Scott Ritter: Trump Panics as Iran’s Strategy Exposes His Biggest Defeat Yet

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:06]Hi everybody. Today is Wednesday, April 15, 2026 and our dear friend or brother Scott Rder is here with us. Welcome back, Scott.

[00:00:15]>> Thanks for having me.

[00:00:17]>> Scott, let me start with what is happening, you know, close to the p close to the straight of foremost, which is the blockade imposed by Donald Trump.

[00:00:28]And so far, what do we know about the blockade and how effective was that?

[00:00:34]>> Well, I mean, it's hard to tell because we're getting conflicting reports from, you know, the United States, uh, central command and the Trump administration, which is posturing this blockade as being extraordinarily effective. And there are regional outlets uh very pro-American anti-Iranian outlets which uh echo this sentiment uh you know somehow implying that um traffic is just flowing freely through the straight of Hormuz and uh that the Iranians no longer have control over the straight. Then we compare and contrast that with um reporting out of Iran that uh though they're very much in control of strait and that they are collecting their their tariffs and the only those ships that pay the tariffs are able to um to transit um and that there's been virtually no um interruption of um Iranian shipping um in shipping coming from Iranian ports.

[00:01:31]So, you know, we have conflicting narratives. Um, I would say that I support the Iranian narrative. Um, because it seems to be more reality based. Uh, you know, the the notion first of all, there's no American shipping in in the straight of Hormuz. So, the United States doesn't have a physical presence there. So, how can they dictate what's happens through the straight? They're not controlling that. The implication is that by putting, you know, some sort of picket line further out into the um, you know, the the Gulf of Oman and into the Indian Ocean that they're they're, you know, effectively interdicting um, illicit traffic. Um, but the the the fact is the United States can operate close to the Iranian shore um, and is not operating close to the Iranian shore. their ships operate um in a standoff which creates a huge uh buffer zone for the transit of shipping that um operates under the umbrella of Iranian um missile defenses um and operates outside of the um the the span of control of the United States Navy. So um it logically speaking um the narrative put forward by central command in the um in the white house um doesn't conform to reality. So I, you know, but it's it's it's impossible to to say. I I I've always said that this blockade is pure political theater, that it's uh >> yeah, >> we're back.

[00:03:13]>> Can you hear me, Scott?

[00:03:14]>> I can hear. Yeah, they're just a little internet disruption. Um >> you're back.

[00:03:18]>> I've just always said this political theater >> Yeah. designed to create the perception of um you know American prowess, American power um so that Trump can more effectively engage in negotiations which are ongoing by the way. I mean people should understand that there was never you know Vance went home and the senior uh Iranian leadership went home but left in Islamabad our technical teams that continue to uh pound away and uh there's now talk about um high level representation falling back in on Islamabad as early as Thursday. Uh Donald Trump is speaking about a very spectacular two days coming up. Um, I I just think this blockade was was always an act of political theater uh that would allow Donald Trump to buy off on a peace plan uh by making the case to the American people that this peace plan was only made possible because of the American blockade. That's that's my my opinion.

[00:04:15]>> You had a phone call with Xiinping. He said that he's happy because I'm I'm going to open the straight of unbelievable because the straight of was open for China. They didn't have any >> No problem. The Chinese have basically told the United States to pound sand and keep their hands off a Chinese ship. But uh if Trump wants to take credit, you know, look, China doesn't care. I I I don't think Iran cares for if Trump's blustering and all that. If Trump wants to lie to the American people and the American people want to believe that lie, that's that's our internal domestic political problem.

[00:04:48]As far as the Iranians are concerned, the reality is the reality. Um, and at the end of the day, you know, there there will have to be some, I guess, political compromises made on the part of Iran. Um, and I think the Iranians are mature enough to understand this, that, uh, you know, Trump is in a very difficult position politically right now. He got involved in a war that I think in retrospect he wishes he never got involved in. Um, you know, and I I smile not because because, you know, on the other hand, you know, this war has cost thousands of lives. Most of them are innocent Iranian lives. Um, and the damage that has been done to Iran is real. Uh, it's not uh big, but you know, so the smile isn't meant to belittle um these horrific losses. Uh, the smile is just sort of a a physiological response to the stupidity of it all. I mean this is just really lunacy and this president has you know boxed himself into a corner and uh he wants out and there is a pathway out but he has to make sure that this pathway can be sold to the American public um as a victory for Donald Trump and that's tough to do when um there's been no victory whatsoever. I mean the the United States hasn't achieved any of its objectives. Iran has emerged from this uh this tragic conflict stronger than ever. I mean, you know, we keep talking about the destroyed you Iranian navy and yet we had to acknowledge that they still have their fast boats that can lay mines and they have submarines that can operate. You know, we we sunk, you know, surface warfare ships that were never going to effectively challenge the United States to begin with. So we we we carried out a campaign, a naval campaign that has no impact on the reality that's faced that uh Iran's navy was more than just some surface ships. Iran's navy uh right now has ballistic missiles and drone capabilities that allow it to control the straight of Hormuz and project power off Iranian shores to keep the United States Navy at bay. So which navy is one that conflict?

