Editor’s Notes: In this interview, Glenn Diesen sits down with Professor Seyed M. Marandi, a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, to explore the rapidly escalating conflict between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli coalition. The discussion analyzes the severe geopolitical and economic fallout that would follow a seizure of Kharg Island or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, both of which are critical to global energy stability. Marandi details Iran’s defensive strategy, the potential for retaliation against regional U.S. bases, and addresses the alarming discourse regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons. Overall, this deep dive provides a critical perspective on the high stakes of the current “long war” and the miscalculations that could lead to a global economic collapse. (March 12, 2026)
TRANSCRIPT:
Introduction
GLENN DIESEN: Welcome back. We are joined again by Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Thank you for coming back on. I know you must be quite busy there in Tehran.
It does appear that this will be a long war, and we’re also seeing a rush up the escalation ladder from the American side. There’s now growing talks about seizing Iran’s Kharg Island, which will reportedly handle somewhere between 80 to 90% of Iran’s oil shipments. If the Americans would go through with this, it appears to be, well, essentially the nuclear option in terms of trying to shut down the Iranian economy.
Which then begs the question, what do you think is the likely Iranian response if the US would go down this path? Because I’m guessing the theory response, otherwise they would have already either attacked it or attempted to seize it.
The Challenge of Seizing Kharg Island
SEYED M. MARANDI: Well, first of all, thank you very much. Sorry. Thank you very much for inviting me.
I think it’s quite clear that it would be a major problem just accessing the island because the United States would have to use the territory of these or fly over territory of the Arab family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf. And that would mean that Iran would have to retaliate. So if Iranian territory is occupied, then that takes the war towards a major escalation. And so these regimes would have to pay a very heavy price, far greater than what they are paying now.
But for the United States, it would be very difficult because the islands are well protected. And also Iranian assets on the shore would be there to support the islanders and the people on the island and the defense capabilities there. And it’s far away from the US Navy, and it is closer to the Iranian shore.
But most importantly, I think, is the futility of such an aggression. This aggressive move would not change the status of the Persian Gulf region. It would not change the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has shut the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore nothing can leave or enter the strait without Iran’s permission. The strait is not formally shut, but ships that want to pass through have to gain permission.
And so an aggressive act by the United States against an island, a territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, would mean fierce combat. It would mean that the countries that were used to enable such an aggression would be severely punished. And we have to remember Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar. These are largely deserts. All they have is oil or gas. They don’t even have water. They have desalination plants. They’re completely vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
And then again, as I said, it’s not going to change things. Let’s see if the Americans carry out such an operation and succeed in taking the island, hypothetically, it’s not going to change the global energy market for the better. It will make it worse because Iran’s retaliation will include the destruction of assets of these countries that are engaged in cooperating in the invasion of Iranian territory.
So that would mean long term damage because we have two issues here. One is that the Strait of Hormuz is more or less closed. So there is every day 20 million barrels of oil that are not reaching the global markets, and gas and fertilizer and everything else alongside that. So every day this is happening.
But if there’s war in the Persian Gulf, those installations will be destroyed. And that means that even if they open the Strait of Hormuz later on during or after some sort of agreement, there will be no oil, there will be no gas to transport and there will be no tankers to do the transporting.
So it would be a ridiculous move, logistically very difficult, if not almost impossible. And Iranian defenses of course would be taking force, destroying a lot of the US military capabilities. And it would be futile and it would actually be more than futile. It would be very detrimental because of the long term effects that it would have on the global markets.
Iran Mining the Strait of Hormuz?
GLENN DIESEN: What should we make though of the reports of Iran mining the Strait of Hormuz? Because this would also then prevent Iranian ships, I would assume to some extent, and as well as friendly nations’ ships to transit through the strait. Do you know anything about this operation?
SEYED M. MARANDI: Iran hasn’t mined the Strait of Hormuz or the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean. That is all non-part of the Iranian Navy which can be used in the time of war is in underground tunnels. They are speedboats, very powerful weapons that can be used for asymmetrical warfare. And Iran has published some footage of these tunnels. It’s sort of like the underground missile bases and the underground drone bases.
So you have speedboats both inside the Persian Gulf and outside in very large quantities with sea to surface missiles, sea to sea missiles that can destroy anything in the Persian Gulf region and outside of the Persian Gulf.
