Interview with Mohammed Marandi, Iranian intellectual and political analyst, professor at the University of Tehran, conducted by Glenn Diesen on March 22, 2026.

Source: Youtube

Full transcript: Resistance News

  • How Would Iran Retaliate if Its Energy Infrastructure Is Destroyed?
  • Who Holds Escalation Dominance?
  • Trump’s next steps
  • Iran’s Options
  • Will Europe and Gulf States Enter the War Against Iran?
  • On the Brink: Energy Collapse, Global Famine, and World War III

Summary: Iran is in control of the situation and has far more escalation options than the United States, which will not be able to keep pace. Tehran will not accept any ceasefire until all its demands are met and is prepared to go all the way. An escalation would topple the Gulf petromonarchies and trigger a global economic collapse far worse than 1929. One can expect a worldwide energy shortage, biblical-scale famines, and an unprecedented wave of migration from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, at the very moment when Western economies would be collapsing. The damage already inflicted is considerable, continues to worsen day by day, and will have lasting repercussions, even if the conflict were to end today—which it will not. As long as Trump, an unstable and unpredictable megalomaniac, remains in power at the helm of a crumbling empire, no one will be able to predict what will happen.

Glenn Diesen: Welcome back. We are joined again by Professor Sayed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Thank you, as always, for coming on the program.

We see that these are quite troubling times. Israel has attacked nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Natanz, and Iran has retaliated against the city of Dimona, where the Israelis have their own nuclear facilities. This was not an attack on the nuclear plant itself, apparently, but nearby, in terms of targeting the city.

  • How Would Iran Retaliate if Its Energy Infrastructure Is Destroyed?

So it does seem that we could be moving toward a de facto nuclear war, if this becomes a trend—attacking nuclear facilities with the possibility of nuclear fallout. Making matters worse, we see that Trump gave Iran an ultimatum of 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz, essentially to capitulate; otherwise, they would start hitting Iran’s largest energy fields.

We also see that Iranian military headquarters warned that if the United States were to carry through on this threat, they would knock out energy facilities and desalination plants across the Gulf States—it would essentially mean the end of these states.

So we are looking almost at total war here. I was wondering if you could give me your assessment of what is happening, because this seems like uncontrolled escalation at this point.

Mohammad Marandi: Thank you very much for inviting me, Glenn. It is always a pleasure being on your show.

We have to keep in mind—and I know your audience knows this, but Western media, for some reason, pretends otherwise—that the war began with US-Israeli aggression eight or nine months ago, and every attack has been met with a response. In other words, the Iranians are retaliating; they are not initiating anything.

The attack last night on the Israeli regime, and on buildings linked to their nuclear program, was in response to their strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran’s response to escalation has already been seen by all of us. When the Israeli regime, with US coordination—there is no doubt about that—when they struck Iran’s vital gas installation in the south, the South Pars gas field, the Iranians swiftly responded and destroyed significant parts of Qatar’s gas facilities, particularly its LNG infrastructure, as well as Saudi and Emirati energy facilities.

The reason Iran did that was to ensure that the United States did not go further. We then saw Trump post on social media that the Israeli regime would not do this again. Of course, he then made threats against Iran, but that was essentially to cover this retreat—the fact that he wanted to back down.

But of course Trump is Trump. He says one thing now, and then literally an hour later he says something very different. So his promise that the Israeli regime will not strike again means nothing to the Iranians. When it comes to the United States, they always plan for the worst, especially when it’s Trump.

You will recall that before the war we had this discussion about whether there would be a war. I always said that Iran is planning for the worst; it does not care what Trump says. The same is true now.

Now Trump is making another threat: that he will destroy Iran’s vital infrastructure and target its electrical power plants. He made that threat before, and Dr. Larijani tweeted that if that happens, as you pointed out earlier, there will be massive retaliation—and nothing happened back then.

https://x.com/alilarijani_ir/status/2032077584809292183

After Iran’s response to the attack on the South Pars gas field, it is clear what Iran will do if the United States carries out this threat. That would mean that the world would head toward a global economic catastrophe—something I have been saying for many years.