[00:06:57]Do do you see Donald Trump recognizing his sort of mistakes because he had some sort of agenda, some sort of understanding or he was, you know, we can say he had some sort of objectives in this operation which led to this trap in my opinion in the Middle East. Does he recognize that?

[00:07:21]>> The internet came out. Um, so you have to repeat the first part of that question. Yeah, my question is because of some sort of false assumption on the part of Donald Trump, he entered this war in the Middle East. Does he recognize those false assumptions on his part? Does he recognize his sort of role in what has happened to him?

[00:07:42]>> Well, Donald Trump isn't a man that seems to be uh capable of much self-reflection. He's a man that suffers from, you know, sort of malignant narcissistic personality disorder. Um he's psychotic in that manner. Um he has an ego the size of the moon. Um and and he believes he can do no wrong. So it's not about Donald Trump reflecting on the mistakes he's made. What Donald Trump has tried to do is push the mistakes off onto the shoulders of others. Um, and there will be heads that roll because of this. Uh, you know, interestingly enough, it'll be it'll be curious to see how he deals with Israel because this war was sold to Donald Trump by Benjamin Netanyahu and the head of the Israeli MSADA. Um, you know, in almost universally Trump's advisers, military and civilian alike, cautioned against um accepting the Israeli, you know, assessments at face value. And today, pretty much everything the Israelis laid out turned out to be false. Uh they said they could achieve regime change. They haven't. They said they could suppress ballistic missile launch capabilities.

[00:08:51]They couldn't. Um you know, they've they've accomplished nothing. And so I I think Donald Trump recognizes this. He, you know, his his thing is he's bought into the Pete Hagsth formulation of uh, you know, massive bombardment automatically equals uh, victory because the enemy is intimidated. And, you know, Donald Trump seems to be very frustrated and perplexed by the fact that the Iranians don't acknowledge their the scope and scale of their defeat.

[00:09:18]>> Isn't it obvious you've been defeated?

[00:09:20]But then Donald Trump doesn't understand warfare at this point in time because blowing up empty buildings or blowing up buildings that have civilians in them uh doesn't constitute victory. And you know the the the the reality is we haven't destroyed much in Iran. That's just a statement of fact. Um and some of that's been proven. For instance, uh Iranian air force is starting to emerge from their underground uh you know hide facilities. Uh it we haven't we've destroyed a bunch of derelict aircraft but um you know the the the the the newest model of u you know Russian helicopters the MI28s are out flying over tan uh F4s are flying F-14s are flying um you know I haven't heard any reports of you know the MiGs or the the Sue2535s yet but I'm sure they're there uh someplace. Um you we we haven't accomplished anything.

[00:10:16]Iran is producing missiles, producing missiles. It's not just they retain missiles, they're producing missiles as we speak. So, we haven't impacted their missile production facility. What we have done is blown up a lot of facilities that had been evacuated. We blew up a lot of empty buildings and we killed a lot of civilians because of the collateral damage or just outright bad targeting on the part of a US defense departmentwar department uh that was told uh to pursue maximum lethality and with minimum legality. Um it's a war crime, straightup war crime. Um I don't think Trump um is capable of this kind of self-reflection at this point in time though. Um, and I don't think the US establishment is capable of this. And when they do, it's not going to be about, you know, identifying problems and coming up with solutions.

[00:11:06]It's going to be about who who gets to blame. You know, who who gets whose head's going to be put on a platter and who gets to stay.

[00:11:14]>> Scott, before this war study, you remember we you and I were discussing about what would be the objectives of the war. What would they do? our understanding because of what has happened during the 12 day where we thought that Israel has a lot of intelligence coming out of Iran. They have a lot. They know a lot. But the outcome of what has happened so far in the second round of war, do you think they were somehow bragging to Donald Trump because it doesn't show that they knew where is the, you know, missile production, drone production? They're just hitting civilians.

[00:11:52]>> Yeah. I I think the first of all, intelligence isn't static.

[00:12:00]Okay, I've done it for a long time. Um, you may have, you know, if I'm collecting, I I do a a collection management plan. I'm given a problem.

[00:12:10]The way intelligence work is is is supposed to work is that the the leadership um identifies a a problem.

[00:12:21]they they a problem is identified to them and they're looking for solutions and so a question is posed you know can Iran produce missiles of a certain range or you know how does Iran plan to safeguard missile production or you know where is Iranian leadership these questions are posed and then my job as intelligence officer is take that that question and then break it down into specific components how do you know what what the sub questions are and then as I do that then I I have to do an assessment and say okay what are the essential elements of information to answer this and how do I collect that information if I have a question what assets and resources do I use and so I'll come up with a collection management plan that puts human resources technical resources imagery resources all all that on this problem and then I start collecting information and as I collect information I can refine ine my assessments. I can ask new questions. I can uh but if you do a good job, you should come up with a with an answer and um you know then you brief your your boss. Now the boss will ask follow on questions or but understand that just because you got it right the first time, I've done this before. I've gone before and I've I've nailed it. Boom. Brief the fourstar general. This is it, baby. But then you got to stay on track. You can't allow yourself to pat yourself on the back and rest on your laurels because things move. As I'm collecting, for instance, the enemy, the the target um if they're smart, they're changing the way they do things just as a matter of course.