These are all underground and well protected. Americans can’t touch them. And Iran’s capability to mine the Persian Gulf region are also underground. So they’re all safe. But Iran has not moved in that direction. Iran does not want escalation.
Iran’s Willingness to Negotiate and Trump’s Claims
I’m sure your audience knows this, but from the very beginning the Iranians negotiated, even though the negotiations — even if the negotiations had failed, the United States had no right to invade, attack Iran and to murder Iranians. But Iran was negotiating and the United States attacked Iran even though the Omani foreign minister said that progress was made.
And basically the claims that Trump made — Iran said to the US negotiators, meaning his son-in-law and his best friend who are both Zionists — he quoted them saying that the Iranians at the negotiating table said that “we want to build nuclear weapons,” which is ridiculous for two reasons.
One is that fortunately the negotiations were indirect. So Iran has witnesses, and one witness is the Omani foreign minister, who when he went to the United States and did interviews said nothing of the sort. So obviously either Trump is lying or his real estate buddies are lying.
The second is that Iran has always said we’re not developing nuclear weapons and that our peaceful program is peaceful and we have a fatwa. And the IAEA has always been consistent, at least in saying that there’s no evidence that Iran has ever at any point tried to make a nuclear weapon. And even the CIA intelligence admits that at least after 2003, Iran’s nuclear program has always been peaceful.
So why in the world would the Iranian negotiators go and tell their enemy, that wants to bomb and kill them, that threatens them, that “we want to make nuclear weapons” at the negotiating table? It’s obviously a foolish lie and only the most naive supporters of the MAGA cult would believe otherwise.
Iran’s Military Capabilities and Intelligence Failures
So I think it’s clear as day that the Iranians did not want escalation and they do not want escalation. So as we speak, the gas facilities in Doha and elsewhere are all prepared to restart if there is a peace. The oil can again flow if there is peace. And most of the tankers — the tankers that did not violate Iran’s directions — those tankers can move and take oil and gas out of the Persian Gulf region once there is peace.
So there’s not a chance in the world that under these circumstances Iran will — however, if the United States escalates, if they start trying to destroy our key infrastructure, our gas installations, our oil installations, our electricity, then everything, all bets are off and Iran will retaliate. Iran can hurt them far more than they can hurt Iran because US assets and the assets of its proxies on the other side of the Persian Gulf are enormous and they will be destroyed.
So this is sort of a type of mutual assured destruction, a type of MAD. If they go after us, we’ll go after them. But we don’t want to do this, but we’re prepared to do so.
Another thing, Glenn, that I wanted to point out — even though it’s not linked to your question, but I think it’s very important — we all remember US and Israeli assessments and what we’ve been told in the media, that Iran has a certain number of missiles. Well, we’re seeing that Iran has been firing missiles 24 hours a day at multiple bases. Both Israeli regime’s assets and US regime assets are being targeted.
So what this shows is that Mossad and CIA and MI6 intelligence is very poor, that they actually know much less about Iran than they pretend. They’re constantly telling the world how they know everything and how they’re the best at gathering information, and these are the most competent intelligence gathering organizations in the world. But Iran’s military offensive capabilities is the most important thing that Iran has in this conflict, and they are clueless about it.
And Iran is firing — they keep saying their launchers are running out, their missiles are running out, their drones are running out. They’ve been saying it for almost two weeks now. But Iran continues to strike. And Iran says it’s willing, it’s prepared to take this war till after the midterm elections.
Can the US Open the Strait of Hormuz?
GLENN DIESEN: That is quite interesting. And that’s one of the weak points of Trump as well. Not just running out of weapons and the economic problems and energy, but also, of course, the politics at home.
Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the US Energy Secretary said that the US Navy, after getting many requests, is not yet ready to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. And we were also told that they are currently studying options on how to get tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
What is the main challenge? And is it even feasible at this point? Because I guess my first thought was that Trump made a big deal out of sinking ships from the Iranian navy. But it doesn’t seem like Iran needs a large navy in order to close the Strait of Hormuz. So what do you see as being the main challenges as the US Energy Secretary is sitting around the table studying options for how to get these tankers through the Strait of Hormuz? What are the problems they’re running into?
