Transcription
Good day. Today is April 1, 2026. In the last 24 hours, we have received a whole series of extremely unusual statements, which either come directly from the President of the United States or have been conveyed to us through various parts of the American media and filtered for us. All these statements reinforce the impression that I and many others have, which is reflected in the headline that appeared this morning in an article in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which, incidentally, tirelessly advocated, insisted on, and demanded the attack on Iran before the start of the armed conflict with Iran, which finally happened on February 28. Be that as it may, this headline states that Donald Trump, President Trump, has now lost control of the situation in this conflict. Warning of a global recession as Trump loses control of the war with Iran, and the wording, the commentary on the loss of control, may be a grim signal for President Donald Trump, seemingly originating from a report produced by a certain British financial institution. Thus, we are beginning to see the mood in the markets sharpen, or at least the first signs of it, that the President of the United States is losing control of the war. For a president, for an American president, who is involved in a war, this is the most catastrophic position he can be in. Previous presidents who found themselves in exactly the same situation were George W. Bush in relation to Iraq and, of course, even more significantly and destructively, Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s in connection with the Vietnam conflict. And this is directly related to a commentary made on a broadcast that we had the good fortune to have with him on The Duran channel, with Jim Webb, to be precise, a former American military officer, security advisor to Robert Kennedy Jr. at the time when Robert Kennedy Jr. was a presidential candidate, a person who regularly and consistently writes insightful analyses of the conflict, of the military situation both in Iran and, incidentally, in the conflict in Ukraine. Well, in the course of this broadcast that we had with him on The Duran, Jim Webb said that the United States has lost the military initiative in the conflict with Iran, and the financial community is beginning to come to the same conclusion. And, of course, this will inevitably have an impact on the evolving situation in the financial markets and on the markets as a whole. And it will also determine the course of the war. Anyway, Trump himself, as I said, has made the most diverse, extremely unusual statements. For example, yesterday he made another of his truly unusual posts on Truth Social. He stated that, in his opinion, he is in contact and negotiating with a far more reasonable, far more rational, far more compromising alternative government of Iran, and that he firmly expects to reach an agreement with it. However, should this agreement not materialize, then, according to his statement, fire and thunder would rain down on Iran. All its energy facilities, its desalination plants would be destroyed. The island of Kark would also be destroyed. Its energy industry would be annihilated. To me, I must say, this again appeared as a statement that conveyed an opposite signal to that which Donald Trump might have believed he was sending. I do not believe that this alternative, more reasonable government, or what Donald Trump would consider a more reasonable government, exists in Iran, neither actually nor in expectation. I am of the opinion that the only government in Iran is the one that holds power in Iran today. When Donald Trump speaks of his desire, of his expectation to reach a more satisfactory agreement with this alternative government, then Trump is actually doing the following. He is asking the existing government of Iran to sit down with him at the negotiating table and provide him with a way out of the situation. I am sure that the Iranians themselves will come to exactly this conclusion. They, of course, read all these statements that Donald Trump publishes. They know their country's situation much better than he does. They will see this message. They will understand that there is no alternative government. And they will perceive the talks about negotiations as a request from the President of the United States to them to enter into negotiations with him. As for the extraordinary threats that President Trump is making, the Iranians will conclude that all of this is a bluff. They have already seen the strikes that the United States has carried out against them. They know the size and resources of their country very well. They are undoubtedly well-informed about the capabilities that the United States actually possesses in the region. They can read American media and newspapers just like all of us. And even if they do not read these newspapers and do not see all the reports about shrinking US military inventories, about the decreasing availability of precision weapons, and all that, their friends, the Chinese and the Russians, will tell them about it. Therefore, when they read this extraordinary message, the Iranians will conclude that they are winning, that the United States, at least the government, is losing, and they will perceive this message as a sign of weakness, to which they will react accordingly. And one of the forms of this reaction will be not to give Donald Trump what he is asking for, namely the negotiations he is seeking. Because inevitably, after such a message, the Iranians will say to themselves: "The Americans are retreating. Trump is retreating. Let us continue to do what we are doing." Let us keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, let us not allow ships with oil and other goods to leave the Persian Gulf region. Let us wait until energy prices rise even further, until the fears and anxieties of a global recession become even stronger. Let us continue to carry out strikes against Israel and against all these American bases, because our strategy is working. And if we continue, then in a week, when all the threats and all the bluff have dissipated, if the Americans still want to talk, we will be in an even stronger position than now. I do not know who is advising Trump, but I can say with full certainty that this is precisely how it will be perceived by the Iranians, and not only by the Iranians, but also by the Russians, the Chinese, and people throughout the Middle East will read this extraordinary publication on Truth Social. They will interpret it in exactly the same way as I have just described. And, of course, the Iranians will also read The Wall Street Journal. And The Wall Street Journal reports that Donald Trump has told his officials. Apparently, he had some conversations with them that, contrary to the escalation, contrary to all the disturbing measures he warns about in his Truth Social publication, the