Before COVID, I gave an interview on Press TV that went viral at the time. I said exactly what we are now seeing: if Iran’s vital infrastructure is destroyed, Iran will destroy everything on the other side of the Persian Gulf, because these regimes have all engaged in warfare against Iran. They have allowed the United States to use their airspace, their bases, and even land outside those bases. They not only allow jets to fly over to bomb Iran, they allow tankers to refuel those jets. They do everything necessary to kill Iranians.

So they are fully complicit. A strike targeting Iran’s key or vital infrastructure is a strike against the Iranian nation—and, of course, a major crime against humanity. In the West, that does not seem to matter. After Trump’s threat last night, we did not see any Western media say that this is outrageous or that it constitutes a threat against more than 90 million people. No—because Western media, collectively, are controlled by the “Epstein class.” It does not matter whether it is The Guardian or Breitbart—they are all the same when it comes to empire.

If he carries out this attack, it would mean that the energy crisis will become permanent and that the global economy will collapse. The implications would go beyond my imagination. One can think of horrible things: hundreds of millions of people on the move, starvation, the collapse of industry… I can think of many, many things, but all of this would be because of Trump.

If Iran is forced to destroy that key infrastructure, then it will not matter whether hostilities end or whether Iran allows the Strait of Hormuz to be open—there will be no oil or gas to pass through it, no tankers to transport energy, petrochemicals, or anything else.

That is where we are. But I want to stress that Iran did not push us here. Iran’s threats are meant to prevent the United States from doing anything stupid. This entire war is already stupid—it is barbaric, inhumane, and fully supported by the West and its regional proxies.

As we saw Erdogan, Sissi, (King) Abdullah in Jordan, and the regimes in the Persian Gulf condemned Iran for retaliating against US assets in the region, yet they did not even mention the Israeli and American war of aggression against Iran, because they are in the United States camp.

The UN Security Council also condemned Iran and refused even to acknowledge the assault on the country. So Iran is on its own. It has to carry out its threats of retaliation; otherwise, the United States will continue bombing Iran, destroying asset after asset, vital infrastructure across the country will be destroyed.

The only way to stop this is through deterrence—and for that deterrence to be demonstrated after credible warnings have been issued. That is where we stand right now.

  • Who Holds Escalation Dominance?

Glenn Diesen: I also saw that the G7 issued a statement condemning Iran for retaliating, and as you said, there was no mention of the second (US-Israel) surprise attack, the destruction of Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure, or any reference to international law. They simply condemned Iran for retaliating.

I also saw you make the point that, if the situation were reversed, it would be absurd—for example, if China were placing missiles in Canada and launching them at the United States, and somehow Canada then declared neutrality. It does not make sense at all.

Nonetheless, Iran cannot strike the US mainland, and the rules seem to be that Iran is not allowed, according to these rules, to attack those who are actually attacking it. It is an interesting effort to dictate the rules of this war, but as you suggest, it is not really working.

Do you see this as an accidental escalation that is getting out of control, or as something deliberate on Trump’s part—essentially saying that Iran must either capitulate, which would amount to a ceasefire, or face further escalation? The whole assumption seems to be that the United States has escalation dominance—that it can raise the level of pain to a point where Iran would be forced to fold first.

Where do you see this going? We are clearly not at the endpoint and are moving up the escalation ladder quite rapidly. The issue of nuclear facilities is particularly striking. What would happen if Israel and the United States were to destroy a nuclear reactor and cause fallout similar to Chernobyl? How do you see the war evolving? Is this near the top of the escalation ladder, or how would Iran respond in a tit-for-tat scenario if that were to happen?

Mohammad Marandi: The Iranians believe that, in the event of escalation, they will retain control, because there are far more assets on the other side of the Persian Gulf for Iran to destroy. The implications for the West would be far greater than what they can inflict on Iran.

Iran has been under sanctions for decades and will slowly rebuild any vital infrastructure that is destroyed. But when the global economy collapses—and with it the US economy—that would be an unprecedented situation for the American people. It would destabilize the United States and could bring Trump’s presidency to an end. That said, this remains hypothetical at this stage.