[00:14:04]They're listening to, you know, what's being said. Um unfortunately in the west, um if you make politicians feel comfortable about something, they tend to talk about it. Um and they don't talk directly. They talked indirectly, but the hostile forces are listening and they're saying they're on to something here. Let's change what we're doing. And if I'm not doing my job, keeping the net out there, doing my job, monitoring the change, come back going, "Hey, boss, the thing I told you last week, I don't think we can be so solid anymore because it looks like the Iranians have done this, that, and the other thing. They might be moving in this direction."

[00:14:37]Boom, boom, boom. But see, once I get the problem with the intelligence community is they're not like me. I don't give a flying you know what if I'll tell you what the what the facts are and I've been fired before. General Schwarzoff fired me in the middle of the golf war because I told him the uncomfortable truth. Um I won't massage data to make the boss happy. I will tell the boss what it is and if it makes him unhappy that's his problem, not my problem. Um except I got fired. They rehired me because they knew I was right. But uh it doesn't matter. But unfortunately, there's people today who view this as a, you know, if they don't make their boss happy, they don't get promoted. If they don't get promoted, their career is over. And so once you positively brief the boss, you want to keep the boss happy. So they keep telling the boss the same lie or they keep shaping data to reinforce that assessment which made the boss happy.

[00:15:28]And what happens is um the the the the difference between the theor fiction they're selling in reality becomes so the gap becomes huge and and that's where we're at today. I think after June the Israelis had a good had some good insight into the Iranians. I mean the you know they they had collection plans in place but then what happened is they rested on their laurels and the Iranians on the other hand had to change everything. I mean what do you do when you find out that the MSAD has built drone factories on your own soil that have been there for a long time. I mean you don't simply go there and shut down the drone factory. You have to sit there and go how the hell this happened.

[00:16:11]What's this a systemic dysfunction within our system? We we have to change everything. But the MSAD sitting there going, "We had drone factories and we were doing some cool stuff with the drones." And everybody's patting themselves on the back how good they are. And uh that what they don't realize is the Iranians are changing the whole game on them, just redefining how things work. And if you're not in there moving this stuff um and the Iranians rolled up a bunch of networks and uh you know then the but you know the Israeli said, "Well, we got a backup network." Yeah, but the Batman network wasn't doing what this network was doing. Gap the point is I think the the Israelis became too cocky, too confident and the Iranians uh did the appropriate things. I mean, you know, history will show if they ever talk about it. You know, we'll find out about this. But the Iranians shuffled the deck, so to speak, which means now the Israelis had an imperfect assessment that the assessment that Trump received from Netanyahu and the MSAD chief um on February 11th was an assessment that may have been valid um in June, July, maybe August, but it started to get dated in September, October, November. Um and then they really got cocky again because of the demonstrations. And so they focused on that. They didn't realize the Iranians are on on top of everything.

[00:17:31]The president got briefed on bad intelligence. Bad assessments derive from bad intelligence and incomplete understanding. And I think that's where we're at today. We don't have a clue what the Iran's doing.

[00:17:41]>> I mean, a smart person should be able to reverse engineer what has happened and come up with appropriate conclusions. The problem is when you do that you uh you oftenimes come with an assessment that is so far removed from the assessment that is originally briefed the boss and it becomes politically difficult to come in front of the boss say everybody was wrong because how do you do that? I mean if you're a junior analyst and you and and you're good this is not rocket science. This is easy reverse engineering this is the simplest thing in the world. But now you have to come to your boss and say, "You were wrong."

[00:18:25]And the boss is sitting there already spending last year's bonus that he got because he was supposedly so good and looking forward to his new promotion and the vacation that comes with the promotion. And now the boy that works for him comes in and says, "You were wrong." And we got to go and tell your boss that you were wrong.

[00:18:41]Nobody wants to do that. So they say, "Well, Ritter, let me see what you got here." Hey, Anderson. They bring over Anderson who's a good asskissing yes boy. Take a look at these. Anderson come back. Ah, no. You know, Scott's overemphasizing this and they start to smother the assessments. And so what you know, then what happens is maybe a little bit comes up here so they can blame this person, deflect under this person, but you never get the comprehensive relook that needs to happen. That's what happens when you have politicized intelligence. And the US intelligence community is 100% politicized. We don't know how to tell the truth anymore. We don't have people who are willing to put it all on the line in defense of solid intelligence assessments.

[00:19:25]>> Scott, how did Iranian attacks on American bases in the region influenced the the gathering of intelligence because we know when the war has started. Donald Trump said I was s he was surprised by the attack Iranian attack on GCC countries. But part of that they were attacking radars and part of that was attack on CIA and MSAD offices in the region. How did that influence the whole concept of gathering information?