reality, at least what he presents to his officials, is completely different. In fact, he intends to continue strikes against Iran for another two weeks, inflicting maximum damage. He will talk about destroying Iran's ballistic missiles, their launch pads, air defense systems, and all such things. He will pretend that he and the United States are achieving greater successes than is actually the case. Ultimately, who in the West keeps track of Iran's weapon inventories? So, when Donald Trump declares in two weeks that 99% of Iran's missiles have been destroyed, who in the West will be able to reliably refute that? Just think about it. So Trump will do all this. He will, as I said, continue strikes against Iran at roughly the same level as now, and then after these two weeks have passed, he will declare victory and end the war. In other words, he will end the direct military involvement of the US in this war. As for the Strait of Hormuz, he has apparently told his officials that it can remain closed. The United States is self-sufficient in energy. Consequently, it is not directly dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, but others are. These are the Europeans and the Japanese, those who have not come to America's aid. And it is precisely they, and not the United States, not Donald Trump, who must solve the problem of the Strait of Hormuz, try to open it and restore energy exports from the Persian Gulf. And now we have a continuation of the President's words from some of his officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, in a much more elegant form, essentially, or at least it seems to me, more or less the same. War is no longer spoken of as a means to change the state order in Iran. It is no longer presented as a war for regime change. At the beginning, it was exactly like that. But now Secretary of State Rubio, other American officials, and even the President himself, no longer speak in these terms. Now, according to Rubio, the focus is on military objectives. Military objectives, which, as I said, are difficult for others to directly refute, focus on military objectives, declare victory, state that it is, of course, unacceptable that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed indefinitely, that this is something that must not be allowed to Iran. But then, of course, imply that others must solve this problem. Not the United States, the Europeans, the Persian Gulf states, the Asian countries. They should come and take care of it. And in the last few hours, the President has said even more things in this direction. He says that it is the Europeans, the British, and other countries suffering from oil shortages who must look for oil themselves wherever they can. It is not the task of the United States to solve their problems in the Persian Gulf in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is fully supplied. They are not. This is their problem, not America's problem. They have not participated in the conflict. Consequently, the United States has no reason to pull them out of the fire and solve the problem of the Strait of Hormuz. They can deal with it themselves, and in the meantime, they should look for the oil they need themselves, wherever they can find it. Well, such policies are not sustainable. If Donald Trump believes that he can simply withdraw from this situation in two or three weeks, withdraw all American troops, all ships and warships from the Middle East, and leave this situation essentially unresolved, while the Iranian government continues to control Iran and continues to control the Strait of Hormuz, then I fear he is living in a world of illusions. If something like this were to happen, the US allies in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf states, Israel, as well as America's Asian and European allies, would feel abandoned. They would feel that the United States has left them and, in a sense, betrayed them. This particularly affects Israel, of course, which, for as long as I can remember, has been pushing for a war with Iran and clearly saw this war and US involvement in it as a means to achieve its goal, and this goal is obvious and undeniable. Either a regime change in Iran or, if that fails, the complete collapse of Iran. But the situation would be even worse for the Persian Gulf states. And here, it seems to me, they have played a very complex and, in my opinion, duplicitous game. Already in 2023, Saudi Arabia, with China's mediation, seemed to have achieved a de facto reconciliation with Iran. At the time, I took that seriously. I considered it real and spoke about it in many places, as we did on The Duran, because it looked like a diplomatic revolution. But now I must say, this is my personal opinion, that I no longer believe that this reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran was sincere. In retrospect, it seems to me that the Saudis took this step because Joe Biden was in the White House at the time. This was in 2023. Joe Biden and the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, MBS, harbored a strong mutual dislike. MBS felt deeply betrayed by Obama and Biden due to the Khashoggi affair, and this feeling persisted throughout. And MBS basically no longer believed that the United States would carry out the military campaign against Iran that the Saudis wanted. In fact, I remember very well that the Saudis were already dissatisfied because their country was subjected to missile attacks by the Houthis in Yemen, including attacks on their oil infrastructure, and they felt that the Obama administration had abandoned them because it could not protect these facilities. But then, last year, Donald Trump returned. He was known as someone who was very, very benevolent towards the Saudis, towards MBS himself, and at the same time extremely hostile towards Iran. And this became an opportunity to return to the previous policy that the Saudis had pursued for many years, a policy of harsh hostility towards Iran and support for measures aimed at changing the political system there. I remember that even before this reconciliation with Iran, MBS had made particularly sharp statements, even by Saudi standards, regarding Iran and its leadership. Thus, instead of the Saudis acting as a factor of restraint in this war, I believe that, on the contrary, they actually promoted it, that all those reports about MBS pushing Trump to attack Iran are true. And incidentally, I believe that MBS was not alone in this. No, I think that some other producers from the Persian Gulf, the Emirates, the Kuwaitis, who knows exactly who else, also actively pushed for Trump to start this conflict, without diminishing the role of Israel in promoting this war in any way. I think that the influence of the producers from the Persian Gulf who encouraged Donald Trump to start this war should not be underestimated. On the contrary, I believe that this probably played a significant