What is probably going to happen is that the Iranians, as we have discussed, have no confidence in international bodies. We saw this during the twelve-day war, when Iran was condemned by the West despite being attacked, and the UN Security Council refused to take any action.

But let’s say that the Israeli regime were to strike the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf: radioactive contamination would spread into the Gulf, affecting oil and gas. In that case, the Israeli regime itself—or the Americans—would effectively be destroying the global economy with that single move. As I said, if the global economy collapses, that would mark the end of the US empire, and the world would primarily blame the United States and Zionism first and foremost for this catastrophe.

The Israeli regime would not benefit in the long term either. It would also be devastated—by the collapse of the global economy, and more importantly by the collapse of their sponsor. The regime that enables the Israeli regime to behave in this manner would be severely damaged.

We are already seeing rising hostility toward the Israeli regime across the West, particularly in the United States. We see developments such as the resignation of Joe Kent and his subsequent interviews, as well as polling that reflects growing anger toward the Israeli regime. If this war continues and energy costs keep rising, anger toward Trump, Netanyahu, and the Israeli regime will increase accordingly, because Americans will know who to blame: they started the war. It was unprovoked, especially given that Trump campaigned on ending the “forever wars.” He made many other promises as well, and he didn’t fulfill any of them almost, including the Epstein files and so on.

I do not see a situation in which the United States can have escalation dominance. I believe the Iranians hold that advantage. More importantly, if escalation continues and Iran destroys assets across the Persian Gulf, those regimes will fall. That would be the end of these regimes.

And we have not yet seen the “Axis of resistance” fully escalate either. Hezbollah is already fighting very effectively in southern Lebanon and hitting the Israeli regime very hard. The Resistance in Iraq is targeting US assets, but it has not yet showed its hand. And of course, in Yemen, they have said they will enter the conflict, but have not yet done so. The Iranians also have far more capabilities than they have shown so far. The very fact that US estimates about Iran’s missile and drone capabilities have consistently been wrong suggests that they really have no idea of what Iran can do.

At the same time, we must take into account that the Iranian population is fully supportive of the war. Large crowds gather across the country every night. People don’t get tired, they take to the streets daily, including during Eid prayers, even under air strikes, missile attacks, under rain and snow… They have demonstrated their steadfastness. This is not a country that the United States can defeat.

We must also consider that global energy markets depend heavily on supplies from the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus. If the war expands, have no doubt that oil and gas assets in the Republic of Azerbaijan would also be destroyed. I have no doubt about that. They would be finished, because that regime—another family dictatorship—is allied with the United States and the Israeli regime, and is antagonistic toward the Iranian people. We’ll have to add that to everything else.

This is not a winnable war for the United States. The question is whether Trump will escalate or back down. I do not think anyone knows. He is unpredictable—I do not think even he knows what he will do, nor do those around him. He could go either way, and even then, either way that he goes, he could do a U-turn. But the damage would be done.

If he strikes an Iranian power plant, Iran will probably inflict much greater damage in response to ensure that the message is understood. He may then back down, or maybe he won’t even attack, or maybe he will escalate further. No one can say.

But regardless of the path he takes, I believe the situation will worsen. In addition, we now face the possibility that the United States is preparing for a ground invasion of Iranian territory.

I think that would also be equally disastrous, because if the United States takes Iranian territory, that would constitute escalation and would damage Iran’s vital infrastructure. Iran would then have to retaliate against those Arab dictatorships, US assets there, and other asets, because those regimes are complicit in the war.

As we move forward, all I can see is escalation—unless the Trump regime declares victory and walks away, as it did with Yemen. But even then, Glenn, a great deal of damage has already been done, and with each passing day there will be further damage.

But even if Trump walks away, Iran is not going to accept a ceasefire. The facts on the ground will have to change. Iran will ensure that regional neighboring countries are no longer a threat to Iran. It will make sure it receives compensation, either by leveraging the Strait of Hormuz or by directly forcing these regimes to pay for all the damage they have inflicted on the Iranian people and for the deaths caused through their complicity.

