GLENN DIESEN
chats with
PROF. SEYED MOHAMMED MARANDI • BRIAN Berletic
| Traducir—Translate! | [gtranslate] |
| Make fonts bigger>>> | Resize text-+= |
Summary
The video features Seyed Muhammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, discussing the ongoing escalations in the conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. The conversation explores recent attacks on Iran’s nuclear and energy infrastructure, assassinations of Iranian leaders, and the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz in global energy markets. Marandi stresses that Iran holds significant leverage over the region, particularly through control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is critical for global oil transit. Despite U.S. and Israeli efforts to cripple Iran’s capabilities, Iran’s military and societal resilience remain formidable.
Marandi elaborates on the failure of the U.S. and its allies to destabilize Iran or open the Strait of Hormuz by military means, highlighting Iran’s ability to retaliate and escalate the conflict. He discusses the role of proxy forces like Yemen’s Houthis in potentially closing off the Red Sea to further pressure Gulf states allied with the U.S. The interview critiques Western media narratives and political discourse, particularly the false dichotomies imposed on commentators and the demonization of Iranian leadership and society. Marandi argues that Iran’s demands for a political settlement include reparations, regional security guarantees, and a restructured Persian Gulf security framework that prevents future aggression or attacks by U.S. or Israeli forces.
He emphasizes that Iran is prepared for a prolonged conflict and that any ceasefire that does not change the facts on the ground is futile. The discussion closes with reflections on the broader geopolitical failures of U.S. foreign policy in the region, the complicity of Western governments in regional conflicts, and the likelihood of a long-term shift in power dynamics in the Persian Gulf, where Iran’s influence will solidify and Gulf monarchies will be weakened.
Highlights
- [00:36] ⚠️ Attack near Bushehr nuclear power plant raises concerns over nuclear contamination risks.
- [01:17] 🔥 Iran’s strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz gives it a strong hand against U.S. and Saudi interests.
- [04:42] 🇮🇱 Israeli regime increasingly leads operational control of strikes against Iran, escalating tensions.
- [07:52] 🕊️ Assassinations of Iranian leaders galvanize national unity and boost societal morale rather than weaken Iran.
- [11:41] 💥 Iran retaliates with strikes on Gulf states’ energy infrastructure, signaling escalation is ongoing.
- [15:40] 🚫 U.S. ground troops unlikely to change the strategic situation due to Iran’s missile and drone capabilities.
- [38:28] 🤝 Iran demands a political settlement that includes reparations, security guarantees, and a change in regional power dynamics.
Key Insights
[01:17] 🔑 Iran’s leverage via the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s geographic control over the Strait of Hormuz is a critical strategic advantage. With the ability to block or disrupt the passage of a significant percentage of global oil shipments, Iran can exert immense pressure on the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies. This chokepoint elevates Iran from a regional actor to a key player with global economic influence, especially during escalating conflicts.
[03:52] 🛡️ Resilience of Iranian military and society: Despite targeted assassinations and attacks on infrastructure, Iran’s military assets remain largely intact and concealed, such as naval forces stored in underground tunnels. Moreover, the societal response to attacks—massive public funerals and widespread demonstrations—demonstrates a strengthened national resolve rather than fragmentation, underlining that decapitation strategies have limited effectiveness.
[11:06] 🔥 Proxy warfare and the Red Sea corridor: The potential activation of Yemen’s Houthis to close the Red Sea via the Bab el-Mandeb Strait is a critical escalation vector. This would not only threaten Saudi Arabia’s western oil export routes but also complicate U.S. naval operations, expanding the conflict’s maritime theater and severely impacting global energy and shipping routes.
[15:40] 🚫 Limits of U.S. military intervention: Marandi argues that deploying a few thousand U.S. troops in the region would not alter the strategic balance. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are extensive and deeply integrated into their defense strategy. Even a hypothetical U.S. takeover of the Strait of Hormuz would be vulnerable to sustained Iranian missile strikes, making the cost and feasibility of ground operations highly questionable.
[21:05] 💣 Internal U.S. dissent and policy failures: The resignation of Joe Kent, a high-ranking U.S. official, who criticizes the war as unnecessary and driven by Israeli and Zionist lobbying, points to internal fractures in U.S. policy circles. This highlights that the war is not only unpopular internationally but also contested within the U.S. government, undermining the legitimacy and coherence of the intervention.
[26:19] 📢 Western media narratives and misinformation: The conversation critiques the Western mainstream media’s portrayal of Iran and the region, especially the false narratives about widespread internal opposition and fabricated atrocities. This misinformation serves to justify intervention and demonize Iran, while ignoring the complexity and genuine support within Iranian society for their government.
[38:28] ✍️ Political settlement requires fundamental changes: Iran’s position is that peace cannot be achieved through a mere ceasefire but requires a comprehensive political settlement. This includes reparations for damages, security guarantees to prevent future attacks, inclusion of Iran’s regional allies, and restructuring of Persian Gulf security. This reflects Iran’s broader goal of ensuring long-term sovereignty and regional stability under a new balance of power, rather than temporary pauses in hostilities.