role in convincing Donald Trump and his entourage to start this conflict in the first place. However, if Donald Trump now does what he is allegedly planning to do according to The Wall Street Journal, if he withdraws his warships, planes, and troops from the Middle East, declares victory, and states that he has successfully prevented Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, that he has destroyed all their ballistic missiles, and simply leaves, leaving the Saudis and other Persian Gulf producers alone with a hostile, angry, undefeated, and indeed very strong Iran, then I think the feelings of betrayal and anger among these Persian Gulf states are easily imaginable. And although one could argue, and incidentally, I would do so based on my previous analysis, that they have brought this entirely upon themselves and are getting no more than they deserve. Nevertheless, after such a failure, if they survive it at all, they will no longer be willing to trust the United States as they did before. So, this is also something to consider, the mood of the US's Arab allies in the Middle East. There is also the situation with Israel, which will be of the opinion that Trump dragged it into this war. Or perhaps it was the Israelis who dragged him into the war. But he did not resist. He did not refuse his involvement in it. In any case, the Israelis will also feel strong dissatisfaction, and of course, the Europeans will feel abandoned. And here we return to the key issue, energy prices. Because if the United States simply withdraws from this conflict and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, then there will inevitably be a further increase in global energy prices. And given the interconnectedness of global energy markets, this will inevitably also lead to rising energy prices in the United States itself. I read in the Financial Times today that at some American gas stations, the price of gasoline has already reached $4 per gallon. Thus, Trump, who is very sensitive to this issue, will be even more concerned in such a situation. I think any American president would be seriously concerned in such a situation, and at the same time, US oil reserves are shrinking with each day. And sooner or later, in one form or another, if the United States leaves the conflict and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, I believe that Donald Trump, or any US administration, will be forced to take measures in such a situation, similar to those that, as far as I recall, President Carter took in the early 1980s, up to a ban on oil exports. And despite the talk that the US has a large surplus of natural gas, I suspect that restrictions could also affect gas exports. Including LNG. This could stabilize energy prices within the US, but it would, of course, plunge the rest of the world into an even deeper crisis and lead to an even greater increase in global energy prices with all the resulting economic consequences. Thus, at some point, people around Donald Trump will explain all this to him, and if he is indeed considering a plan to simply withdraw from this conflict in two or three weeks, I am sure that sooner or later, in one form or another, he will be made to understand that this is simply impossible, as Colin Powell put it when he told George W. Bush in connection with the Iraq conflict: "You broke it, now it's yours." And Donald Trump will find himself in exactly such a situation. In my opinion, he has only two possible paths. The first is a very bad one, to continue the escalation of the war, to take those measures that are already being discussed, to occupy islands in the Strait of Hormuz or possibly the island of Kark. I have already spoken in many places about how I see this as a trap. Professor John Mearsheimer, incidentally, says on his Substack page, another indispensable source for understanding the world situation and evolving diplomacy, that for him it looks like a kamikaze mission. And this aligns with what Jim Webb said in our broadcast on The Duran, which we recorded with him yesterday. Jim Webb is a military man. I have also seen what Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis has said and have followed the comments of other military experts. Joe Kent spoke about American troops occupying these islands in the Persian Gulf effectively becoming hostages of Iran. Strong words, but again, this is a man with an outstanding military career. As far as I know, he has received several awards for valor in combat. This is a person who understands the military and can recognize where such a situation could lead. Thus, this military operation, as I said yesterday and as all those I have mentioned say, Professor Mearsheimer, Colonel Davis, Joe Kent, Jim Webb, all basically say the same thing. To use the wording from the article on Professor Mearsheimer's Substack page, it looks like a kamikaze mission in the Persian Gulf. This exposes the United States to the risk of an even more severe military failure with geopolitical consequences that will be extremely serious, to say the least. And, of course, we must not forget, we must never forget, the consequences for the lives of the soldiers, for their families, and, of course, also the massive human losses in Iran itself. So, this is one option for President Trump, escalation. In my opinion, a catastrophic option, or at least all signs point exactly to it. The second option is to seriously try to begin negotiations, not with a fabricated, non-existent, reasonable alternative Iranian government that does not exist, but with the real government of Iran. They have negotiated with the United States in the past. Perhaps they can be persuaded to do so again, despite everything. I do not consider this hopeless. I have already said that serious American negotiators who are truly willing to sit down at the negotiating table with the Iranians must start from scratch. Forget all these ultimatums about stopping uranium enrichment and about stopping the production of ballistic missiles. To be honest, it disappointed me that Secretary of State Rubio spoke about it again. Addressing all these issues takes away any desire from the Iranians to enter into negotiations at all. They will say, what is the point if all we will talk about with the Americans are proposals that we have already rejected several times as unacceptable to us. Why should we even sit down at the negotiating table with them? Therefore, the United States must stop talking about it. We are ready for negotiations. We are ready to negotiate without preconditions, with a fresh start. And we are ready to discuss with you a path to some kind of long-term agreement. The United States could offer this. They could do this through Pakistan. However, as I have already said, it would be far more sensible to use the mediation of those countries, China and Russia, which actually have some influence on Iran in this situation. M.