I have no doubt that simply walking away will not be a straightforward solution. It is not as if the United States can declare a ceasefire and Iran will immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That is not going to happen.

  • Trump’s next steps

Glenn Diesen: Trump has been going back and forth. One example is the Strait of Hormuz. He indicated that it is not the United States’ problem, that they would walk away, and that countries in the region should take care of it—that the US is already done. Then, the following day, he made a threat that amounts to total war: either open it within 48 hours, or everything will be destroyed.

As you say, this is inconsistent, and these completely different positions appear within a matter of hours. When he issued that first statement, I thought it was striking that wars are now effectively declared by tweets. It seemed like an off-ramp: if the United States wanted to exit, it could simply declare victory and go home, as it did in Yemen.

But the issue, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. As you said, it will not simply be reopened; it will take on a very different form. When Trump said this is not the US problem and that regional countries should deal with it, that does not really work either. As you suggest, Iran appears to be moving toward selective access—effectively nationalizing the strait and conditioning who can transit.

This could serve multiple purposes. It could be a way of compelling the Gulf states to pay reparations for the damage they have caused to Iran in this attack. It could be used to force them to expel US bases so that this situation does not recur. Some have also suggested that Iran could require countries to stop trading oil in US dollars, which would undermine the petrodollar system that links US military power to the region.

So there is a great deal Iran can do, but all of this depends on maintaining control over access to the Strait of Hormuz in order to end this decades-long campaign against it.

It is not clear to me where the United States will go from here. One thing we are seeing, however, is troop movements: the 82nd Airborne appears to be deploying, along with B-52 bombers carrying bunker-buster munitions.

What do you expect over the next two days?

Mohammad Marandi: The United States has already been using bunker-buster bombs regularly and has been bombing Iran for 22 days. There is little more it can do. As I said earlier, Iran has escalation dominance. Iran has not yet revealed its hand, nor has the Axis of Resistance collectively done so.

The United States can attempt to seize territory, but Iran will respond by destroying assets on the other side of the Persian Gulf. More importantly, the armed forces within the Resistance—in Yemen, Iraq, and of course in Iran—are far more numerous and far more capable than the military forces aligned with the United States and its camp.

Qatar does not have a real standing army, nor do Bahrain, the Emirates, or Kuwait. Saudi Arabia has already shown its incompetence. If the United States deploys ground forces, what would prevent ground forces from entering Kuwait, advancing into Saudi Arabia from the north, or moving from Yemen in the southwest toward the north and east? Who is going to stop them?

At the same time, Iran would be striking all those key oil and gas installations and vital infrastructure in retaliation. How would the United States win such a scenario? It cannot. It is an impossible scenario for the U.S., and it would result in a colossal defeat.

What we are seeing now is a US president who has thoroughly discredited his country—through repeated lies, contradictions, and reversals. Nothing he says means anything to anyone. Not that the United States was ever reliable before Trump: Iran signed a nuclear agreement with Obama, and he violated the deal from the outset, increasingly so until Trump ultimately withdrew from it. But Trump is in a category of his own.

Even if Trump signs a piece of paper and declares the war over, it will mean nothing to Iran. The facts on the ground must change before Iran alters its course, because Trump has no credibility.

  • Iran’s Options

Glenn Diesen: We still do not know what cards Iran has to play. There are many uncertainties, which is why many countries—regardless of their views on Iran—warned against this war. There are too many unknown variables, unlike previous US wars where outcomes were more controllable.

One of these variables is missile range. We do not know the full extent of Iran’s capabilities in that regard, which could become problematic if European countries deepen their involvement in this war.

As you mentioned, the Axis of Resistance has not fully escalated. We do not know whether Yemen will intervene and potentially shut the Red Sea. We are also seeing developments in Iraq: European troops appear to be withdrawing, which is notable given that the Iraqi parliament had already voted for foreign troop withdrawal—something that had not been implemented. This raises the question of whether they would even be allowed to return after this whole thing is over. I’m doubtful.

