The REAL Reason USA Freaks-Out Over Iran | S. M. Marandi

## The strategic logic behind the panic The conversation with S. M. Marandi reframes Western alarm about Iran not as an inevitable reaction to a clear and growing Iranian threat, but as the product of a failing U.S.-led strategy that has boxed American policymakers into a corner. The central argument that emerges is stark: Washington’s approach—tightening sanctions, disrupting civilian flows, and preparing kinetic options—does not weaken Tehran’s resolve so much as compress choices and raise the risk of catastrophic escalation. Far from being a one-sided story of American dominance, the exchange shows a contest in which the United States faces limits: military, economic, and diplomatic. Those limits, together with Iran’s increasingly hardened posture and wider regional dynamics, make the prospect of renewed major conflict more likely even as its outcome becomes less certain. ## Sanctions as a form of medical warfare One of the most disturbing threads in the discussion is the argument that sanctions have moved beyond economic pressure and into a form of targeted human suffering. The blockade of air routes and restrictions on commercial aviation, Marandi points out, have a disproportionate impact on medical supplies. Certain medicines—cancer drugs, dialysis supplies, temperature-sensitive pharmaceuticals—cannot be reliably shipped by land for long periods; they require air transport and rapid handling. The stated aim of some Western actors, the conversation suggests, is to produce a humanitarian crisis that could be politically exploitable: the hope among some hardliners that deprivation will foment political unrest. This analysis reframes what many observers treat as collateral damage as a deliberate mechanism of pressure. When flights are stopped or aircraft servicing routes to Iran are discouraged, shortages that directly affect the most vulnerable—chronic patients, children, the elderly—are magnified. That humanitarian logic (or its cynical manipulation) exposes a moral fault line: the public in many Western countries may be broadly anti-war, yet elites and certain state actors are apparently willing to accept civilian suffering as a lever. The conversation insists that this tactic is both ethically reprehensible and politically self-defeating, since it hardens social resolve inside Iran and corrodes international legitimacy for those imposing the measures. ## The Strait of Hormuz and the myth of “normal” flows Claims that oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz have returned to near pre-conflict levels were scrutinized closely. Marandi emphasizes that headlines suggesting 70–80 percent recovery are misleading. Daily flows vary—sometimes 7.5 million barrels, sometimes edging toward 12—but they are not a restoration to pre-crisis throughput when broader routes like the Red Sea are factored in. The conversation details two technical reasons why apparent flows can be sustained at an inflated cost: the employment of small shuttle tankers for intra-gulf transfers and complex transshipment arrangements. These practices keep some energy moving but at high cost, and often with Iranian tacit consent to avoid a complete shutdown that would further harm its friends abroad. Two mistakes underlie much of the public narrative about oil markets. First, paper prices and spot flows are not the same; the market is manipulated in ways that mask scarcity. Second, refinery capacity—both regionally and globally—has been impaired: Gulf refineries have been compromised by attacks, and Russian refinery output is under strain. Those supply-side constraints mean that even if a portion of oil continues to move, fragility remains. The deeper point is strategic: if the conflict expands to attacks on Iranian infrastructure, Iran has signaled it could reciprocate by targeting Gulf export infrastructure. That would not be a narrow military exchange but a structural shock capable of shutting down flows for a very long period and precipitating a global economic crisis. ## Military limits, reciprocity, and the cost of escalation A central theme is American military limitations and the calculus of reciprocity on Iran’s side. Marandi’s view, reflected in the discussion, stresses that the U.S. is not omnipotent. Beyond the immediate limitations—logistics, force posture, vulnerability of carriers to asymmetric attacks—is a political constraint: an expanded assault on Iranian infrastructure risks provoking retaliatory strikes across the Gulf. Iran has publicly reserved the right to conduct preemptive strikes if it perceives an existential threat, and it has already adopted a posture of disproportionate response in several encounters. This is not simply bravado; it is a coherent deterrence logic that incorporates asymmetric tools deployed via proxies, missile and drone capabilities, and the option to target Gulf state infrastructure that has facilitated U.S. operations. The conversation highlights an essential