be wrong, he might just be mad. But I bring this up because I'm trying to make sense of Trump's approach to the Middle East. He says he wants to pull back from the region and end this forever wars. At the same time, he now said he wanted to ethnically cleanse every Palestinian from Gaza

and of course for the US to take ownership of Gaza, whatever that might mean, which I really doubt he means this literally because it would be too crazy and I can't see how this would actually be implemented. So how can we read all of this? Is this just bluster to assist Netanyahu with what has effectively been a defeat? Is it US effort to pursue retrenchment without seeming weak? Or is it just a negotiation bluff to escalate? attentions or rhetoric before you come with your great proposal.

Yeah, I would love to get your perspectives on this. I think the two of you know more about Trump and I, and there's nothing that I can contribute about his state of mind. I really don't know, so everything is based on speculation or just my understanding based upon past experiences. It could be just bluster and outbursts, and that is possible. It's, of course, awful, it's evil, it's disgusting, and it should be condemned, and actually it's good for Iran in a way, and the resistance and the access of resistance,

because it helps, again, show that the United States is standing with the Israeli regime, and it puts the United States in a very bad light, and that's always beneficial. But I think there is a more, I'm guessing, that there is a more complicated reason for this, which again, it doesn't, I'm not trying to downplay the significance of the statement in the sense that it's absolutely immoral. But I do think there's a reason why he did this. Netanyahu is not in a strong position. He has not achieved anything in Gaza except for slaughter, which I think has destroyed the image of the Israeli regime. Probably the greatest defeat for the regime is that the world now sees it as it sees any evil regime in human history.

That I think is the greatest defeat for it. But he has gained nothing in Gaza. he's gained nothing in Lebanon despite early on using the beepers and and the shockina air strikes where he martyred senior officials in Hezbollah and and and Sayy Hassan Nasrullah afterwards Hezbollah regrouped and they they basically held the Israeli regime the armed their troops back on the border and the fighting on the Lebanese border was the most the heaviest fighting that ever took place in any conflict between Tel Aviv and any other entity the the cup the last two months of fighting was unprecedented but still they failed to make any significant inroads so on these two fronts they had no success

And in Syria, although the Netanyahu, Erdogan-Biden partnership succeeded, I don't think in the long run it achieves any results. I think actually it's going to hurt Turkey and countries in the region that are in the American camp because they are the ones who are vulnerable to this culture of extremism and Salafism and Wahhabism and al-Qaeda and ISIS ideology. And that's in the long run. But in any case, and by expanding into Syria, they are more overstretched.

So even though in Western media, they speak euphoric of the situation for Israel and some people in Israel were euphoric. But I think it's clear that the situation for Netanyahu is not And the fact that he's ill contributes to this weakness. So as the world public opinion shifted, I think Trump saw a ceasefire as an opportunity for himself, for his own personal benefit. And so he basically pushed for the ceasefire. And the day before his inauguration, the agreement was,

was accepted by all sides. And I think Trump wants to ceasefire to continue. I don't think Trump wants any conflict with Iran, obviously, because it's not something that the United States can win. And I don't think that he wants the fighting to continue in Gaza because it's undermining the United States, and it will undermine him. When you have people like Tucker Carlson

speaking the way he does about the Israeli, regime or inviting guests to speak in a certain way about the Israeli regime. When you have people like Candace Owens, among others, who are not highly critical of the regime in the MAGICAM, then I think you have a problem. And of course, other segments of American society will pounce upon anything that could hurt Trump. So I'm sure you've noticed that the same people who are silent about the genocide during the 16 months of slaughter, they are the same people who are now attacking Trump for

for proposing ethnic cleansing. So genocide is okay. A Holocaust is okay, but ethnic cleansing is horrible for them. A completely hypocritical position, but it does show that Trump, that if fighting continues in Gaza, these people will also join and bang and also. join this group and an attack Trump. So it's in Trump's interest to end the war. And continue to ceasefire.

He was using this opportunity while giving some real concessions to Netanyahu, like the bunker busers that can be used tomorrow to kill women and children again. And perhaps some concessions in the West Bank. And we see that in the West Bank things are very bad now, and there's a lot of killing and destruction, and the Western media and Western governments are saying nothing about it. But perhaps he's given Netanyahu some concessions there. But I think by talking about ethnic cleansing in Gaza,

what he's doing is he's probably not serious. Again, that's my interpretation, my speculation. It may be completely false. But I think he's not serious about it because I don't think it can be done anyway. That's what the 16 months of genocide was about and the resistance was all about. And that's why Hezbollah joined the fighting to stop it. That's why Yemen joined the fighting to stop it. But I think he's giving this fake concession, let's say, what appears to be a concession to Netanyahu.

