The USA Has No Idea About Iran | Nima R. Alkhorshid

## A World Misread: The Central Claim The central contention emerging from the conversation is stark: powerful Western capitals—most notably Washington—fundamentally misread how countries like Iran actually function, and that misreading is not a harmless intellectual error but a strategic vulnerability with potentially catastrophic consequences. The idea is not merely that policymakers make mistakes; it is that an entire foreign-policy mindset, built on the assumption that power can unambiguously remake other states to suit strategic aims, is unraveling. The exchange positions this as part of a broader shift in global politics—one in which traditional U.S. dominance is eroding, alternatives like BRICS are consolidating, and long-standing illusions about the universality of Western statecraft are being exposed. That diagnosis reframes current flashpoints. Ukraine and Iran are not isolated crises but symptoms: empirical proof that a “might makes right” doctrine, applied without sufficient cultural, historical, and geopolitical humility, produces blowback. The conversation insists this is not an academic quibble. It is a description of the posture that has guided U.S. interventions for decades, and it explains why those interventions have produced instability from Iraq to Afghanistan and why they now risk a dangerous escalation with Iran. ## From Soil Mechanics to Strategic Conversations: An Intellectual Trajectory The appearance of a civil engineer as a persistent and sophisticated voice in international-relations discourse is more than a biographical curiosity; it is illustrative. The speaker’s path into geopolitics began with a straightforward, visceral question: how to understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine when public narratives felt incoherent or contradictory? That curiosity propelled a deep, self-directed education. The result is a public intellectual who approaches foreign policy as an engineer might approach a complex system—by asking foundational questions, seeking diverse expert input, and being willing to revise provisional conclusions. This intellectual trajectory matters for two reasons. First, it offers a methodological model: sustained inquiry, cross-disciplinary engagement, and the humility to learn in public can open new paths of understanding for audiences otherwise left to polarized media. Second, it underscores how ordinary professional identities do not constrain geopolitical insight; expertise about how states behave can be cultivated through disciplined conversation and refusal to accept official narratives at face value. The channel that inspired this conversation became a laboratory for testing assumptions, connecting with veterans in varied fields, and surfacing insights that mainstream outlets often ignore. ## The United States’ Mindset: Might Makes Right One of the most trenchant claims in the discussion is that contemporary U.S. foreign policy remains guided by a civilization-scale application of “might makes right.” The phrase captures an operational logic rather than an explicit moral doctrine: strategic preferences are enforced through superiority in military, economic, and institutional instruments. The speaker aligns this view with realist critiques like John Mearsheimer’s and with historical documents such as the Wolfowitz Doctrine—signals that U.S. strategy, when unrestrained, seeks to deter rivals and keep potentially assertive powers regionally contained. What makes that logic dangerous, according to the conversation, is not only its belligerence but its blindness. The assumption that coercive leverage will produce predictable compliance fails to account for asymmetric costs, local social fabrics, and the historical memory of humiliation and resistance. The litany of post-9/11 interventions—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine—are portrayed not as discrete policy failures but as iterations of the same formula. Each intervention generated long-term instability, refugee flows, and political fragmentation that reverberate globally, eroding the legitimacy of intervening powers and strengthening alternative alignments. A further consequence is moral and diplomatic isolation. The U.N. voting patterns on Palestine and the evident international reluctance to rubber-stamp U.S. positions show that unilateral or coercive approaches are increasingly rejected outside NATO/EU partners. That isolation is not merely rhetorical: it signifies that multipolarity isn’t just economic competition but a contest over the legitimacy of different modes of international conduct. ## The Global South and the Rise of BRICS A central part of the conversation turns to geopolitical realignment. The Global South—exemplified by countries such as Brazil—no longer defaults to Washington’s orbit. A powerful narrative thread links this shift to the rise of BRICS and China: economic interdependence, diplomatic engagement, and alternative institutional frameworks have made nonalignment a more credible and attractive option. This development is not merely a redistribution of economic ties but a reconceptualization of global governance. BRICS, as the conversation frames it, promises a pragmatic forum in which diverse interests can converge around common ground—less theatrical than Western normative campaigns, perhaps, but increasingly effective in producing deliverables. The implication is twofold. First, U.S. dominance is losing its ability to coerce reliably; many states prefer diversification over vassalage. Second, the soft power deficit the West experiences—particularly in the Global South—is a function of policy outcomes as well as rhetoric. Refugee crises, economic disruption, and perceived double standards on international law have damaged hearts and minds. The conversation suggests that if the United States and its European allies want to reclaim influence, they must confront not only the material consequences of past policy but also the ideological presumptions that underpin interventionist instincts. ## Iran in the Crosshairs: Misread and Mismanaged The discussion gives special attention to Iran, portraying it as both deeply misunderstood by Western policymakers and squarely placed in a dangerous strategic dilemma. Analogies to Russia’s posture towards NATO are instructive: Iran’s leadership, like Russia’s, faces a choice between territorial-security bargaining and protracted confrontation. From the Iranian viewpoint, decades of external interference and sanctions have consolidated a political culture that prizes negotiation but also expects to be forced into self-defense. Two features are crucial. First, Iran’s social and military resilience is often underestimated in Western strategic estimates. The country has institutional experience with prolonged conflict—historically and in recent decades—that shapes its readiness to endure and respond. Second, attacks aimed at deterring Tehran