[00:19:59]>> Well, I mean it complicates it. I mean you know um you know you have resources.

[00:20:05]I think the human intelligence dimension um you know was severely disrupted but it was always going to be because um you know you have peace time hum intelligence collection which operates under completely different rules than wartime human intelligence collection.

[00:20:22]Um so I I think by targeting the MSAD and CIA um you know capabilities it didn't have that much of an impact because we had already transitioned into wartime collection which is different um more technical in nature um you know and hopefully from the Iranian perspective they took that into consideration Um, but the thing about war is that um, look, Iran has to do things. I I don't want to get away get away too much here, but I mean, you you do things in wartime that are predictable and because they're predictable, for instance, I, as a military professional, could do things that make Iran respond. It's called shaking the tree. and then I will have my capabilities focused on the fruit that's dropping from the tree. Um, and because it's war, Iran doesn't have too much time to be cute. They're going to be doing stuff. So, if you're focused doing the right things, if you're focused on the right things, if you know your enemy's capabilities, if you know how they communicate, I can be very effective in my intelligence collection. Um, now I have to be on the ball because every day things change. But the point is, if we if we really were doing solid intelligence collection, we should know a whole bunch about how Iran operates. The problem is our political leaders don't want to know how Iran operates. They've bought into a fiction and they have to keep this fiction. Nobody has the balls to go before the president and say everything you were told was a lie. Nobody has the balls to do that. Stand before the president and say everything you were told were a lie. and everything you've done is based upon a lie. And you have to fix it, Mr. President.

[00:22:17]There's not a single person in the US intelligence community or policy community has the courage to tell the president that to his face. They'll be fired on the spot. They won't be allowed into the White House. And so we don't have people doing effective intelligence anymore because that intelligence is politically impossible to move up the chain. And so people like me who would be doing that are fired or relieved or reassigned. um count, you know, counting ping-pong balls in Alaska instead of, you know, doing what they're supposed to do because these assessments, you can't do a blockade of Iran with a good intelligence telling you that will never work.

[00:22:55]>> Nobody wants to hear that will never work. What they want to hear is, oh, this is a good idea. And they sell the fiction. Everything about how this war has been operated is is based upon foundational lies, mistruths, miscalculations that are done deliberately to disguise the the fact that the original assessment given to the president was bogus, was a lie.

[00:23:19]Nobody wants the truth right now. Nobody wants the truth. And as a result, look, the Iranians came loaded for bear uh to this Islamabad thing with the facts. I would have loved to have been able to sit down with the Iranians and go through those facts as a policy person and sit there and and take their facts because, you know, I'm I'm confident that I could get get Look, you and I have talked about this issue before about 60% enriched uranium and all that stuff. I would have the Iranians compelled to admit that that was a bad idea and they don't need the stuff and they're going to get rid of it. That's an easy easy discussion to have. I think they said that they're not gonna >> Yeah, they've already acknowledged that and they would acknowledge it again.

[00:24:00]But, you know, we have to come in with the enrichment's okay. You get to enrich the 3.5% but because of the 60% issue, we have to shut down in, you know, perpetuity your ability to go to 60% again. That that that can't be allowed. That's not going to be allowed. We have to monitor against it and all that kind of stuff.

[00:24:24]in exchange, you know, you get you get all the sanctions lifted, you get all the security and it's a huge technical, you know, sort of negotiation. It's not >> a technical negotiation one, but it's doable.

[00:24:36]>> It's doable. But in order to do that, you have to be you have to stop the stupidity on our side. When you allow Steve Whit and Jared Kushner to front and they don't understand when Iraqi comes in and says, "We got 490 pounds of this stuff or kilograms of this stuff."

[00:24:55]They go, "He's threatening us with 10 nuclear weapons." No, what he was telling you is Iran hasn't furtherened.

[00:25:02]Iran hasn't, you know, done this that it's all there. Ready? It's there. It's ready to be turned over. That's what he was telling the United States. But our morons are sitting there going, "No, no, you're threatening us with nuclear weapons." Not threatening anybody with nuclear weapons. Iran is saying, "We have this capability and this is what it is. This is the reality of it.

[00:25:25]But we're not ready to have that technical discussion. I don't think we have people capable of having that technical discussion because you have to empower them politically. And right now, nobody in Washington DC wants to empower the truth. It's the same thing with the straight war moves. It's an easy problem to solve. It's a very simple problem to solve, and it's one in which I I believe the Iranians, if you were politically responsible, I believe we could get Iran to agree to a 10-year window of um tariff or tolls um so that it's not permanent. So you're not threatening international law and of the sea and all that stuff, but you recognize the inherent right of the need for security guarantees. Continued Iranian posh control over the state of Horses is a security guarantee that must be recognized as valid given the fact that the United States and Israel carried out an illegal war of aggression in a surprise attack. You can't expect Iran to give up its leverage. And the fact that the Gulf Arab states um directly or indirectly supported this attack means that they too have to pay a price. But we can couch this in terms of I mean there's a mechanism that can come into play where it's it's about reconstruction, you know, or something that there's a way to spin this so that Iran gets what it needs politically, but it's not sold as an American defeat, which is is important, politically important. I know there's all the non-Americans are out there saying, "Pound sand, we don't care." Well, you know what? Then you'll never get a solution to the problem, right? This isn't about the humiliation of the United States. This is about finding the a good off-ramp that gets this war over so the people of Iran can operate free of economic sanctions, free of international constraint. They can finally get the economy they deserve and get the investments in their, you know, this is all good for the people of Iran.