So that Netanyahu, who's been weakened and go back to his partners and say, look, what I've achieved. and so his coalition would hold together because the key problem right now for Trump is that the second phase is where Netanyahu, the second phase of the ceasefires, where Netanyahu told his allies that we're going back to fighting. And I think that Trump wants the second phase to move forward. And so there's no solution here.

you either go to war or you continue with a ceasefire. And so I think Trump's, again, speculation, what Trump did was that he gave Netanyahu this hope for the future. Maybe Netanyahu sees through it, but anyway, his coalition, this hope for the future so that they will accept continuing with the second stage. And remember, Trump also said the third stage that, you know, that's all nonsense, that's unacceptable. So that you can add that. Of course, if there's ethnic cleansing, there won't be a third state. But I think that's basically it. That's how I understand it.

I think that Trump wants to see this ceasefire continue. He wants the second phase to go through. And he's given Netanyahu this gift so that he can stay in power. And that's basically what Netanyahu wants more than anything else. the whole genocide that we've seen, I think, has been immensely destructive for the Israeli regime. I think it's the beginning of the end of the regime. I'm not saying the end is tomorrow or next year, but I think that Netanyahu does not take into account the interests of the future of the regime. It's all about himself.

And Trump is using this to keep Netanyahu. Tyniahu happy and his coalition intact. Can I just say, Muhammad, that this is actually very close to a commentary that was something that was told to me by someone here in Britain who, because it was a private conversation, I can't say, but the point this person made is that this is America coping with defeat. And that you have to understand everything in terms of what the new administration, has been doing, Trump has been doing, with the fact that the projects that were launched under Biden have failed. They've failed in Ukraine. So, you know, you have to try and find some way

to get out of Ukraine without admitting that you've been defeated there. And you've also got to find some way to try to bring some kind of peace, or at least not peace, stability to the Middle East Middle East, without again admitting that the entire project that was launched back in, after the 7th of October, the attack on Gaza, the attack on Hezbollah, all of those things, that ultimately they failed. Hamas is still there. It is still a force in being. It continues to have the support of the population in Gaza.

It's now become absolutely clear. Hezbollah is still there. the Assad regime collapsed, but I think exactly as you said, this has created a set of new problems and potentially new conflicts. So you see that Trump and the Americans are trying to maneuver. So they're saying, you know, they want peace in Ukraine, but they're threatening the Russians with sanctions. They say that they want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, but at the same time, they want the ceasefire to remain there. They're not talking very much about Hezbollah and Lebanon at the moment.

They are talking an awful lot about Iran, though, and that's what I want to speak about, because we've had two articles from Axios, and we've now seen how integrated in some. ways, parts of the American media are with the American government. I mean, that's another story, but we've seen it. So one article a few weeks ago says that Biden and his people seriously debated an attack on Iran, and Biden decided that he wouldn't go ahead with it because it was too close to the end of his presidency. And we then had a further article from Axios.

telling us that an Israeli official came to Washington in November, and apparently again, previously had lobbied the Trump people for an attack on Iran. And again, the impression one gets Axios isn't very clear, but it seems that Trump said no. So he's got a ceasefire in Gaza. He's not going ahead so far with an attack on Iran. But that doesn't mean that there isn't enormous pressure on Iran, just as with threats of sanctions against Russia. We have the reality of sanctions against Iran.

We're back to maximum pressure against Iran. Now, Iran got through that before. It's a very different situation today. You've just had an agreement with Russia, important one. the Russians are taking it very seriously. I've been following the media there. You're now a member of the Bricks. What do people in Iran think about this maximum pressure?

Is it going to push Iran backwards economically? I mean, what's the political response to this? Are people afraid of it? Is it intimidating to people? Is it going to heighten tensions inside Iran? Or does Iran think that, you know, with your... rapprochement with the Saudis, which has survived with the fact that you're now a BRICS country, a full BRICS partner state, now that you've got also this agreement with Russia,

do you think that you're in a stronger position to withstand this? It is very important to all of what you said, and I think it's quite clear that, as I also alluded to, that one of the things that they were trying to impose on Trump was an attack on Iran. And I'm sure he didn't want that. We have to always keep in mind that the United States at its height, at the height of its power in 2003, when it had taken Afghanistan and took Iraq and basically surrounded Iran. and someone once said at that time that real men go to Tehran ultimately the real men or the supposed men didn't go to Tehran because they knew that it was not a war they could win.

They could devastate Iran, but they would also devastate themselves. Today, Iran is much stronger than it was back then, both inside the country militarily but also across the region. And as you pointed out, Iran is now a member of Bricks. It's a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its relationship with countries across Asia have evolved. Russia, a very important agreement was signed.

