negotiators were expected to make clear Iran must dismantle its three main nuclear sites if they want to go forward with these negotiations. And these negotiators are also expected to insist that any nuclear deal must last forever with no sunset clause, unlike the JCPOA that’s on sunset clause. So, Professor, given some of those details in The Wall Street Journal report, it goes on to list more demands. Those are the main ones. Is that a non-starter for Iran? Are we going to war? I don’t know when this is going to be uploaded. So, as we speak, they are negotiating.

And therefore, I can’t really comment on anything that The Wall Street Journal says. We don’t know if it’s accurate or not. What the Iranians have made clear is that they will not negotiate their regional allies. They will not negotiate their military capabilities, and they will not negotiate the right to have a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment. They are willing to create an environment where insurances are given, like the JCPOA, something like that. But Iran would expect something better than the JCPOA for a host of reasons. Something that would, if the United States is truly concerned about nuclear weapons, that can be resolved through a system of assurances.

But beyond that, Iran obviously is not going to accept anything that violates its sovereignty. And also, I think it’s quite interesting that Trump said he obliterated these places. So, why would it matter for him if Iran destroys those sites or not? If they’re already destroyed, they’re just ordinary pieces of land. So, basically, what The Wall Street Journal is implying is that those sites are safe, and they haven’t been destroyed. But in any case, I have no doubt that the Iranians will not accept anything that violates its sovereignty, and that they are willing to do a deal, as we’ve already done one before.

So, there was a Republican who was on CNN the other night, and he was asked about Trump’s claim that these sites were obliterated. Obliterated is not a word that you can throw around and get away with it. When you say something’s obliterated, it means there’s nothing left. It’s gone. That’s a very specific word, and Trump made sure, and his administration made sure who used that word over and over again. Haggiseth ran around saying it as well. But this Republican, his last name I believe is Mullen. It’s not in front of me right now.

He was on CNN, and he said it’s equivalent to fracturing your leg very badly, and thinking of like a Lindsey Vonn skier, and then somehow picking up the equipment again, picking up the tools, and starting to rebuild. So, he says that’s where the evidence is. He runs fast at work to repair what was obliterated. How do you respond to that claim from a sitting member of Congress? I don’t think any of the congressmen or congresswomen know a great deal about what’s really going on in Iran. There’s a huge contradiction in the American narrative, because on the one hand, Trump insisted that the nuclear sites were obliterated.

Then, Wyckoff, just a couple of days ago, went and said that Iran is a week away from effectively developing a nuclear weapon. Well, if the sites were obliterated, then how can it possibly be a week away from developing a nuclear weapon? Nothing that the United States says to be a very blunt admin has any credibility. Now we see that Trump talks about Iran developing missiles that are going to strike the United States, or he talks about 30,000 people being killed. That’s all just propaganda. That’s to put the case for war.

It’s just like Al-Qaeda and chemical weapons and Saddam Hussein. They have zero credibility, so anything that these congressmen or the senators say, I don’t take seriously. Your foreign minister came out and he made it very clear. He said, Iran has no interest, zero interest, in making and developing a nuclear weapon. It will abide by any kind of international standard for discovery and investigations. Iran is making it very clear that nuclear weapons is not the goal. What does the country need to do to prove to Trump that it means what it says? Because no matter how many times, Iran can say this until it’s blue in the face.

But Trump will continue saying that the goal, and even J.D. Vance came out, Marco Rubio came out, the top administration, saying that Iran is intent on developing this nuclear weapon. How does Iran prove that it’s not? Well, the problem with what you’re saying is that it’s assuming that Trump really believes that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, and obviously he knows that it’s not. Tulsi Gabbard has said this already, and he went and rejected what she said. So obviously, it’s not knowledge-based. It’s based on his own political interest, the Zionist, the Epstein class, those people who have influence on him.

Tulsi Gabbard said that since 2003, Iran has no indication that Iran has moved towards developing a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which carried out intrusive inspections in Iran, unprecedented inspections. Nowhere else in the world were there such inspections. They said that even before 2003, there’s no indication that Iran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So Trump doesn’t have a case, but the point is that he wants leverage. And just like Bush, when he wanted to invade Iraq, he pretended that Iraq was developing chemical weapons. He pretended that Iraq was an alliance with Al-Qaeda.

Both were false, and they knew it was false, but they used those excuses anyway. And so I don’t take anything, any of these seriously, but the Iranians are still willing to do a deal. They are still willing to provide an environment, a framework within which an agreement can be signed, where its nuclear program is under supervision, under the supervision of the IAEA, and that it’s clear that it’s not for anything but peaceful purposes. The problem is not the Iranian nuclear program. The problem is that the United States is under the influence of Zionism.

It’s under the influence of the Israeli regime. And the Israeli regime, as the US ambassador to Tel Aviv admitted, their ambitions are from the Nile to the Euphrates. And the only thing standing in its way in the way of the Israeli regime is Iran and the access of resistance. Because obviously, Turkey is not going to do anything. They continue to export or transport oil from Baku, cheap oil. The Arab countries are not going to do anything. Even after the US ambassador made this admission, and the head of the opposition in Israel agreed that this is the ambition of the Israeli regime, still they’ve done nothing.

So the only thing standing in the way of the Israeli regime is Iran. The only thing that prevents the complete annihilation of the Palestinian people is Iran and the access of resistance, and that is the issue. Otherwise, the nuclear program or terrorism or human rights or global warming, all of these are just excuses so that they can antagonize Iran. Well, it’s interesting because, as I mentioned before about the State of the Union, Trump received one standing ovation, bipartisan standing ovation, and that’s when he threatened Iran. And he talked about the nuclear threat and how Iran is the number one chief exporter of terrorism.