[00:27:14]if this can happen.

[00:27:18]Trump has to be able to do this politically. Um, and right now I don't think the I don't think United States is capable of empowering the right people at this point, but we'll see because it sounds like Trump is there are technical people making that they're aware of everything you and I are just talking about right now. And I'm sure they have put forward um working papers that have made their way to the president and that's why he sounds optimistic about some big breakthrough come Thursday. We'll see because this is Donald Trump and you just never know what's going to happen.

[00:27:54]But I I just think that Trump wants out of this war. I think he recognizes that mistakes have been made but now it's a political question. How do you you know if there was no politics involved, this war would be over today. But because there's politics involved that are colored by an upcoming midterm election which is all about the political legacy of Donald Trump. Um everything now has to go through a political filter and it just complicates things so much.

[00:28:22]>> Yeah. We had JD Vans participating in TPUSA which was confronted by some people there talking about you're supporting genocide and JD wants to wants to I I think he's he wants to be 2028 presidential candidate for Republicans.

[00:28:43]How do you see the way that he was negotiating with Iranians? because they said from the Iranian side. I talked with Professor Mand. He said right in the middle of the night, you know, it was late in the night. He decided to go to the United States, which he agreed before to negotiations continue to the other to to Sunday, but he decided to get out. What was that, Scott? What was that? And he was calling over and over Washington. He talked with Benjamin Net.

[00:29:14]Benjamin Netanyahu who says he was in direct contact with him because he wanted to report what has happened. What is that?

[00:29:25]>> Well, it's the reality that in the Donald in in the Trump administration, there's no such thing as an independent negotiator. Um the the only voice that counts as Donald Trump. This isn't Richard Nixon uh giving Henry Kissinger, you know, permission to run off and solve problems um and then report back and and the president's briefed on it.

[00:29:46]You know, Kissinger has great latitude.

[00:29:48]JD Vance had zero latitude, zero latitude to um to do the that the fact that there was almost a Islamabad of understanding is solely because of the Iranians who came in prepared very well prepared and they were able to, you know, take whatever limited American input there was and immediately turn it into something. They were ready to to move. It's a shame that we blew that opportunity. But JD Vance wasn't there to to, in my opinion, he wasn't there to make a deal. He was there to make it impossible for a deal to take place. The left at midnight is because the Iranians were doing everything they could to make a deal. The Iranians were ready. They're like, "Let's get this thing done. Here it is. You got a problem? Here's a solution. You got a problem? Here's a solution. We're ready to do what it takes. get this thing done and Vance wasn't allowed to close the deal. So, he had to leave. Um because this can't be if JD Vance closed the deal, if there was a successful negotiation, this could only be interpreted as an Iranian victory that the United States met Iran in Islamabad and at the end of the day, the Iranian 10points served as the foundation of this uh of of this agreement. That's politically unacceptable. So what had to happen is what we had to go in there, engage with the Iranians, and then declare the the the negotiations over because of Iran Iranian intrigence back out. Now that gives room for Donald Trump to go through the political theater of a blockade that is hate and it allows him to declare victory, which he has done. He's, you know, and now he can go in and close the deal and say it only happened because of the great strength and resolution that I showed in showing the Iranians who boss who's the boss of the straight to Hormuz, but now we've solved that. So, you know, now we're going to re have reconstructions a great source of revenue and you know, however he wants to spend it. But, uh, JD Vance just wasn't allowed to succeed. Um, I don't think, you know, some people say that's because Trump, you know, Yeah.

[00:32:04]>> Yeah. I think some people said it was about Trump trying to sabotage Vance. Um I don't think it's that. I I I just think that, you know, it was about Trump making sure that uh at the end of the day um the failure of the negotiations couldn't be put on his table. It had to be put on somebody's table. Um, and it leaves room for him to ride in and save the day, which I think you're going to see um, tomorrow. I think tomorrow is going to be an interesting day diplomatically.

[00:32:35]>> Yeah. Today we've learned the Pakistani army chief Moner. He has arrived in Thran, you know, with a senior political and security delegation. He's sending, you know, he's giving the message from Washington to Iranians. Do you think that this time around as you mentioned Iranian were there they they went to Pakistan totally prepared? You see at the you look at the delegation they had everything there. They had an economy legal you know political everything they had everything there to do everything correctly. But how do you see if something happens with the negotiation with the thought? Do you see the same happening on the part of the United States? we see a good delegations having each and every dimension that the delegation need to negotiate to talk.