The relationship is growing rapidly. The relationship with China is growing rapidly. The relationship with India is improving. And as you pointed out in the region, especially with Saudi Arabia, relations have improved. no thanks to the United States or the West, but partially because of the good offices of the Chinese government that helped the two sign an agreement. I think, there's no doubt that ordinary Iranians will see this as a challenge and that the economic situation, which is not easy for most Iranians, is something that people are always concerned about. The wealthy, the very wealthy in Iran, obviously, they have their own interests, and I'm sure they're doing well under all circumstances. But the majority of Iranians do face the difficulties that exist, and part of those difficulties are because of the sanctions.

However, I think the United States, and I think Glenn early on alluded to this, and I want to build upon that. And that is that by doing this, this old madman theory, you may get some small concessions here and there from Canada or Mexico or whoever. In the long run, I think it hurts the United States more than

did the United States under Obama refrained from fulfilling its obligations in the nuclear deal, the JCPOA, but then Trump tore up the deal. And then we saw the United States, well, the Europeans, but basically the United States, never take the Minsk Accords seriously, as we saw from Merkel and Holland and the previous presidents of Ukraine. And then when you look at Gaza now, when you see when, Trump says, well, this, the third stage of the deal is meaningless.

It's irrelevant when it can't be carried out. Whereas this agreement was signed or agreed upon, it was this plan was agreed upon with the support of Trump. And so basically what Trump is doing is he's saying that you cannot trust me. You cannot trust an agreement that is signed by me. You cannot trust an agreement that I help facilitate to bring into existence. So in future, if Russia wants to negotiate with the United States over Ukraine to end the conflict, because ultimately this is about the United States in Russia, Zelensky is a nobody. He's up. He's finished.

Ultimately, if Iran and the United States want to have negotiations over another deal, how can Iran or Russia trust Trump? It makes a deal virtually impossible. It makes it almost inevitable that whatever Russia signs, whatever Iran signs, later on Trump will say, well, I don't agree with that anymore, so from tomorrow we're doing it a different way.

That is more than plausible. to me it sounds almost inevitable with the personality as that he has. So I think he's damaging the United States and those who are skeptical of negotiations with the United States will point to this and say, look, these are people who we can't deal with.

We can't take him seriously. So this madman theory, I think, doesn't work. And I agree with whoever you spoke to in London about this being an attempt to cope. I think it's a, goes beyond Gaza. I personally believe that this

Greenland and Canada and Panama and Mexico and all this is an attempt to justify retreat by the United States because in my opinion, retreat is inevitable.

The United States has an overextended itself for a very long period of time. It has, what, 800, 850. I don't know the exact number of bases. I don't think anyone knows. Probably Trump doesn't know. How many bases the United States has across the world official and unofficial?

The economy is in a terrible shape. The United States will have to pull back. And I think that one area where that pullback is clear is in Ukraine, for example. And, of course, our region, too. So I think that by making these proclamations and by putting out these statements and saying some of these somewhat outrageous things, it's sort of like telling people to look over there, look at that shiny object, all is good. And, you know, this retreat really isn't all that important. Of course, I'm, you know, exaggerating a bit. But I think that to a degree how it is.

it is a consolidation because the Americas is, if the United States retreats, they want the Americas. That's their strongest, that's where they are the strongest. And that's why I don't think things will bode well for countries like Brazil. And I think Brazil,

contrary to what was believed before, that India was the weakest link in bricks, I think actually it's probably Brazil. That's the weakest link, because Brazil will be under a lot of pressure. And probably if hopefully the north-south corridor is completed, India will actually have a greater interest with bricks, within bricks. And one good piece of news that I heard in Moscow was the ambassador saying that the project is now going to move forward much more swiftly

because a lot of the difficulties have been resolved. So I think that this is a consolidation. This is both a consolidation. It is a retreat, but it's also a distraction in the broader sense. But I think that it also, the mechanism here is to strengthen a weak Netanyahu. And I think that right now, at least, Trump is in the driver's seat. and not Netanyahu and that's why he can do this.

It's no interesting you mentioned that he had the other side of the coin of the madman theory which is the unpredictability because well obviously in Europe this is in any alliance system this is you need predictability

look at Europeans we effectively went to now somewhere between a proxy war and a direct war with Russia the largest nuclear We put ourselves on the front line, and suddenly no one would have done this unless the US was standing behind the Europeans. And now Trump's saying, well, I might just take a Greenland. Again, he's probably going to get some base deals, quite extensive, in order for Denmark to be allowed to keep his territory.

So he'll be able to squeeze out something. But of course, this is a bit of a shock to the Europeans that the, you have the, the protector was the one who is now coming for us. There's a great proverb on this, which is something along the lines. The sheep spends his whole life hearing the wolf, and at the end it's eaten by the shepherd. I think that is very suitable for Europe.