There is also the issue of desalination plants in the Gulf states, which Iran has suggested could be targeted. What would be the consequences of that, especially given their importance?

And beyond that, are there other cards Iran might consider? You mentioned Azerbaijan earlier, which had not occurred to me. I am aware of the tensions and its role as an energy hub for Europe, particularly in bypassing both Iran and Russia. But what other cards do you think Iran might play as escalation continues?

Mohammad Marandi: As the Aliyev regime in Baku is sandwiched between Iran and Russia, it does not have many friends in Moscow or in Tehran. So, of course, that is not good news.

In Iraq, the Iraqi resistance—if we move toward escalation, as I expect—will take northern Iraq and permanently end the Kurdish regional government there, because it has been so closely associated with Mossad and the CIA for many years. The Iraqi resistance can also easily move into the Arabian Peninsula.

Iran would be able to destroy vital infrastructure in retaliation for any escalation, given the role of these regimes. Then there is Yemen: it can shut down the Red Sea, permanently end remaining Saudi oil exports, and move toward the Persian Gulf region. As they advance, Iran and its allies can dismantle these regimes.

You would no longer see any of these ruling families in any of these countries. This would coincide with a global economic collapse unlike anything seen before—it will be far worse than 1929. If Europeans and right-wing movements in Europe, as well as MAGA supporters in the United States, are unhappy about immigration, they should be aware that the number of people that will be coming toward their countries from Africa, Latin America, and Asia could increase twenty- or thirtyfold.

This would occur at a time when their own economies are collapsing. The only reason people would move in that direction is because that has been the established pattern for years, driven by wars and the crimes committed across these regions.

The outlook is extremely bleak. There is no way to present this as anything other than catastrophic. Even if Trump is reined in, even if he is removed from power before taking the final step of targeting Iran’s vital infrastructure, the damage already inflicted on the world is very significant and will continue to unfold—even if the conflict were to end today, which it will not.

Iran will not accept a ceasefire. As I said, the facts on the ground will have to change. But even in a hypothetical, miraculous scenario where Trump has a heart attack and is replaced and the United States declared the war over, much damage has already been done. Iran’s demands would still have to be met. The global economy would suffer. Every day the war continues, even at its current level, the catastrophe for the global economy is growing. And of course any escalation would make it far worse.

There is no good news on any front. And as long as Trump remains president—this guy is a lunatic, he’s abnormal, he’s unstable—no one can predict what will happen tomorrow.

Glenn Diesen: Regarding the refugee issue, I often hear the argument: why don’t Muslim countries accept Muslim refugees? Why do they always only go to Western countries? I think it is often overlooked that the country hosting the largest number of refugees in the world is Iran.

Mohammad Marandi: That’s right.

Glenn Diesen: I hear this argument so often that it is surprising. I believe Turkiye is second, but still, this inconvenient fact is often ignored. I don’t know where this conception comes from. If this entire region blows up, Iran will not be in a position to host refugees. On the contrary, there could be Iranian refugees as well. You can see how problems are piling up. The same people who warn against refugees are often those whose policies create them. They cheered over the destruction of Libya and Syria, and then protest when refugees arrive in Europe. It is a contradiction.

  • Will Europe and Gulf States Enter the War Against Iran?

 My final question concerns another possible arena of escalation: the involvement of US proxies. They push very hard, and there are reports that Saudi Arabia may become more directly involved, of course under heavy pressure. We have seen statements from Lindsey Graham effectively warning Saudi Arabia of consequences if it does not fall in line and join in.

The Kurdish proxy thing appears to have fallen apart, and the Barzanis did not join. In his recent statements, Trump has also pressured Europeans, questioning why they are not contributing troops or naval forces, and even indirectly threatening NATO, saying this is just a paper tiger. He also issued a very direct ultimatum suggesting that either allies contribute militarily or he will take Greenland. This raises interesting questions about alliances and values.

Do you see it as likely that European countries or regional actors such as Saudi Arabia will become more directly involved? How do you see this playing out?