[00:33:23]>> I don't know if we're capable of that anymore. I mean, I'd like to believe we could, but I don't know if we're capable of that anymore. Um, what I see is that we were um intellectually lazy. We let the Iranians do all the hard work. Um, that will use the Islamabad draftou as the foundation.

[00:33:44]it's been sent back and there's been some tinkering with it. Uh I think uh you know when we meet we're going to use that document as the foundation. I I look I would love if we sent in a senior diplomat who was backed by you know all the experts in the US community uh coming together to do the same thing that the Iranians did. We don't have that kind of capability anymore. The State Department's been gutted. Um, you know, Donald Trump's approach to national security, uh, and foreign policy, uh, you know, formulation and implementation is to remove all the middlemen. So, we don't have technical experts anymore. We don't have people that are focused, singularly focused on this this issue from a policy perspective. Um, so I I think the team we come in is going to be a um a politically motivated team there to save Donald Trump's presidency and it's about spin. Um, you know that Iran has done all the technical heavy lifting and uh, United States is I think we're just going to send another team of political spin misters. Let's see. We'll see what what it looks like. Um, I I I think that the the the Pakistani defense minister was also there to um because the Iranians were concerned the US was going to shoot him down, that the US was going to do something stupid. And I think the Pakistanis have to reassure the Iranians that you're not being set up for a um for a US trap.

[00:35:14]That's so strange, you know, publishing articles that this is this is a very this is an opportunity to kill Iranian negotiator.

[00:35:26]It's unbelievable. You have to be totally out of your mind to suggest that the guy who wrote that article because nobody would believe any sort of negotiations if something of that sort happens. This is the Israeli sort of agenda because they have been killing and assassinating the negotiator that the United States cannot be like this. I don't believe the United States is like this.

[00:35:53]>> This administration is this administration is unapologetic about everything. They're capable of anything.

[00:35:58]I mean, that's just where we are. You know, this administration has modeled itself after the Israelis in terms of, you know, behavior. So I I I wish I I I mean if you if we had had this conversation six months ago, I would have said the same thing you did.

[00:36:17]That's not how America operates. I can't say that anymore. I mean, look, Donald Trump killed Customs Sulammani. The American people still don't know the truth about that murder. Um you know, this was a guy who was acting at the request of regional players to, you know, create peace opportunities. He was on a mission of peace, of diplomacy. Um, which is why he traveled openly in the way that he did. And we murdered him as he was trying to, you know, coordinate, you know, nonviolent solutions to, uh, to problems that previously had only been, you know, sought to be solved violently. And we murdered the guy, um, Trump that murdered him. And, uh, so we are fully capable of, um, of of of doing Israeli type actions.

[00:37:05]You've mentioned Scott, it it seems that still in the mind of those people who are the main decision makers in the United States in Israel is that this government is an ideological government.

[00:37:18]They are radical and nobody sees the pragmatic you know sort of attitude of the government in Iran. I would say there is nothing radical with the government. If you know the people, if you talk to the people, if you see the way that they're seeing the conflict, the war so far, look at this war, more than 40 days of the war. There is nothing radical about them. Nothing ideological. They didn't attack civilians because in the first day, you know, a primary school was attacked by that, you know, by the fighter jets.

[00:37:52]They didn't go because they know what they want. They know what is practical for them and they fail to understand it in the United States in my opinion and in Israel as well.

[00:38:05]>> No, look, we're we're again and we're dealing with people are incapable of the truth of of embracing the truth.

[00:38:16]Why did the Iranian regime survive the assassination of Al Kame?

[00:38:21]In the west, we we we think of it as a government of um you know, extreme theocrats. The Ayatollas are in charge, but they're not. Iran's a constitutional republic. Um you the president's in charge. You know, read the constitution.