SEYED M. MARANDI: It’ll be impossible for them to do that. First of all, there’s the Iranian navy. The bulk of the navy, the important part of the navy that would be used in time of war — they’re all in huge tunnels underground. Then there are the mines that can be used. Then there are the surface to sea missiles that can be used. Then there’s of course the short range missiles, but also the medium range missiles and medium range drones and then the long range missiles and drones and the cruise missiles. Iran can target the Strait of Hormuz from anywhere in Iran.
How is the United States going to open it? And then if, when there’s open war, Iran is going to retaliate and it’s going to punish those regimes in the region that are host to US bases with a higher degree of intensity.
So, hypothetically, you do open the Strait of Hormuz, which is virtually impossible — it’s just like the issue of the island. Hypothetically, you open it. But if there’s no more oil, if there are no more petrochemicals, if there’s no more gas and there are no more ships, then what’s the purpose? You lose hundreds if not thousands of men, you lose significant parts of your navy, and then you drive up the price of energy permanently.
In other words, there’s no solution. An agreement that will ultimately come will not save the global economy. But if the United States is forced to accept — and it will be forced to accept — Iran’s terms for peace, then the oil can flow now. But if the United States intensifies the war, then what would be the long term effects? It would be catastrophic for the world.
It’s already kind of becoming catastrophic. People don’t yet understand what’s coming. But hopefully countries across the world, the international community, public opinion in the west — and since the British government is helping the US use heavy bombers to slaughter Iranians — people in Europe have to force their governments to change and the United States have to do so. People across the world have to put pressure on the United States. That’s how the war will end. But other than that, things will be as I said, they won’t be.
Trump’s Victory Claims and the Path Forward
GLENN DIESEN: Well, I see that Trump already gave something of a victory speech saying that the war has already been won. On the other hand, he can’t really deliver a convincing victory and pull back with his head held up high unless the Strait of Hormuz is open. Because if this is closed, any declaration of victory as the US pulls back doesn’t really make much sense.
So Trump, for this reason, also warned of much more destruction. I think he said 20 times more destruction if this strait is not opened. However, he also said that the US has run out of targets to strike. So it kind of begs the question, what do you think or what do you expect from the American side now? Because it seems if there are no good military targets anymore to hit, but they have to escalate, to go up the ladder in order to try to compel Iran to do as America demands — what do you think is the action plan on the American side?
The Risk of Nuclear Escalation and Israel’s Strategic Defeat
SEYED M. MARANDI: Well, they’re already doing it. They’re already striking non-military targets. They did it from the first hour when they slaughtered those girls and those children in the elementary school. And only after a week, the New York Times, under pressure, began to expose the truth. Not because the New York Times has any morality or any shame. No, we all knew it had happened on day one. The world knew by day three. But when people in the United States are seeing it on social media, someone has to do something. And of course, an opponent of Trump would obviously begin that.
So they’ve been slaughtering people very regularly and it’s premeditated. They know exactly what they’re doing. The targets that they struck in Tehran today, yesterday, the day before last night, these were civilian targets. These are ordinary families. They bomb homes, they slaughter kids, women. It’s intentional.
But what Trump could do is he could take it further. He could start trying to destroy Iranian key infrastructure like oil, gas, electricity, and so on. But that would mean Iran would do the same. That would mean that there would be no more electricity on the other side of the Persian Gulf. And that would definitely lead to the collapse of those regimes.
Iran would not collapse. We’ve seen how united the people are. Anyone who has been looking at Iranian social media accounts inside Iran will know that people on the streets every day and every night in huge numbers, under fire as missiles strike close by, they don’t budge. There’s ample evidence of this. Anyone can go and see this, check Iranian accounts or Press TV or whoever.
I don’t do this because it’s just too difficult for me to constantly download footage of people in different neighborhoods in Tehran or different cities. And then as the bombs explode nearby, they continue chanting. They don’t budge.
So Iran is going to stay put and it will rebuild itself. But these proxies on the other side of the Persian Gulf, they’ll be swept away. Those regimes have no legitimacy in the eyes of the people under their thumb. And it would end the global economy. The US economy would collapse. So if they destroy Iran’s infrastructure, the infrastructure in the United States may not be bombed, but when the energy crisis hits, it doesn’t matter if it’s bombed or not. Most of it will become useless because the economy will collapse.