strategic truth: escalation ladders are treacherous when both sides hold credible means of inflicting economic pain. The U.S. could seek to degrade Iran’s military and economic capabilities, but doing so risks destroying the very infrastructure—terminals, pipelines, refineries—on which global trade depends. Deterrence in the region has therefore become entangled with the global economy. That mutual vulnerability reduces the credibility of large-scale coercive options in practice, even as rhetorical maximalism in parts of the U.S. political spectrum keeps those options on the table. ## Regional spillover: Yemen, Iraq, and Gulf monarchies The discussion makes clear that any renewed assault on Iran would not be confined to bilateral strikes. The regional battlefield is already multi-directional. Houthi actions in Yemen have degraded Saudi oil exports and shown how non-state actors can raise costs for state actors and their patrons. Iraq remains a locus for Iranian influence and American exposure, and the Gulf monarchies—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar—are strategic nodes whose infrastructure could quickly become targets in a wider conflict. Marandi warns that if Iran escalates to destroy Gulf infrastructure, the collapse of those regimes becomes plausible. These states’ economies are heavily dependent on energy exports; thus, the destruction of ports, storage, and pipeline networks would not only halt oil flows but also undermine state capacity. For regimes that have aligned closely with the U.S., that outcome would produce both political and economic dislocation—fueling refugee flows, disrupting global markets, and reshaping alliances. The conversation therefore treats the Gulf not as a passive theater but as a set of active stakes: U.S. policies that ignore how regional actors will be drawn in risk creating irreversible systemic breakdown. ## Great power exposure: China, Russia, and Europe An important subtext is how great-power relationships complicate the regional crisis. China’s exposure is economic: a severe energy shock would strain Beijing’s energy security and could force painful adjustments in domestic policy or external relationships. Russia’s involvement is twofold: as a diplomatic partner and as a target in parallel theaters (Ukraine), Russian calculations about when and how to press advantages are consequential for timing and risk across fronts. Europe, meanwhile, is depicted as politically fragmented—willing to follow U.S. cues but also increasingly strained by the economic costs of proxy wars and sanctions regimes. Marandi’s reflections from Moscow underscore that sympathy for Iran among non-Western elites is rising and that Western narratives about Iran have lost traction. That shift affects sanction efficacy and diplomatic isolation. If large countries or blocs begin to treat Iranian access to markets and supplies as a bargaining chip rather than absolute cut-off, the leverage the U.S. expects to wield will be eroded. At the same time,

The REAL Reason USA Freaks-Out Over Iran | S. M. Marandi The USA is preparing the next phase of the Irna War. But it won't help. The defense of the country has only increased over the past 8 months and now the USA is running out of time and options in a disaster of their own making. Professor Mohammad Marandi warns that renewed war against Iran is highly likely, though not inevitable. Speaking with Pascal after visiting Russia, he discusses sanctions, medical supplies, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s preparations for escalation. Marandi argues that attacks on Iranian infrastructure could trigger devastating retaliation across the Gulf and a global economic crisis. They also examine American military limitations, Yemen and Iraq, China’s exposure to an energy shock, Israeli politics, and the importance of understanding Iran. Mohammad's Links: X: https://x.com/s_m_marandi Going to Tehran, by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781429973342/goingtotehran/ Resistance, by Alastair Crooke: https://www.plutobooks.com/product/resistance/ Neutrality Studies Links: Neutrality Studies Substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Support Neutrality Studies: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Neutrality Studies shop: https://neutralitystudies.com/shop Time Stamps 00:00 Marandi’s warning and impressions from Russia 05:57 Sanctions, civilian suffering and Europe’s role 12:45 Hormuz, oil flows and the risk of economic catastrophe 19:14 The blockade and Iran’s response to a new assault 23:04 US military limits and the China argument 30: 07 Yemen, Saudi Arabia and US withdrawal from Iraq 37:07 Israeli elections and Iran’s strategy 42: 22 The next round of war: timing, risks and retaliation #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies today for an update with Professor Mohammad Saeed Marandi. Saeed, welcome back to the channel. #Marandi Thank you very much for inviting me. It's always a great pleasure being