[00:38:40]The president has a lot of power. Even when you get into these various uh you know, councils and committees, the president is the chair of these. He's the man that's sitting at the head of the table. Um, yes, the supreme leader is there, but the supreme leader is there from a religious standpoint, you know, to to to focus on ensuring that policies conform, you know, to to the Islamic, you know, foundation of the nation. Uh, but the constitution drives everything. even the guardian council and the expediency council there to ensure you know constitutional conformity. Um this is a system that's been in play for five decades and it works and the Iranian people by and large believe in it. There there are abuses of power. Of course there are. But um you know for people to say this is a a regime of mad radical ayatollas means you don't know anything about Iran. you don't understand how Iran works. You don't understand how Iran functions. Uh the total disrespect you show to the majalis um and the whole concept of of democracy um democratic representation etc. and and and so, you know, we can't allow people who truly know Iran to be advising the president because the only way these policies work is if you you know, if you believe the underlying misinformation uh about uh about Iran and and and its system of government. Uh but there's nothing radical about Iran. I think what we've done is we've made um we've empowered a more conservative element that is distrustful of the west um that might be more inclined to pivot away from the west and and uh and engage more fruitfully with with the east. But even then, remember the people that are talking about the pivot, it's not as though they're sold out to China and and Russia. These are Iranian patriots. We we don't respect the fact that the people that are governing Iran today are Iranian patriots first and foremost that they're looking out for what's best for Iran. That one of the reasons why they've rejected, you know, the policies of Roani and uh and um Zarif um is because the West has betrayed Iran so much over time. The West can't be trusted. Uh, and so they're they're they're starting to question those who believe we should give the West one more chance to do what? To betray Iran again. So we in the West, we don't want to legitimize uh the legitimate concerns of um of these more conservative Iranians. So we radicalize them instead. Uh we we make everything anything that's opposition to the United States and the West becomes radical radicalized. uh and and and then we tend to you know ignore the the patriotic aspects of these uh people when we call them Islamists you know radical Islamist fundamentalists extremists when the reality is most of them aren't extreme none of them are extreme I mean it's I believe that Iran is a nation of great faith and I believe that people uh who gravitate to positions of leadership because it is an Islamic republic people whose beliefs conform with um the vision of an Islamic republic, but that doesn't make them Islamists or you know fundamentalists or extremists in the way that we use those terms uh to to define you know Wahhabism, Salafism, uh al-Qaeda, ISIS and things of that nature. Um you know, we're we in the West, we're incapable of discerning differences. um or maybe we're capable of it, we just don't want to because the truth is complex and we don't want we want simplicity. And so we we embrace lies. We embrace, you know, inaccurate narratives because it's easier to do so because we're just we're not trying to win a debate about the reality of Iran with with Iranians. You know, I it's not like, you know, I don't have to convince you. I have to convince the idiot American across the street from me and the idiot American down the road from me and the idiot American down here, people who are ignorant about it. So, the narrative I create doesn't have to be fact-based or um you know, conform to reality. It just has to be something that can be consumed readily by an ignorant American public.

[00:43:17]That's got to be frustrating for you and the people of Iran who are saying, "Well, wait a minute. We really exist.

[00:43:24]There's a truth here. There's a reality here." Sadly, in America, we don't care about your truth or your reality. We only care about how we can spend data so that it can be consumed politically here in the United States.

[00:43:36]>> Part of the negotiation, Scott, since day one, Iran said on all fronts, there has to be, you know, they have to put an end to the war on all fronts. One of them is with Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Israel had the first, you know, direct talks with Lebanese government. But the outcome of that it seems to be it's gonna they're going to end up having a civil war in Lebanon if they go in that direction. What is your understanding of that?

[00:44:05]>> My understanding is that Israel currently occupies 22% of Lebanon. Um so any Lebanese government that uh negotiates with the Israelis without recognizing that isn't a Lebanese government. They're an adjunct of Israel. And this is the fact the you know the the Lebanese constitution the vagaries of the French imposed system of uh guaranteeing the presidency to a Christian and the uh prime ministership to a to a Sunni Muslim. Um that means that there's no real democracy. It means that uh Lebanon is governed by factions and the the Christian faction and the Sunni faction um at least as they are represented in government um are factions that have sold out to Israel.

[00:44:50]They are controlled by Israel. So when we speak of Israel negotiating with the Lebanese government, it's Israel negotiating with itself. the Lebanese government's incapable of doing the the notion that the you know Hezbollah which deres its legitimacy from the very concept of resistance resistance to Israeli occupation that um Israel can't defeat Hezbollah so they're turning to the Lebanese to say you have to disarm Hezbollah so the Lebanese army instead of confronting the foreign entity that occupies 22% of their soil is slaughtering their people is now supposed to what? Turn on Hezbollah.

[00:45:28]That isn't going to happen. The army won't obey those orders because the army understands what the consequences will be. Um the army cannot defeat Hezbollah in a stand-up fight. And if they try, it'll become a civil war. And uh when it becomes a civil war, you know, suddenly the the politics that constrain Hezbollah will no longer exist. And uh you'll you'll see a different Hezbollah.

[00:45:52]Um, Hezbollah is more powerful than the than the Lebanese army. Um, and they're more powerful than the Israeli army when it comes to uh defending Lebanese soil. And Hezbollah will not be defeated. What we're seeing right now is just a, you know, it's a it's a game being played by the United States and Lebanon to create perceptions. Um, how this will impact the final peace negotiations. I again, I can't speak for the Iranians. I would never seek to speak for the Iranians and I can't speak for the United States because I I'm not in a position to do so. But I I do believe that if I were an American negotiator that I could prevail upon the Iranians to recognize the fact that the Israeli Hezbollah conflict um >> cannot be lumped into cannot be lumped into the current conflict between Israel and the United States and Iran. that these are two separate issues that um you know that doesn't mean we're going to give cart blanch to Israel to to act but we have to recognize the reality that we're not going to solve the Lebanese problem today. Um and therefore we must push it off uh under a different format.

[00:47:05]We can extend the ceasefire. we can seek a permanent cessation of hostilities between the United States and Iran um and extend the ceasefire understanding that you know we can't guarantee outcomes here. I think that's a responsible way though first of all that is a a format that um doesn't require Iran to stop funding Hezbollah which Iran isn't going to do. So I think by treating those as separate and same thing with the with with the Hoodi I mean there's still the unresolved issues between the Hoodi and Saudi Arabia that um you know nobody that that conflict hasn't come to an end yet. Um and I I still think that I could sit down with the Iranians and say we have to treat Yemen as a separate issue as well. We need to solve our fundamental problem.