But in applying it to the Middle East, I was also wondering with this huge bluster with making Gaza American after territory, after expelling, ethnically cleansing all the Palestinians. Yeah, I don't think it's going to go through with it, but the mere rhetoric of this, the unpredictability,

which is deliberately trying to signal, what is this going to do with its allies? Many of the Arab governments, Saudi Arabia, for example, surely they can't feel too comfortable because they also put themselves on the front line as well, not just against Iran, but they made themselves very dependent.

So how do you see this, do you see any predict any big changes coming forth? Will this incentivize the Saudis to maybe, yeah, could continue this path of improving relations with the Iranians? Or have you, again, this is all happening all very fast. So I guess it can't be too much development just yet. Well, actually, if I was the Iranian foreign ministry and, I had some role in being in using that position to troll the Americans and the Europeans. I would offer to send troops to Greenland to protect it from any American aggression. But that is that is that is exactly as you put it.

It's the the shepherd now is busy eating the sheep. and I think that Europeans are, I'm sure, at least a portion of the elites in Europe are thinking about that very quietly. Not out loud,

but quietly they're thinking, you know, we've been always saying how Moscow and Russia they're a threat to us, but ultimately we see that the threat comes from the United States. Actually, I think that

this is another element that the United States or Trump doesn't take into consideration. First of all, with regards to Saudi Arabia and these countries, first of all, the whole Gaza

genocide was a selfish act by Netanya. I mean, it was completely immoral, it was barbaric, and it exposed the regime, but it was a completely selfish policy pursued by the regime.

It destroyed the image of the West, it destroyed its power never again can they speak about human rights in Russia or China Iran or anywhere because that you know everyone has been watching what's going on but the Israelis never care

they you know for them it's just themselves and here I think that we this is a part of it what the Israelis did during these this almost 16 months of genocide was that they have have weakened all of these Arab countries and even Erdogan by showing their hypocrisy, by the sheer fact that they were silent or they never did anything to support the Palestinians.

They were all weakened, some more, some less. Erdogan, of course, through his speeches and Blasser, his base. He's sort of like Trump. He has a base that will stick with him no matter what happened. but many do are turned against it. And in the region, in Jordan, in Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, people have been very angry because of the silence of their government. So Netanyahu has weakened these countries that are in the American camp. But what Trump did, I think, further weakens them.

Because it doesn't matter if Saudi Arabia has given the green light to expel all these Palestinians, or if Egypt has given the green light or Jordan has given the green light. I doubt they did have. But it will raise questions among ordinary people in these countries. Are they doing a secret deal behind our backs? Are our governments betraying the Palestinian people again? And this only further undermines these regimes. So the last 16, 17 months have been disaster.

for all of them because of their indifference, their silence, or their collaboration, exporting oil or transporting goods or doing trade or preserving political ties. It's all, it's damaged them, but this is just taking it a step further. And in addition to that, you see the destruction of Syria, which, as I said earlier, is a threat to Saudi Arabia. these Wahhabi groups, these Salafist groups, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the countries that they threaten first and foremost

are countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, potentially. And it also, by the way, this policy is going to further the divide between the Saudis and the Turks and the Saudis and the Emirates, on the one hand and Qatar on the other. So they're only making it, what Trump has done is that he's made it or more complicated for the US camp.

And it's going to make these countries more, more, in a more difficult situation, potentially more closer to some form of instability. And we have to remember that when, well over a decade ago, 14, 15, 15 years ago, a young man in Tunisia burned himself alive in protests because of local injustice. That created uproar across North Africa and West Asia, and it brought down governments. But everything till then seems quiet and stable.

No one expected the uproar and the revolutions. So what we're seeing today is it seems everything is quiet. it, but I think underneath a lot of things are happening. So Syria, Trump's behavior, the genocide, all of that is potentially very dangerous for the U.S. position in West Asian and Africa and beyond, because the world is watching and it doesn't look good for the United States. I'm just going to make, on this own Madman theory, it's just going to make an observation, which is based on professional experience.

which is, firstly, if you soak chaos, you're not going to be able to control it. Chaos, by definition, is uncontrollable, and it will backfire on you. And the second, which is absolutely based on professional experience, I've interviewed many people like this. If you behave all the time like a madman, you become one. I mean, that also inexorably is true. I think many people who worked in this field will agree with me. So if this is the game that is being played, behave in a wild, eccentric, crazy way and scare everybody,

you will lose control of it. Inevitably so. And people will start to see who it's very dangerous and very unpredictable. And they'll start to take precautions. And they'll start comparing notes with each other. and here perhaps it's worth making a point about Iran and its region because Iran has never been at war with the United States. I mean, we've had very difficult relations with the United States since the 1940s,

but that there is no objective reason why Iran and the United States could not be friends. None. Whereas if you look at Iran's region, I mean, we talk about Russia and Iran, as every Iranian knows, as many Russians know, you've had a long history of wars with each other. I mean, there have been wars during the Tehran conference in 1943. Very few people know this, but there were Russian soldiers in Tehran occupying the city. alongside the British. There's been a very difficult relationship. And the reason that there are apparently very few transportation corridors between Russia and Iran and that they have to be built now is precisely because the relationship was not an easy one. And of course, with Turkey, it was exactly the same. I mean, Iran has had long histories with the Ottomans before.