Mohammad Marandi: Before addressing that, I should point out the looming petrochemical and fertilizer crisis. This is no less significant than oil or LNG—perhaps even more so—especially in the event of a global economic collapse, when agriculture becomes even more critical for the survival of billions of people, literally.

As you were describing Trump’s recent statements, I was reminded of the final days of Hitler—his rantings and his parading. The comparison is not entirely dissimilar. What we are witnessing is an empire collapsing. Iran has little room for maneuver and cannot show the level of flexibility it demonstrated in the past. We were very flexible.

When the Israeli regime bombed our embassy, Iran’s response was not that severe. Yet the Europeans and the West either condemned Iran or supported Israel. When General Soleimani was murdered in Iraq, while on an official visit at the invitation of the Iraqi prime minister, Iran responded, but not proportionally to what the United States had done—or to what the Qataris had done, because the drones that killed Soleimani came from Doha.

During the twelve-day war, which was a victory for Iran, Iran accepted a cessation of hostilities. Some believed Iran should have continued, but I think that was the correct decision. As we discussed earlier, Iran was preparing for a bigger war. They knew something bigger was coming and moved quickly to adapt.

That’s why, for example —I can make this public, I don’t think it’s a problem— the number of launchers Iran has lost in the past 22 days is far, far less than what it lost during the 12 days war. This is a huge achievement, one of many. Many of the strikes on Iran have hit empty buildings, because Iran was prepared. A lot of changes were made, I think Iran did the right thing.

In any case, in all those previous instances—the murder of martyr Ismail Haniyeh and the other atrocities carried out in Lebanon and Iran by the Israeli regime—the Iranian response has always been, I think, mild, in order to prevent escalation. But now there is no room for maneuver anymore. The Iranians will go all the way. This is a fight for survival. We have been as flexible as possible, but there is no longer any space for flexibility. So we will go toe-to-toe with the Americans. As escalation continues and we move up the escalation ladder, there is no doubt that the Americans—the Trump regime—will fail to keep up. With that collapse, I believe Trump’s presidency will come to an end.

I do not believe the Americans can rely on the Kurds. If they try that, Iranian Kurds do not support the United States, Mossad, or the Israeli regime. The Iraqi Resistance could take control of those areas; if they had chosen to, they would have already done so. As for Azerbaijan, if it is pushed too far, just look at the rallies and demonstrations across Tabriz and other Azeri cities—Tehran is a half Azeri city—؅they could simply sweep aside Aliyev’s regime. They would take it.

So I do not see the United States having any viable options. There are none that would work in its favor. Ultimately, Glenn, Iran is very happy with its current borders. But if the United States attempts to alter them, I am quite confident that Iran will grow larger in size and it will take new territory—and that is how the war would end. It would therefore be wise for the United States not to move in that direction.

Meanwhile, as all this unfolds, the United States who pretend to have “obliterated” Iran, but calls on the Europeans while simultaneously threatening them—and the world—over the Strait of Hormuz. But Europe is already losing the war in Ukraine. As the situation in our region becomes more dangerous and energy prices rise, Russia is more empowered while Europe grows weaker. The Russians will be able to advance more rapidly and may well take Odessa as well, and dictate their terms. The Europeans are in no position to do much about the Israeli regime or Trump’s demands.

At the end of the day, Trump is willing to sacrifice everything—the world itself—for Zionism and for the Israeli regime. Whether this is because he has done horrible things to little girls, because of the hold that Adelson [Jewish billionaire financing Trump] has over him, or because of a whole set of different issues, his son-in-law (Jared Kushner) or his daughter (Ivanka), or because being a person who has no morality, near the end of his life, because he’s growing very old and increasingly erratic. Perhaps he believes he has be given some mission. Who knows what this somewhat insane person wants to do ?

But Iran, as I said earlier, is preparing itself for worst-case scenarios.

  • On the Brink: Energy Collapse, Global Famine, and World War III?