Additional Context and Analysis
Marandi’s analysis highlights several important themes relevant to understanding the current conflict dynamics:
Geostrategic Realism: Iran’s geographical position at the Strait of Hormuz and its investment in missile and drone technology give it asymmetric capabilities to counterbalance superior U.S. and allied conventional forces. This is a textbook example of a smaller power leveraging geography and technology to deter and resist a larger adversary.
Proxy and Hybrid Warfare: The conflict extends beyond conventional military strikes to include proxy actors like Yemen’s Houthis and Iraqi resistance groups, expanding the battlefield and complicating U.S. efforts to stabilize the region. This multidimensional aspect raises the stakes for all involved and increases the difficulty of conflict resolution.
Information Warfare and Narrative Control: Marandi’s critique of Western media and political discourse underscores the role of information control in modern conflicts. The framing of opposition and the imposition of moral binaries serve political agendas and obscure the nuanced realities of the conflict, complicating international perceptions and policy responses.
Long-Term Conflict and Societal Mobilization: The interview stresses that Iran is prepared for a protracted conflict and that societal morale has grown stronger in response to aggressions. This resilience challenges assumptions of quick military victories and suggests sustained conflict with high costs for all parties.
Economic and Regional Implications: The destruction of energy infrastructure and the potential for prolonged disruption of oil and gas exports have significant global economic consequences. This conflict threatens not just regional stability but also the international energy market, fertilizer production, and global trade flows.
U.S. Policy and Alliance Dynamics: The role of Israel in operational control of strikes and the influence of Zionist lobbying reveal complex alliance dynamics shaping U.S. policy. The internal dissent in the U.S., coupled with the reluctance of Gulf states to engage directly, illustrates the fragility and contested nature of the coalition against Iran.
Prospects for Peace: The insistence on a political settlement that addresses underlying security concerns, reparations, and regional power balances highlights the challenges ahead. Temporary ceasefires without substantive changes are rejected by Iran, indicating that future negotiations will require substantial shifts in policy and regional relations.
This comprehensive overview provides a nuanced understanding of the current escalations and the broader geopolitical and societal dynamics shaping the conflict involving Iran and its adversaries.
[/bg_collapse]
Brian Berletic: Iran War - A Gateway to War with China & Russia
Glenn Diesen
Mar 19, 2026
Brian Berletic is a former US Marine, author, international relations expert and host of the New Atlas. Berletic discusses how the US war against Iran is a gateway to war with China and Russia. Follow Brian Berletic on The New Atlas: 
/ @thenewatlas
Summary
In this comprehensive discussion, Brian Berletic, a former US Marine and political analyst, provides an in-depth analysis of the current geopolitical landscape, focusing on the evolving multipolar world order and the United States’ aggressive attempts to maintain unipolar dominance. The conversation critically examines US foreign policy under multiple administrations, emphasizing the continuity of corporate-financier interests driving endless wars and geopolitical conflicts, particularly against Iran, Russia, and China. Berletic traces the US strategy back to think tank policy papers from 2009 that laid out a multi-pronged approach to destabilizing Iran as a stepping stone to containing Russia and China.
The dialogue highlights how the US has engaged in a global war of attrition, using proxy states and covert operations to exhaust adversaries economically, militarily, and politically. The US’s inability to sustain prolonged multi-front conflicts due to resource constraints is contrasted with the resilience of nations like Iran, which have withstood decades of pressure. The discussion also explores the broader implications for global energy markets, supply chains, and alliances, particularly noting the US’s efforts to disrupt China’s energy independence and economic rise through blockades and sabotage.
The conversation also touches on the role of diplomacy, which Berletic describes as largely deceptive and a tool for advancing war agendas rather than preventing conflict. The US uses diplomacy as a smokescreen while escalating military aggression and blaming proxies like Israel for controversial attacks to manage public perception. The interview closes with reflections on the potential longevity and escalation of the conflict, the depletion of US military resources, and the growing awareness among some frontline states of their political capture and the costs of serving US geopolitical ambitions. Ultimately, the discussion warns of the dangerous and unstable trajectory of US policy, underscoring the urgent need for a multipolar balance of power to replace the current destructive unipolar order.
Highlights
- [01:00] 🇺🇸 US foreign policy continuity: Corporate-financier interests drive perpetual conflict regardless of administration.
- [05:00] 📜 2009 Brookings policy paper: US strategy to use Israel as a proxy to provoke and blame Iran for conflict.
- [10:30] 🌍 Multipolar world challenge: US aims to prevent the rise of Eurasian powers—Russia, China, and Iran—through coordinated proxy wars.
- [14:30] ⛽ Energy warfare: US targets Iran and Venezuela to strangle China’s energy supplies, leveraging maritime blockades and sabotage.