and, you know, even with secular Turkey since then. And despite Syria, despite all of those problems that exist now, my own sense, and I'd be interested to see what you say here, I think that there is now starting to be a greater understanding between Iran and Turkey at all sorts of levels. you have a president in Iran who speaks Turkish, who is interested in Turkey, so I understand. And of course, Turkey itself has been looking increasingly towards the bricks. It's become a partner state of the bricks. And it seems to be developing those relations. And of course, I'm not going to even start with the issues between Iran and the Gulf,

because I think they're all very well known. So America, actually, is losing potential friends through this policy. It's losing potential opportunities through this policy. It could actually, if it changed its approach, have a very strong and good relationship with Iran. It is not impossible. Now, can I ask a few questions specifically?

Apparently, Mr. White-Goff is going to be acting as President Trump's envoy with respect to Iran. Now, envoy suggests that at some level, at some point, there's going to be some kind of diplomatic context, because you've got to be, if you're going to be an envoy, presumably you're going to have to speak to the Iranians in some form. I mean, is this seen as a hopeful sign? I mean, he was the person who apparently told the Israelis, you've got to have the ceasefire in Gaza, and he apparently used salty language to get Netanyahu to accept that. So he looks like somebody

who might be interested in building bridges. Do people in Iran sees this as an opportunity? And if there is going to be an attempt, ultimately, through all the bluster and all the noise, a serious attempt to try and re-establish relations, what would Iran be looking for in order to try to get relationship going with the United States? I don't think Iran is going to change its foreign policy, but is there other things that the Iranians could tell the Americans,

finally the Americans are listening, that the Americans might want to hear and be prepared to work with. These are just stray thoughts, but I'll be getting interested to hear your views. you know that before the coup in 1953 Iranians had a favorable view of the United States they thought as sort of or many Iranians as like anti-colonial and different from the Europeans now

of course those who are no American history may not see this as an accurate understanding of the United States before 1953 but in any case the perception in Iran towards the United States was very different than in, than their perception towards the British or the Russians. And that all went downhill after the coup, where the United States overthrew the national government and reinstalled the Shah and then helped him through his, through creating a

secret, a brutal secret police to maintain power until the revolution. And during the revolution, the Americans under Carter supported the killings on the, the the streets of Tehran and other cities and after the revolution they used the embassy to undermine the country and they gave refuge to the Shah and then they supported Saddam and so it just continued to get worse and worse but I think you're absolutely correct the United States and Iran and not just Iran this region there if it wasn't for one major factor there's no reason why the relationship between the United States and the people of this region could not be infinitely better.

But the reason that it isn't is Israel. It is because the influence of the Israeli regime and APAC and its lobby in the United States is events. And again, the Israelis or Tel Aviv has acted. Its interests are detrimental to the interests of Washington. I think that the burden of Israel for the United States is enormous

and its existence is detrimental to U.S. interests. But that's my view. The Iran and Russia, as you rightly point out, have a history, which has not been positive. The wars in the past, also the Soviet Union.

But ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iranian-Russian relations have evolved. and especially during the last three years, they've evolved very rapidly. And ironically, it's been the United States and the Europeans that have acted as the catalyst. Otherwise, the north-south corridor is something that should have been developed decades ago. But as you rightly pointed out, because of that mistrust,

and also because we have always been Eurocentric, too, and both us and the Russians, We've always been, even though we know we've been saying that the world is changing and Asia is rising, but we still have that old tendency to stick to the past, to cling to something that is literally melting before us, like ice under the sun. So we weren't really thinking about Russia. We thought Russia, perhaps we did think that Russia was just a gas station. and probably they were thinking the same about Iran in many respects. But the United States has forced the two countries to rethink things. And now the two countries see that the potential is huge and that they've made such a huge mistake by not rethinking their policies

or building this relationship decades ago. the top two countries in natural gas reserves, two countries with huge mineral reserves and oil, and of course, the North-South corridor is itself has huge potential for Russia, it's trade across East Asia, Southern Asia, and the Persian Gulf region in Africa, but also for Iran across Russia with all its potential and beyond, because wars won't be forever.