So hopefully the United States won’t do that. The Trump regime will hopefully have sense enough not to do that. But the very fact that he says this, Glenn, tells you a lot. It shows a lot. He’s not only talking about Iran. He said this about Cuba. If you recall, when the Supreme Court voted against his tariffs, he got very angry and in a press conference said, “I can destroy countries, but I can’t put tariffs like a $1 tariff.” No one in the Western media went and called him out and said, “What do you mean you can destroy countries?” I think at that moment he was talking about Cuba. And then here he says he’ll destroy Iran so that it can never recover.
And there’s no outrage, whether it’s the Guardian or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times — none of them — because the media is owned and controlled by the oligarchs, by the Epstein class. Their journalists have no sense of morality, so they can talk about destroying nation after nation and there’s no shock in the media.
So I think ever since they revealed themselves, every day that goes by it becomes more clear, and even the naive begin to wake up — except for those who, you know, they’re like cult members of MAGA or whatever. Everyone else is seeing the truth.
Israel’s Strategic Position and the Destruction of Its Image
GLENN DIESEN: Well, I saw a speech by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, who — well, it looked as if it’s been interpreted in different ways, but it looked like he was climbing down from the very high objectives being put forth. So it wasn’t going to be an endless war and they will make a decision on when to end it, mutually with the United States. How do you assess the Israeli and American position now in terms of what they want out of this war, what they can achieve, and when they want to put an end to it?
SEYED M. MARANDI: You know, Glenn, you know this better than I, and so does your audience. But ever since the genocide in Gaza began, and the slaughter in Lebanon, and the escalation in the West Bank, and the coming to power of Al-Qaeda in Syria — it being openly a regime affiliated to the Trump regime and the Israeli regime — people are waking up to the reality that Zionism is evil, that Zionism is a problem. Americans have turned against Zionism in the United States. The youth have turned against it and others are turning against it.
So as the price of oil goes up, as the price of energy goes up and life becomes more difficult, who are the people going to blame for their personal financial problems that are going to get worse and worse by the day in the weeks and months ahead? They’re going to blame Trump, they’re going to blame Netanyahu, they’re going to blame the Zionist lobby, they’re going to blame the Israeli-firsters, they’re going to blame the neocons. So this is a catastrophic, catastrophic miscalculation.
Since October the 7th, we’ve discussed this before. I’ve always said that the biggest defeat that the Israeli regime has suffered is the destruction of its image. They’ve not succeeded on the battlefield, by the way. Remember, they always say how Hezbollah has been defeated. Look at what’s happening now. Look at how the resistance in Lebanon is hammering the Israeli regime. And we have to remember the Lebanese resistance has been making these sacrifices for the people of Gaza, to stop the genocide. Their fight has been for another people. Everyone of the resistance in Lebanon is extraordinary.
But in any case, I always said back then, and I continue to believe, that the greatest defeat of the Israeli regime has been the destruction of its image and credibility, and the fact that it’s increasingly being seen across the world as illegitimate. So if you add public misery, and that public misery being attributed to Zionism, how does that help the Israelis? What impact does that have on the influence of the Zionist lobby in the United States?
So ultimately, if I was on the Israeli side, God forbid, or with Trump, God forbid, I would be saying: end this war yesterday. End it. This is catastrophic. Not only are you losing the war, because every day that Iran strikes back, people across the world are seeing Iran as heroic. People are increasingly interested in Iran, and they see that the empire is much weaker than they had envisaged. They thought the United States was this invincible power. Now you see that the United States and this collective coalition against Iran is failing.
But that aside, as the economic crisis hits harder, things are going to get a lot worse for the Israeli regime and its backers in the West. And I think the decline of the influence of the Zionist lobby will be far more rapid as a result of this war. And the longer this war lasts, the more rapid that decline and fall will be.
The Nuclear Threat and Iran’s Fight for Survival
GLENN DIESEN: Well, I was wondering, what do you see as the risks of Iran being too successful? I was watching some comments by Professor John Mearsheimer, and he was making the point that if the Israelis believe that they’re going for a massive strategic defeat, it’s quite possible that they would contemplate using a nuclear weapon to essentially pressure or force Iran into capitulation. Do you see this being part of Iran’s calculation, that this is a possible direction? I mean, this is one of the challenges in nuclear wars — if one defeats a nuclear power too severely, this is a risk one is running. Do you see this challenge as well?