[00:47:54]All right. But these issues are far more complex. They involve players that are outside the framework of our conflict and um you know so we need to come up with a an effective mechanism of of continuing engagement to resolve these conflicts without and I would tell the Iranians without forestalling your ability to move forward. I want sanctions lifted against Iran and I would say that I'm an American negotiator. I want those sanctions lifted. We can't lift those sanctions if we're tying in Yemen and uh and and Lebanon because now these problems aren't going to be solved overnight. If we're tying them in, that means this thing's going to drag out forever. We need to conclude our problems so that you can get sanctions lifted so we can, you know, move on with doing whatever we have to do in the region. And uh we we need to agree that we're all going to come in now. Maybe we can talk about frameworks. Maybe we can get Chinese mediators. maybe we could do some things uh about this, you know, to change the the dynamic because if I were the Iranians, I'd say, so you're just proposing we continue to do what we did before that didn't work. It only led to Israeli attacks and American attacks on Yemen and and Lebanon. So there would be I I think it would be wise to talk about bringing in um you know other parties to uh to facilitate these negotiations, the Chinese, the Russians, um etc. to deemphasize the American uh well I mean how stupid of it is to have the United States um you know put together Lebanon and and Israel to negotiate the future of Hezbollah I mean it's just ridiculous framing anyways that's not Hamas is something beyond that everybody knows the role of Hezbollah in >> Lebanon Hezbollah defeated the Israelis in 2000 and they fought the Israelis to a standstill in 2006 and they're uh they're beating the Israelis today. So, um you know, yeah, Hezblah is Hezbollah.

[00:49:51]It's not going away anytime soon.

[00:49:55]Scott, I think the war in the Middle East has somehow changed the whole calculations on the part of Russia, China, Europe because you know after the war in Ukraine which was a total blow to European economy. They have been suffering a lot because of the war in Ukraine. And then the war in the Middle East came along and you see how they are suffering as time goes by with this war in the Middle East from what is happening in the street of hormones for example. And how do you see the way Donald Trump tried to put pressure on Saudi Arabia? This is the first time of seeing the prime the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia says no we are going to decide about our policy. Our policy would be based on our calculation, not the calculation of the Trump administration.

[00:50:44]I have never seen Saudi Arabia talking this way. And how do you see the influence or the way that the influence that the war has had on on calculation of GCC countries?

[00:51:02]>> I mean, we we have a study in contrasts. We have Saudi Arabia that appears to be more reality based um and saying you know we get to make these decisions. Yeah. The United Arab Emirates was purely you know a tool of the United States. I mean u they sent a senior delegation to China to try and put pressure on China to drop their support for Iran. And I've never seen more public humiliation in my entire life when the Chinese put the uh UAE delegation in its place. uh you don't tell the dragon what to do. Um, you know, the the the reality is that the world has changed and um the United States is no longer uh can no longer project itself as this um you know, this superpower, the you know, the last remaining superpower unchecked um guarantor of security that nobody would dare challenge the United States because of our overwhelming military uh and economic strength and now we have today the reality that Iran successfully stood up the United States militarily and uh they United States hasn't broken them economically that the world is a far more complicated nuanced place with strengths having been acrewed in China Russia and elsewhere that the United States can't overcome um you know the Gulf Arab nations which had for now what 40 decades um you know bought into the Carter doctrine which was you know America guarantees security, but then you guarantee your foreign policies will align with the United States. Um, you know, they're >> Yeah, >> there we go. They're waking up to the fact that Yeah. They're waking up to the fact that the um United States no longer gets to dictate outcomes and um it can no longer provide guarantees and so they have to adjust to this. Some adjust more rapidly than others. Uh I think Saudi Arabia is starting to see the light and the United Arab Emirates is continues to wallow in its own ignorance.

[00:53:14]>> Let's assume they get something with the negotiations between Iran and the United States. Is that going to be a new era of cooperation between the United States and other countries?

[00:53:26]>> United States is incapable of cooperating with other countries under Donald Trump. um you know so I I think you're going to see that this negotiation is the exception not the rule. Um the only way the United States is going to come up with um significant policy deviations that could be called you know trending towards the normal is by defeat. um if if the United States isn't challenged then we will continue to do what we've been doing um the path of least resistance etc under the belief that you know America can get away with literally anything but as we are challenged and as we fail we have to adapt and um I think Iran is the first of what will probably be many adaptations that will take place over the course of the next several years um but this isn't the United is learning how to get along with its neighbors. Is the United States being compelled by the the weight of their their failures to uh to readjust?

[00:54:28]>> Yeah.

[00:54:29]Thank you so much, Scott, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

[00:54:34]>> Thank you very much for having me. I hope you feel better.

[00:54:37]>> Yeah. Thank you, Scott. Byebye.