Glenn Diesen: It does seem that we are entering the early stages of a third world war, because this conflict is likely to spread if escalation continues, as now seems unavoidable. You can already see signs of desperation in Europe. Zelenski started discussing with the Europeans about confiscating Russian oil and ships—not just seizing vessels, but taking the oil itself, because this is used for war. One does not have to get into this, but this level of insecurity and escalation is occurring at a time when Russia itself is reconsidering everything. There is growing pressure in Moscow after the attack on Iran, with some arguing that Russia should behave more like Iran [and adopt a more forceful posture]. The British don’t think twice about launching Storm Shadow missiles into Russian cities. They would never dare if Russia took a page out of Iran’s book, that is to actually have a proper deterrence, that is to make countries fear attacking Russia again.

So it appears at the same time, Europe is planning for another round of escalation, there is so much pressure on Russia to say “No, this is where we draw the line” and push back in a big way. I don’t think that Putin, no matter how popular he is, has that much ability to push back against the pressure building up. So we can see things getting really out of hand here in Europe as well.

We have spoken about desalination plants, energy infrastructure, and so on—and energy is everything—but fertilizers are also critical. European restrictions on Russian and Belarusian fertilizers prevent them from entering the world markets, combined with the entire Middle East shutting down, this could trigger a huge food crisis.

At this point, it is impossible to predict how conflicts will spread. Too many variables are at play, and each could impact every corner of the planet: energy shortages, food shortages—these could destabilize regions across the world and push them into chaos.

It is profoundly irresponsible. Yet the media continues to frame the narrative in terms of “liberating” Iranians, without questioning why the “Epstein class”, as you call them, why they are endowed with this mission to liberate little girls. It is insane. On the global scale, where do you most see things possibly spiraling out of control?

Mohammad Marandi: I don’t think the West really recognizes, nor does western media recognize how discredited they are and how widespread support for Iran is across the region and across the world. In Arab countries, they’re cheering Iran on as Iran bombs these Arab family dictatorships, as it bombs US bases or US assets. People across the region are cheering, and across the world people are supporting Iran. The West has lost its influence. It’s only able to maintain mind control over parts of its own population, mostly older people.

But it’s difficult. I mean it’s impossible to say because each of these variables are very big. They have huge consequences. Whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s natural gas, whether it is Russian oil… Each of these elements can create their own global catastrophe. And now we have a combination of all these and we have a somewhat insane and highly unpredictable person in the White House.

The thing that can lead us to disaster, that can lead the world towards disaster, is the arrogance of the West. Even though the fear is beginning to show, that Eurocentrism, that American exceptionalism, very similar to Zionism you know, the idea that “We are above and above above”… What was it that Madelein Albright once said? “We stand taller and look further than anyone else.” Something like that. That arrogance prevents them from still contemplating the fact that they are on the verge of collapse and that everything is on the verge of coming to an end. Everything as we knew it. But if that realization kicks in, perhaps the worst can be prevented from happening, but it’s not something… I’m not a betting man, but it’s not something that I’d bet on if I were a gambler.

Glenn Diesen: Well, I guess over the next few days, two, three days probably, it looks as if much of the future of global stability will be decided. I’m not too optimistic either. I wish we had leaders who had a bit of common sense, and ideally also a spine and some moral compass before they take us down this path. But unfortunately, I share your pessimism. Thank you, as always, for taking the time, and stay safe.

Mohammad Marandi: Thank you very much. I should add that I am optimistic about the future, but these are very dark days, and they can become much darker. In order to end this evil empire and this ethno-supremacism, there has to be resistance, and I think ultimately it will bear fruit.

Who knows if I will live to see that—they or others will. I already have a bounty on my head, as you know, on X, and they refuse to remove it. What is extraordinary about it is that there’s paid participation or something like that.

https://x.com/s_m_marandi/status/2036361708965388619

But I’m optimistic. I think that at the end of this dark tunnel there is light, and all empires are evil—no doubt. And this evil empire, when it falls, will create hope for the future. But sadly, since empires are brutal and lash out and fail to accept their decline, it will be painful for people across the world, across our region, and across the West.

To support our work, you can donate, share this article and subscribe to our newsletter.