SEYED M. MARANDI: Let me break this down into a couple of parts. First of all, if the Israeli regime uses a nuclear weapon, the very fact that that is contemplated shows how immoral and brutal and genocidal and evil the regime is. The very fact that anyone can contemplate that they would use such a weapon just tells us everything about the regime itself.
Second of all, if the regime actually used a nuclear weapon against anyone, I think that would be the end of the regime.
And third of all, if they did use a nuclear weapon, then that would basically be telling everyone: build your own nuclear weapons. And that’s what they’ll be telling the Iranians to do. And the Israeli regime is very small.
But ultimately, Glenn, this war for Iran is a defensive war and a fight for survival. We are not going to accept any threat. We’re not going to submit to any threat and accept the destruction of our country because someone is threatening us. That is why we’re fighting today. Trump has already said that he will destroy Iran and it’ll never recover. He can do that. So what, do we capitulate? No, because we are an independent nation. We have dignity, we have honor.
Why do we fight? Because we are on the right side of history. Our sin for the last 47 years has been that we’ve been saying stop killing Palestinians, stop it. As human beings, as Muslims, as Shias, we have to support the oppressed. We are willing to face martyrdom for that. We cherish life more than anyone else. That’s why we support the Palestinians. That’s why we support victims across the world, because their lives are valuable to us. But we are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to retain our dignity and honor. That is our obligation.
So we are not going to be intimidated by the United States or the Israeli regime. But the use of nuclear weapons will change the planet and it will, one way or another, lead to the swift destruction of the Israeli regime.
Pathways to Peace: Conditions for Ending the War
GLENN DIESEN: You mentioned before that there are just not that many pathways to peace, but of course peace is the ultimate goal. Where do you see your overall assessment of this war? Where is it heading and under what conditions do you think it’s possible to put an end to it? Because as I started saying, it looks like there’s going to be a long war, and again the US feels it has to come out looking victorious. Iran seemingly can’t afford to allow the United States to come back every six months and bomb it until it finally gets it right. So it’s very difficult it seems for both sides here to put an end to it. So what do you see as being the possible conditions for peace?
Iran’s Conditions for Peace and Regional Security
SEYED M. MARANDI: Well, again I’m just speaking in general terms and I don’t have any details about what the Iranian position is. But first of all it will go beyond just Iran. There will have to be a change in the way in which the Palestinians in Gaza are being treated. Lebanon’s sovereignty will have to be respected. The so called ceasefires will have to be respected in full. The Israeli regime will have to leave Lebanon. They’ll have to abide by the agreements in Gaza in full. No more murders and assassinations. No more killing kids on a daily basis in Gaza and Lebanon.
So it will not just be Iran. The threat of war against Iran will have to be dealt with. No piece of paper that the US President signs is of any value to us because we’ve already negotiated twice and he already betrayed the negotiations. So the facts on the ground will have to change and part of that will be in the Persian Gulf region. US bases will no longer be these centers of threat against Iran, that won’t be tolerated anymore. And so the regimes in the Persian Gulf region, their policies will have to change.
They will also have to pay compensation for everything that has happened. That will happen without a doubt. Doesn’t matter who pays that compensation. Someone will pay. So these regimes, they are already being severely harmed, but they will pay, they will pay that compensation.
So this is not just, this is about Iran’s long term security. We will not accept a situation where the Trump regime goes and rearms and attacks again.
Why Iran Accepted the Ceasefire After the 12-Day War
And by the way, because this was discussed many times before, and I didn’t speak about this earlier in the months, in the previous months because I didn’t think it was appropriate, but after the 12-Day War, many were saying, why did Iran accept a ceasefire? It could have just continued.
The reason why Iran accepted the ceasefire even though it was winning the war, and it didn’t accept it on day one, it continued striking for like three or four days, I don’t know exactly how long, and then it accepted a halt in hostilities. But the reason was that during the 12-Day War, even though Iran gradually gained the upper hand and was winning, Iran knew that if the war continued, the United States would have an incentive to enter the war and bring in all these weapons systems that they brought. And Iran recognized that while they were doing well, relatively speaking, they had many shortcomings. Therefore, they decided to end the hostilities and prepare themselves for the big war.