Iran's trade with Europe and the trade of much of the Asia could go right through this corridor towards Europe when ultimately the war comes to an end and things change whether it's one year from now or ten years from them. So this has the relationship between Iran and Russia has changed dramatically and it's not going to be reversed

and one problem, another problem with this madman behavior is that even if Trump wants to have a better relationship with Iran and Russia, this behavior makes, not only makes it almost impossible to negotiate and to trust any negotiation, but also it enhances the position or belief that you can't put any eggs in the American basket. So let's say Russia does do a deal with the United States over Ukraine in the future,

or Iran does some sort of deal in the future. or does negotiate with the United States in the future. I don't think that the Iranians will contemplate for a moment taking a couple of eggs out of the Chinese basket or the Indian basket or the Russian basket and putting them into the American basket because there's no trust. It will take decades for people to rethink that.

I think the same is true with Russia. I think the Russians are not going to say, okay, we'll relinquish this part of our relationship with Iran or with China. and then put our bags, our eggs in the American basket. And this, of course, is something that, you know, people in MAGA, some of them were, their objective all along in 2016 was to bring the Russians into the American camp and to have this big coalition and, you know, directed against others.

But events over the past eight years, I think, have destroyed that and have made, everyone much more cautious. With regards to the United States, I have serious doubts that there will be negotiations. Of course, Iran and the United States are always talking with one another indirectly. They exchange messages that they do in direct negotiations. There have been times when we've had direct negotiations. We had two years of negotiations during the Rohani administration,

where we ultimately had the JCPOA, but we gave many concessions, too many, in my opinion, and we signed a deal that I think was unbalanced. But Obama didn't fulfill it, and Trump tore it up. So we have this long experience, and then we have Trump, which we can't trust,

with these statements that he makes and the threats that he makes. So it's hard for me to imagine at this stage that there would be any form of direct negotiation, between Iran and the United States, unless Trump seriously rethinks his policies. And that is not impossible if what some of our friends and people who are much more knowledgeable

than myself, if some of the things that they say is turn to become true. And that is that the United States, if it faces serious economic challenges, if there's a rapid decline, which I think is quite possible, especially now with all the disruption

that we're having the supply chains being threatened, things are all over, the United States has all sorts of debts. Now, if the United States is forced to pull back significantly, then it may start rethinking everything. That's not impossible. But at this stage, I don't see that happening, but I do think that it will be business as usual.

So for the time being, I think Iran is, going to continue to develop its relations with Russia and with us other partners. And that's where the future lies anyway. Even if some by some miraculous shift in the United States, relations go to become normal, the fact is that the future is in Asia. And it's not in Europe and the United States, especially in Europe. So I think that while Iran would like to have a reasonable relationship with the United States, I don't think that anyone here who is serious believes that to be possible at the moment.

And you've pointed this out. And as a lawyer, I think you're in the best position to talk about this. The lawyer is the person who makes the decision. at the decisions at the end of the day. If you're negotiating and you have a lawyer who's inconsistent, constantly changing his position, has says things

that don't make sense. One day says one thing, the next, something different. That lawyer is not going to succeed. And either you're going to have to change the lawyer. You're just going to have to walk away from the table. Iran-Turkish relations are a bit different.

It's more complicated. Of course, Ozzy And Turkish are not the same, not the same. They have similarities. But, you know, the leader is Azzari. Ayatollah Khamenei is an Azzari city in Iran. Marand, Marandi, my name, means from Marand, which is another Ozari city very close to Tabriz. And of course, the president is from Tabriz.

So, you know, but I think actually. Iranian Oz Addis their view is that the Republic of Ozharbaijan belongs to Iran and so they are very nationalistic and their religious

identity in general is probably a bit above average than the ordinary Iranian but having said that I think that Turkey is from what I'm hearing from inside Turkey, from my friends

in the Aka party, because Iran has a very long relationship with the party. Run helped them come to power. The rise of the party under different names. The movement was created by Najimandin Erbakan, who was a

if he was alive today, he would be very different from Mr. Erdogan. He was a very sincere and courageous person who brought who created this movement in the country. And I think the relationship, I think he would have,

he would have been a part of, Turkey would have been in Briggs by now, his relationship with Iran and Russia would have been completely different and we would have had a very different West Asia. But I think Mr. Erdogan from what I understand

from my friends in the party and also people from outside the party, my friends among them too, apparently there is buyer's remorse. In Syria, they never expected to take the country. They never expected it to even take Aleppo. The objective, apparently, was to reach the outskirts of Aleppo so that he could have a stronger hand at the negotiating thing. But Syria collapsed.

And really, I mean, you've spoken about this a lot. Others have spoken about this. I don't want to go into the details because I think everyone knows. but Iran and Russia really weren't in a position to stop this from happening. And there are different actors who can be blamed, but I think partially the tilt to Saudi Arabian Emirates caused a lot of difficult. Not that this, I don't think it's since itself from Iran.

So, but at the side, right now, Mr. Erdogan and Qatar, they are dealing with a massive catastrophe. The Syrian economy has been destroyed. Things are much worse now than they were under President Assad. These terrorist groups are not united. They're deeply divided. The economy, the bureaucracy has fallen apart. And the Israelis have destroyed the country's, much of the country's infrastructure, what was left of it. And they've occupied new territories.