- [20:30] 🤝 Diplomacy as deception: US uses peace talks as pretext for war, never genuinely aiming to prevent conflict.
- [28:00] 🚀 Missile and resource depletion: Iran’s missile resilience versus US shortages of crucial interceptors and munitions.
- [55:00] ⚠️ Global war of aggression: US overstretching military resources in simultaneous conflicts while facing rising multipolar resistance.
Key Insights
[01:30] 🇺🇸 Structural nature of US policy: perpetual war driven by corporate-financier interests
Berletic stresses that US foreign policy is not shaped by presidents or parties but by entrenched corporate-financier elites whose power depends on continuous expansion of profit and geopolitical dominance. This structural reality means that regardless of electoral outcomes, US policy will push towards endless conflicts to preserve unipolarity. This explains the seamless continuation of aggressive policies from Bush Jr. through Trump to Biden.[04:50] 📜 Long-term planning and execution against Iran based on detailed think tank blueprints
The 2009 Brookings Institution paper “Which Path to Persia” outlines a strategy of layered measures—from diplomacy to military provocations—aimed at destabilizing and toppling Iran. The US and Israel have systematically executed these plans, using Israel as a scapegoat for attacks to maintain plausible deniability and manage international opinion. This reveals a highly coordinated and premeditated approach rather than ad hoc decision-making.[10:45] 🌏 Iran as a strategic pivot to encircle and weaken Russia and China
The US sees Iran as a critical node in a broader Eurasian struggle. Destabilizing Iran through proxy wars, economic warfare, and direct strikes serves to isolate Russia and China geopolitically and economically. The Arab Spring is framed as a US-engineered attempt to realign the Middle East against Iran, with the ultimate goal of weakening the multipolar alliance challenging US dominance.[13:15] ⛽ Energy independence as the core battleground: China’s rise and US attempts to stifle it
China’s multifaceted efforts to secure energy independence—including the Belt and Road Initiative, diversification of energy sources, and massive investments in renewables—pose a direct threat to US hegemony. The US response includes attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, sabotage of Venezuela’s oil exports, and covert strikes on Russian energy facilities, all designed to choke China’s energy supply chains and delay its rise.[20:30] 🤝 Diplomacy weaponized as a tool to justify war rather than prevent it
Diplomatic engagements with Iran are not genuine peace efforts but strategic maneuvers to build a narrative that the US sought peace while Iran obstructed it. This deception aims to win global public opinion and justify escalating military actions. This insight highlights the cynical use of diplomacy in modern geopolitics, where talks serve as smokescreens for preparation and execution of war.[27:30] 🚀 Resource depletion and military overstretch as critical vulnerabilities of the US
The US faces severe shortages in anti-missile interceptors and precision-guided munitions due to simultaneous conflicts in multiple theaters (Middle East, Ukraine, Asia-Pacific). Iran’s sustained missile launches are eroding US defensive capabilities, while key US assets like the USS Ford require maintenance, limiting operational capacity. This overstretch raises questions about US ability to sustain long-term multi-front conflicts.[54:00] ⚠️ Global implications of US aggression: proxy states as expendable pawns, rising multipolar resistance
Countries such as Ukraine, South Korea, and Gulf States are politically captured by US interests, serving as proxies in its global war against multipolarism. These states bear the brunt of conflict and economic fallout while US elites remain insulated. However, growing awareness of this dynamic and the resilience of multipolar alliances suggest an eventual tipping point where US unipolar dominance will be fundamentally challenged, potentially leading to a restructuring of global power.
Additional Analytical Notes
The conversation reveals a layered understanding of 21st-century geopolitics as a high-stakes game of systemic survival, economic warfare, and proxy conflicts rather than isolated military engagements. The US is portrayed as a desperate empire fighting against the inevitable rise of a multipolar world, willing to escalate conflicts and bear economic and political costs to delay the shift. The use of proxies, scapegoating, and media narratives reflects deep coordination between government, military, corporate interests, and media, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of conflict.
The discussion also underscores the limits of US military power in the face of resource constraints and resilient adversaries. The strategic calculus includes not only military capabilities but also economic endurance, societal cohesion, and alliance dynamics. The resilience of Iran despite overwhelming pressure serves as a case study of how protracted conflicts can erode even the most powerful states’ capacity to wage war.
Finally, the interview calls for a broader public awakening to the realities of global power politics, emphasizing that the current unipolar world order is unsustainable and inherently destructive. It advocates for multipolarism—a balanced global power structure—as a necessary alternative to prevent further global instability and conflict.
This detailed summary and analysis provide a comprehensive understanding of the video’s complex geopolitical discussion, capturing its key themes, strategic insights, and cautionary perspectives on the current state and future of global power competition.
[/bg_collapse]
BEFORE you leave, PLEASE pay attention to this alert.
[t4b-ticker id="1"]
Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