with you. #Pascal It's great having you here. And actually, you just returned from Russia. Before we go into the Iran topic, can you give us a little bit of your impressions about Valdai? How was that? And you actually talked to the Russian president, didn't you? #Marandi -- 1 of 15 -- Yes, briefly, I did ask a question. But along with the question, I did make a couple of statements as well. And he gave a four- or five-minute response. It was a very interesting conference. The Valdai Club is very well known. It's, I think, the most important international conference that they have every year. They have an international conference, but they also have regional conferences throughout the year. In my meetings with other guests, Russian and non-Russian, from across the world, it was very clear that they were all sympathetic and supportive of Iran, collectively and individually. But also, from my conversations, it was clear that the people in the different countries that they came from were also sympathetic, siding with Iran. And for the first time in over 47 years, the anti-Iranian narrative that Western media and think tanks and governments have been able to create with the help of, of course, these regional regimes that are in the U.S. camp and their media, which is funded by oil and gas wealth, that has collapsed, and people are seeing through the propaganda, and they stand with Iran. And in fact, I was discussing with people the fact that the United States is targeting ordinary Iranians by strengthening the sanctions. And, for example, as I was telling you before the program, the Americans are trying to prevent planes from flying to and from Iran. And it's not to hurt the economy, because Iranian imports and exports go by land. And tourists and pilgrims, they usually take money away from Iran. They take money to spend abroad, because there are more Iranian tourists who go abroad than who come to Iran, especially in these circumstances. The real target is the medical situation in Iran. They want to create a medical crisis because a lot of medicine comes into Iran through flights. Because you can't ship them, you can't, you know, they can't go by truck for weeks to get to the country. They have to be sent swiftly. They have to be kept in certain conditions. The dates in which they expire, the amount of time that you can use them, is limited. And in some conditions, you have to use them very quickly. In some cases, there's a shortage of medicine. They swiftly bring in medicine from abroad. So what the Americans are trying to do is create this crisis in Iran. And when I explained this, no one was shocked. No one was surprised. They're all expecting this. It's as if, for everyone, it's clear that the United States regime, the Trump regime, is just utterly sinister and totally evil. And the fact that Western media will not call out the regime, the fact that Trump can call for the annihilation of the Iranian people time and time again, and there's no outrage in the West, there's no outrage. I mean, the public obviously is anti-war. They're anti-genocide. We've seen the polls. But the fact that journalists, Western media, from the Independent in the UK or the Guardian in the UK to Breitbart and Fox News in the United States, they're all silent and they all look away as these threats to carry out a Holocaust, the most horrific Holocaust in human history, against the Iranian people. Amidst all these threats, you have silence. But again, no one was surprised. It was as if everyone at the conference—and this is a major conference, and the people there are, except for me, intellectuals and public figures and people of great knowledge and influence—no one -- 2 of 15 -- was at all shocked or surprised. It's as if there's a global consensus that the United States is indeed, as the first leader of the revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, said, that America is the Great Satan. That's the consensus now. But ultimately, people across all the different groups of people I met in Moscow, they all were confident that Iran will win this war, and I share that confidence. #Pascal I mean, we are talking about the people who are literally bragging. They were bragging in January about the fact that they managed to create the economic upheaval that then led to mass protests, which then, according to their own narrative, would have led to 10,000 dead people. I mean, apart from the fact that those numbers are insane, that they are proud of the fact that they created the conditions in which this then happened. And then they get to swing themselves on the high horse and point the finger at, "Oh my God, you evil people, you did what we forced you to do." Like, apart from the fact that that never happened. But that's the level of, well, just satanic, actually, behavior, as you said it. And now interrupting the flights, which, as you said, it's not as if Iran was a huge tourist destination before, as if, though, that would make any kind of change to the