And these extremist groups are killing minorities and Sunni Sufis. And of course, we all see how bad things are. And this is like a black hole for Turkey, because they're the ones, it's theirs now. They own it. And I think that Turkey is recognizing, despite the initial euphoria, that this is not going to end well. So Turkey has tilted towards Iran after a couple of weeks of euphoria. They are now trying to find some sort of solutions through negotiating with Iran. Iran wants Turkey in our camp.

Iran wants Turkey to be with Russia, Iran, with Bricks, with the Shanghai cooperation. organization. But I think Mr. Erdogan, he is sort of like Trump. People would always say Erdogan's very smart. He knows how to play both sides. But again, when you're always playing both sides, at the end of the

day, no one trusts you. And if you don't have anyone's trust, I think in the long run, the damage that is caused is much greater than the benefits that are gained. I think, yeah, I just want to make one, I guess, final comment on what you said about the Western

centric assumption because I think this is something that I see at the heart of a lot of flawed analysis and assumptions coming out of both the US and Europe because the assumption is that ultimately the Russians as well as Iranians for that sake will prefer to look towards the West. This is always evident in the rhetoric also how they assume the sanctions would play out. And to some extent, of course, on the Russian side is partly their fault because from the early 90s, they just had a, again, put all your eggs in one basket that is only lean towards the West. And this only leaned to one side policy, it really hit back at them. It made them way too dependent.

But also it affected the relationship with the rest of the world. For example, with Iran, I think they were often also willing to use that relationship with Iran simply as to enhance their own market value in terms of getting an entry to Europe. And if necessary, they can get invited to some nice meetings. They would be willing to sell out the Iranians. if required. But this was under the whole premise that the only future there was, was to integrate with Europe. There was no other game in town.

Well, I think around 2014 is when all of this changed around 2003. The Chinese developed Belt and Road Initiative. Then they started to go for aspiring for technological leadership. In 2015, they also developed this Asian infrastructure, Western Bank, began to diversify financial instruments. And this is exactly the same time when the Western governments toppled the government in Ukraine and signal clearly to Russia. There would be no common Europe. Ukraine would not be a bridge. It would be a front line. And this is when the Russians really went with this greater Eurasia. And this is why also the relationship with Iran, it's not seen as a

means to an end. This is a key component. Because if you want a stable Eurasia, you need to have many poles of power. Otherwise, it's just all roads goes to. China and again everyone wants a multiple Eurasia even the Chinese so you can't really have this without Iran so now Iran is elevated to a very strategic partner for for the Russian and that's what I thought was interesting you brought up this international north-south transportation corridor so for any of the listeners are not familiar the context would be that you know you have this corridor from Russia Iran down to India so consisting of railroads seaports and again, it's not just a physical connectivity,

but once you have this strength and physical connectivity, only this is a more favorable trade, but it will influence the supply chains, technological cooperation, the industrial cooperation, the terms of payment, insurances, energy, everything is transformed. So this is a huge, huge development. And I also think that it's good for,

if the Chinese want to develop by Eurasia, which is an alternative to the US-centric economic system. This is also great for them, because when you look at countries such as India, one of the main apprehensions about Eurasia, which he also argued was that they don't want it to be too integrated simply under a Chinese system. But as long as it's multipolar,

when you have this north-south transportation corridor, they can link themselves closer to Iran, Russia, and also the periphery that is Central Asia, and the other adjacent countries, suddenly it becomes an actual great Eurasian system, which has more resilience. And I think this is what we don't often appreciate in the West, that it's not Eurasia. Are they trying to get into Europe this way, just negotiating, trying to elevate their own stance,

or is this an anti-European bloc? I mean, I think the main goal is not pro or against, is simply to make the West less relevant, so not be. too dependent. And I think this is why it's important. And that's why I'm also fascinated by the speed of relations between, I guess, Iran and Russia.

So, we're almost out of time. Alexander, Mohammed, any of thoughts there? Well, I'm going to do a very quick one, which is this. I mean, what I think a lot of people in the West have never been able to understand

about Iran is that it is by far the oldest polity in the Middle East. I mean, Iran has had a continuous history that extends back, well, 2,000 plus years, as every Greek knows. Iran knows Central Asia better than anyone, even better than the Russians. And I think the Russians have come to understand that, by the way. So they're nervous about what the Turks are doing. They welcome what the Chinese are doing in Central Asia, but they understand very well that in Samarkand, the language that educated people speak is Persian and that this city, for example, has had a historic relationship with Iran.