And so for the last eight, nine months, the Iranians have been working 24 hours a day. And now, even though the combined firepower of the enemy is much greater than it was during the 12-Day War, the number of launchers that have been destroyed are much lower, the number of martyrs in the military much lower. And Iran was able to, this time around, remove its key assets from bases. And so most of these strikes were on empty buildings.
Iran had to prepare itself for something much bigger than this, the Israeli regime. The Israeli regime is not a threat to Iran, and any strength that it has is given to it by the west because they support this racism and ethnosupremacism. But the United States is a real threat. And so the 12-Day War was an excellent opportunity for Iran to figure out what it has to do. And they’ve been preparing themselves and now we see the success.
So ultimately there will have to be an end to this, but it will be in a way in which Iran feels that in the years to come, its people are safe. And its allies across the region, they get security.
The Guilt of Regimes Hosting US Bases
Those regimes that hosted US bases, they’re guilty. They have to compensate. I mean, Glenn, let’s say, I gave this example last night to George Galloway, let’s say France gives bases to the Russians and the Russians attack the UK. Let’s say the Canadians gave bases to the Chinese and they attack the United States. And then Canada and France say we’re neutral. Is anyone in the UK or the United States going to accept that argument?
Right now B2 bombers are being prepared in the UK every day to carry out heavy strikes on Iran and they target ordinary people. Those underground missile bases and drone bases and those factories are untouchable. And because the fighter jets are not very effective, since they have to, because of Iran’s drone and missile capabilities and, to say, our defenses, but mostly it’s drone and missile capabilities, they have to be stationed very far from Iran. But when they fly, they have to refuel, come back, get to Iran and then go back, refuel. It’s very expensive and not very effective.
So now they’re increasingly using these heavy, long range bombers which are also very expensive. But the ammunition that they drop is quite a lot and it devastates people. The British are part of this war. They are murdering children. The British regime is a child killing regime.
So that was just a footnote. It wasn’t linked to the broader argument. But the point is that all those regimes that are involved in this war are guilty. They have Iranian blood on their hands.
But the East Persian Gulf regimes are our neighbors. They betrayed us once in the 1980s. They all supported Saddam Hussein, gave him hundreds of billions of dollars back then, which was worth a lot more than what it is now, to kill Iranians. After the war and after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, Iranians forgave them and tried to establish better ties. This time round, it’s not going to end like that. They will have to compensate.
The Possibility of Iranian Retaliation Against Britain
GLENN DIESEN: So just, we have one last question on this. Do you see any possibilities for Iran though to retaliate against countries like Britain who participates in this war? Or is that, I guess, a bridge too far?
SEYED M. MARANDI: Well, I think that in future their presence in our region is going to be diminished. It won’t allow it anymore. Europe and the United States, their presence in our region will be diminished. There’s no doubt about that.
The Warning of a Potential False Flag Operation
But one thing that I should add here, and I think it’s important for your audience to know, is that all this talk about drones in the United States and the Iranians, these are all lies. The same people who carried out 9/11, I used to be one of those who didn’t believe it, I thought it was just Al Qaeda, the same people who use Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in New York and in Syria and in Libya, the same people may try to carry out an attack in the United States that will definitely be a false flag operation.
They’re losing the war, the Zionists, and so they need something. And the only thing that I can think of is for them to carry out a, God forbid, a major attack against civilians in the United States to change the mood among ordinary Americans, to convince them that the war against Iran is justified and has to continue.
So if anything happens in the west and in particular in the United States, there’s not a doubt in my mind that it will have been carried out by the Zionists or the Zionist regime or someone affiliated to them, or some naive fool or group of naive fools that have been manipulated by them.
Closing Remarks
GLENN DIESEN: Yeah, just a quick correction to what you said before. You said Iran had negotiated twice. Actually, it was three times. It also signed the JCPOA. So yeah, I can understand the declining trust in the diplomacy, but I know, yeah, it’s not easy over there in Tehran at the moment. So thank you very much for taking the time.
SEYED M. MARANDI: Thank you very much, Glenn. It’s always a great pleasure being on your show and thank you for all the heroic work that you do and God be with you.
Related Posts