So it goes to show you, I was watching Jeffrey Sachs, he’s a Columbia professor, and he said it goes to show the stranglehold that the Israel lobby has in Washington, that you have such a divided government right now. And the fact that this is the one bonding issue is stark and remarkable. Absolutely. When it comes to Iran and Palestine, the Epstein class is completely united. I also watched John Mearsheimer, he gave an interview to Judge Napolitano recently, and he spoke about how interesting it is that Trump’s chief negotiators are Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.

Now, I don’t know much about Steve Witkoff, to be honest. I know Trump is his golfing buddy, and I know he was a real estate head guy in New York. I don’t know. Iran negotiates with these two, and Witkoff has been photographed with Miriam Adelson at these events, and they really don’t hide the fact that they really are pro-Israel, and that’s where their real interests lie. They don’t lie about that. It’s interesting that those are the two that are holding these negotiations on behalf of the United States. And Mearsheimer said, there’s no one else we can send that’s at least a little bit neutral on this topic.

Well, his chief of staff was Netanyahu’s advisor, so it’s not just these two people. He’s completely surrounded by Israeli fursers, and obviously, he himself is not an American furser. That is not Iran’s problem. Iran has already said what its red lines are, and I think the Americans have already found that out the hard way, when they insisted on having negotiations in Torquay and to include Iran’s alliances and missiles and so on, the Iranians said, no, we’re going to Oman, indirect negotiations or nothing, and the Americans had to accept in order to have those negotiations.

And we’ve already heard Trump say through Witkoff how surprised he is that Iran has not capitulated. He does not understand, he does not comprehend Iran, nor does the people around him. He does not understand who Ayatollah Khamenei is, what his ideological background is. If he knew a thing or two, he would have understood that Iran is not intimidated. The Islamic Republic is not intimidated at all. Iran is prepared to war. It is prepared to go and carry out a massive offensive against the United States and cross the region, and it will do that.

And it will be absolutely destructive for the United States, and I think it will be far worse than what even the generals have been telling Trump. That doesn’t mean that the United States will not badly damage Iran and kill many innocent people. And damage the country’s infrastructure. The United States, the regime is ruthless, just like the Israeli regime. They have no moral compass. After all, they’re controlled by the Epstein class. But I think that for Iran, it doesn’t matter if the negotiator is a Kushner, a devout Zionist, or it’s some decent person who believes in human equality.

It doesn’t matter. Iran’s red lines are there. Iran is prepared to show flexibility with regards to the nuclear program to get a deal done as long as its sovereignty is not violated, as long as Iran’s rights are not limited in the long run, or permanently. It’s willing to do that. It’s willing to give Trump an off-ramp if he’s really serious about it. But that’s as far as it goes. If the United States thinks it’s going to intimidate Iran and force it to capitulate, it won’t happen. It won’t happen if war starts. It won’t happen then.

After two weeks of war, two months of war, it won’t happen. Iran will continue to fight until Trump is defeated. And I have no doubt, Edmund, that regardless of what happens, the United States will not succeed when it comes to Iran. The smart thing for Trump to do is to back off. But if he attacks Iran, he will be defeated. After the war, I’m still alive, and you and I have a discussion. We can go back to this interview and review it, and you’ll see that the Iranians are committed to defending their sovereignty, to defending the Palestinian people, to defending its alliances, and to preserving its capability, to defend itself, and to preserving its right to have a peaceful nuclear program.

Is it willing to solve problems with the United States? It has been for decades, but the problem with the United States is that it is incapable of making decent deals. Why? Because the people who are in charge, they are the Zionists. They are the Epstein class, and they prevent normalization between Iran and the United States. Otherwise, the problems between Iran and the United States are not that complicated. It could be very open about it. It’s not very difficult. Iran can have normal relations with the United States, just as it has normal relations with Brazil.

But the problem with the United States is the fact that it’s governed by Israel vs. Professor, my last question for you, I know it’s laid out there, I don’t want to keep you too long. My last question is, you’re no stranger to negotiations, and you know how to read people, I’m assuming, to a certain degree. And when you’re dealing with a guy like Trump, you know you have to at least give him something that looks like a win. Something that he can go home and say, well, look what we did, I had all these military assets here for a reason, it worked out, we got Iran to agree to do this.

If you were in these negotiations right now, the Iranians have to be thinking about that. Where do you see the wiggle room? Where can Trump get his win in these negotiations to divert a war? Or is it beyond that? Is Trump so set on war that it looks like it doesn’t even matter at this point? I don’t know what Trump wants to do. I don’t think anyone really knows what Trump wants to do. I’m not sure Trump knows what he wants to do. Are the negotiators willing to give him a shiny object? Yes.

Are they willing to sacrifice here on sovereignty? No. So if there is a way to give him a shiny object so that he can take it away with himself and then show it to everyone and say what a great negotiator he is, that’s probably doable. But that would not mean that Iran gives up its sovereignty, its rights, its defense capabilities, and its alliances. And you have to know that even if there is an agreement, I doubt that this is the last you’ll hear from the administration about regime change and things like that.

Just one moment. Someone got to turn off this. Sorry. Not at all. But as I was saying, even if there is an agreement and let’s say everything’s hunky-dory and beautiful, you’d have to assume that it will never be too far from the Trump administration’s mind to force a regime change in Iran if an opportunity arises. Oh, the Iranians will never trust the United States as long as the Epstein class is in charge. On that note, Professor Mohave Marandi, we’re going to have all your links down below. I always love talking to you, Professor.

I hope you stay safe and I’ll talk to you next time. Thank you, Edmund. You stay safe today. [tr:trw].

See more of Trends Journal on their Public Channel and the MPN Trends Journal channel.