And the other thing is, if you want a partner to actually bring peace to the Middle East, which ought to be in everybody's interests, country knows the Middle East better than Iran. Iran has been there longer than anyone. No other... Iran was there long before Turkey, Iran was there long before Saudi Arabia, or all of these other places. It understands the region. And it could be a partner if we were to work with it and understand it and listen to what they're saying, which we never do, of course, if we listened to what they were saying, to try to find some ways to resolve these long historic issues that exist in the Middle East, that's just not really a question, but I mean,

that's just a statement. But maybe, Marmad, if you want to say something quickly about that, look at the sophistication of Iranian diplomacy, which is far more sophisticated that that of any other Middle East country, Turkey, Saudi Arabia included. Well, you know, until now, as the United States has been declining, they've been telling us that, well, we have AI, and that's what's going to keep us ahead of the game. But just in recent weeks, we saw how that has played out and how the Chinese have shown that, no, actually,

the United States doesn't even have AI anymore, more in their, as a monopoly in their hands. They don't have a monopoly over this field. So Americans and Europeans should think about. They don't have any, they push the Russians away because of their foolish expansionism in Eastern Europe. They're pushing the Iranians away. They're pushing everyone towards each other. And that's actually the direction that the world was moving anyway.

They've only acted as a catalyst to push this forward more swiftly. And Iran, as you rightly point out, it's a very old civilization. And Shia Islam has this unique characteristic that it's the gates to Hedihad, the gates to jurisprudence, are open. and that's what makes it time and place so important in Shia thought and that's what makes it so dynamic and so that's why it's last it's been able to survive

the Islamic Republic under such extraordinary difficult circumstances for the last for over four decades so and this is something that the Americans don't appreciate because of things like USAID as an example the Americans, and this is true about Russia as well, the Americans, they fund these people and organizations that say what they want to hear, these so-called Iranians, these Russians who are always saying that Russia has lost the war. For three years, we've been hearing Russia's defeated.

And then what's the reality, though, it's something very different. or Iran is always being defeated after the ceasefire or before the ceasefire. They were saying that Iran is weakened in the region. Iran, they've been saying that for decades, but it never weakens and it never falls apart. Why? Because the Americans spend money on people to say what they want to hear. Those people use that part of that money to pay off people inside it. It's a circle.

So they fund people to say what needs to be said And the people in government In the deep state In the Senate and the House and all of them Listen to these people. They believe their analysis So everyone believes everyone else Billions of dollars are wasted And the United States always gets it wrong

Russia is always losing Iran is always losing The Chinese cannot innovate Yes, they can make goods, they can steal our ideas, but their, what, you know, Deep Seek, what's that?

They just can't seem to understand that they are living in a bubble and that bubble is about to burst. So, you know, although I don't have any sympathy for

Trump, I don't like him. But the fact is that the United States, the industrialized of the country was brought about by the state. Now, Trump wants to reverse it. I think it's way too late. I don't think you can just bring about, you know, by tariffs to create an incentive for the industrialization of the country.

I think that this will take decades and the disruption will probably be worse than any benefits that come from it. But I do think that a lot of what Trump is doing, is a response to the reality of the past few decades, where the United States got everything wrong. In the 1990s, they were at the height of their power, seemingly, because the Soviet Union had collapsed. They won the war in Kuwait and the ghost of Vietnam was gone, and they squandered all that.

Why? Because they believed their own nonsense. Iran is going to fall, Russia is collapsing every... And now the United States is... is beginning, or at least some people in the United States are beginning to understand that something is deeply wrong, but they don't understand that the solution is something very different. The solution is to rethink relations with Iran. The solution is to rethink relations with Russia, to rethink the situation in Palestine, to rethink the relationship with China. And until the United States moves in that direction, I don't think things are going to get any better.

I think actually things are going to get more difficult for the Americans. And of course, that's also dangerous for the rest of the world, because the decline of the United States is a good thing on the one hand, but it also makes the United States more dangerous. And that itself is a further incentive for strengthening bonds between Iran and Russia. I think Iran and Russia and other countries in Bricks and across the world are taking this into account. I think

well on one hand I do think that narrative control is an important component of great power politics if you can control the main story but of course the flip side of that coin is in its success one does seem to detach oneself from reality and I don't even think this is just

the American problem I see this in Europe as well the commitment to the narrative and anyone who challenges it or it's the ferocious response it's yeah this as you said this bubble

it's really defended quite well and yeah someone's sitting in Europe my greatest concern is that we're deluding ourselves I see the papers every day they're talking about a world and reality which doesn't exist which they made up

like you said the Chinese are copying everything from the Americans the Russians are just a gas station the Iranians, they're just fanatics, you know, everything's waiting to collapse because older people actually hate their governments over there and they just can't wait for us to come and save them. So now I think we're bearing ourselves in this foolish made-up reality. Anyways, Mohammed Alexander, thank you both so much.

It's very interesting. So thanks again. Thank you very much for having me.