government positions. But obviously, it's going to kill a couple of hundred, if not a thousand more people a month who are already on dialysis or on cancer medication and so on. And all that not coming in is going to kill, again, the poorest of the poor and those who are already in vulnerable situations. And that's what the entire collective West is proud of. And just as the only thing I would correct, it's not just the Americans. It's the Europeans, too, who do that. And then you've probably heard Mark Rutte about five, six days ago bragging that, you know, in 10 years, it's going to be the Europeans who are going to be able to do that to Iran. It shouldn't be the Americans who have to do this. We have to take care of our own doorsteps. I mean, these people are insane. And I'm sorry, I shouldn't talk like that. But it's outrageous to me as well that this is the discourse coming. And I can only imagine how that hits you at home in Iran. Do you have, though, any kind of, you know, reply or response to this kind of utter European nonsense from somebody as low a life as Mark Rutte saying something like that? #Marandi Hey, just a very quick note. #Pascal The best way to support this channel is by signing up for my free Substack. You can also help with a paid subscription there, or you can get some of our new merch on neutralitystudies.com. Links below. See you there. #Marandi -- 3 of 15 -- Well, he is obviously going to mimic Daddy, and so we don't expect anything different from him. But again, when he says this sort of thing, which is basically saying that we too should violate international law, we should destroy civilian targets. I mean, they know very well that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful. They know that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has carried out intrusive inspections in Iran for years, that they've been in all of those buildings many, many times. And they know that there's no deviation from the civilian program. Yet they endorsed the bombing of it because of their hatred for Iran. And because they support the Israeli regime, they support the genocide in Gaza. It's clear as day what this is all about. I mean, in that question that I asked President Putin, I said that the same people who support the genocide in Gaza and who want to exterminate the Palestinians, now they want to exterminate the people who oppose the extermination of the Palestinian people too. Yeah. And that's how outrageous it has become. Of course, keeping in mind the fact that the majority of people across the United States—and I haven't seen polls in Europe, but I would assume it's the same—the strong majority oppose war, the strong majority oppose the genocide in Gaza. So we're basically speaking about these elites who are living in their bubble. But that bubble is about to burst. They are pushing our region towards a situation where there will be global economic meltdown. And then at the same time, they're pushing the war in Ukraine towards a critical point, because especially after they encouraged Zelensky to start targeting Russian infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, the Russians have begun hitting back very hard. And we know that the Russians have much more power and much more military capability than does Zelensky. So the situation in Ukraine is getting worse, and the Europeans are emptying their pockets to have this war continue. I personally don't think that the European Union will last for—how long was it? Did he say 10 years? I don't think it's going to last that long. I really don't believe that this is sustainable. I think that things are falling apart. Now, whether the European Union was a good idea or a bad idea in the first place, that aside, but it has led to catastrophe for Europeans because of the way in which it has been imposed upon the people, the policies that have been imposed on the continent by Brussels and by the United States. So I don't think that his threats are going to bear fruit. But I do think that Western elites are going to continue to create misery for people across the world. Because the next few months will probably be quite catastrophic. I think that the chances for war, for another assault on Iran, are high. And that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It will bring about catastrophe for the global economy and probably lead to the collapse of these regimes in the Persian Gulf that are in the U.S. camp. Especially if the United States starts targeting Iran's infrastructure, I think they're finished. And then simultaneously, you're going to see the Russians press their advantage in the months ahead. The months ahead will be catastrophic. #Pascal -- 4 of 15 -- That's exactly what we now need to talk about. Just like one more side note on the European Union: I was in a conference in Istanbul just a week ago, and we all agree with you. We're just not quite as optimistic as you. I don't think we will be blessed enough to get rid of the EU within 10 y