may harden its networks of regional alliances and asymmetric capabilities, producing a spiral of escalation rather than compliance. In other words, kinetic strikes risk turning a problem of influence into a protracted theater of violence, with regional and global spillovers. Moreover, the humanitarian stakes are enormous. The conversation stresses that escalation would inflict heavy civilian costs and potentially reconfigure regional energy markets, humanitarian corridors, and refugee flows—long-term externalities that undercut any short-term strategic gains an attacker might imagine. The lesson is blunt: strategic miscalculation against a state like Iran carries the double penalty of moral catastrophe and geopolitical humiliation. ## The Crisis of Dialogue and a Modest Prescription If misreading and coercion explain much of the current instability, then the antidote is straightforward in concept though difficult in practice: rebuild genuine dialogue. The conversation laments the narrowing of accepted interlocutors in mainstream

The USA Has No Idea About Iran | Nima R. Alkhorshid The USA has no idea about how Iran works. This war will be its great downfall. Support us on substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com This video was filmed on February 27, 2026. #Pascal Welcome, everybody, to Neutrality Studies. My name is Pascal Lottaz. I'm an associate professor at Kyoto University, and today I have a very special guest. For the first time, I’m pleased to be joined by Nima R. Alkhorshid, an assistant professor in soil mechanics, civil engineering, and, of course, as all of you will know, the host of the wonderful podcast DialogueWorks, on which Nima has been working for the last four years, I believe, exploring international relations. He’s been talking with many, many people and doing wonderful work—work that has personally inspired me as well. He’s also been especially vocal about the horrible case that’s going on with my countryman, Jacques Beau, something I’m very grateful for. So it’s a great pleasure having you, Nima. Welcome to the channel. #Nima My pleasure, Pascal. It's great to be on with you. Finally, we get to talk—and thank you so much for your kind introduction. #Pascal I'm very glad we get to talk. We’ll discuss Iran mainly in the latter part, but I think we should start a little bit with your channel, because, I mean, on your channel you’re exploring so many topics and have so many wonderful guests. But actually, we just chatted a tiny bit before we started, and I realized I was never aware of why you started this. And, you know, as a civil engineer, how did it happen that you ended up in geopolitics on YouTube? #Nima When I decided to start this podcast and this channel, the main goal was to understand what was going on in Ukraine. At that time, I knew very little about Russia. I didn’t know who Vladimir Putin was, what Russia was about, or what the motives in Ukraine were. Why was Russia invading Ukraine? Those were the main questions in my mind. Another reason was that, all of a sudden, I heard the president of Russia saying they wanted to “denazify.” I thought, what is that? Nazis in Ukraine? Is Nazism still alive there? Who are these people? I always thought the Nazis were mostly -- 1 of 16 -- from Germany—maybe Poland at most—so how could they be in Ukraine? I was totally ignorant about it. I really had no idea what was going on in Ukraine. That was my main motive for starting the podcast. I wanted to talk with people who knew what was going on in that region—militarily, economically, politically—to understand the whole situation in Ukraine. Then, little by little, I got familiar with foreign policies, with what was going on in the foreign policy of Europe, Russia, and the United States. What was the main objective of the United States in Ukraine? And then everything started to grow, little by little. I didn’t want it to go that far, but it happened all of a sudden. Nothing was planned on my side—it just happened. I was learning, trying to understand. It was a huge learning process for me because I had no idea how the foreign policy of a country is defined and implemented. #Pascal So you basically fell down the rabbit hole and kept digging deeper. By now, what do you think you’ ve understood after almost four years of this? And you know, it’s quite a coincidence, because I’ve known your channel from a very early stage. I actually started mine around February 2022, when I began taking it seriously. I’ve seen what you’ve been doing and how you’ve approached it, and I’ve always admired that you had so many genuine questions—just honest questions for your guests. Now it makes total sense. So, where are you now with your own insights into how world politics works after these four years? #Nima I’m somewhere around what John Mearsheimer describes as “might makes right.” I think he’s totally right when it comes to the foreign policy of the United States. The U.S. foreign policy was the main driver of policies all around the world because they were the sole superpower. And all countries— whether from West Asia, Russia, or elsewhere—were influenced by it. The foreign policy of the United States is based on “might makes right,” and it doesn’t really matter how powerful other countries are. You have to keep them regional. Even if they don’t seek it, I think one of the main concepts of U.S. foreign policy is what was documented in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. I first got familiar with this doctrine when I was talking with Paul Craig Roberts. He explained what’s happening with U.S. foreign policy and why they’re doing this in West Asia—what’s happening in Ukraine, what’s happening in Taiwan. These are all pieces coming together in my mind as I try to understand what’s going on, a combination of what John Mearsheimer is trying to, you know, explain to the whole world—how it all works. It doesn't mean he agrees with whatever the United States is thinking. He's just describing the mindset of those people—neocons, neoliberals, the blob, the deep state, whatever you want to call them. The mindset is a simple calculation: might makes right. I think that’s still true, especially now, -- 2 of 16 -- in 2026, with the war in Ukraine going on for four years, and with a war between the United States and Iran about to happen. You could argue it’s still the same case. It’s depressing, isn’t it? #Pascal Because we’d love the world to be a better place, and we’d love to believe that international law matters, that norms matter, and that individual countries matter. You know, the United Nations General Assembly—one country, one vote. Okay, we’re all aware that the Security Council has different rules, but in principle, we’d like it to be like that. But the world isn’t. So how does it look from Brazil now, where you are? I mean, how are people there perceiving this spiral of doom that, to me, the U.S. and Europe are in right now, because they just keep getting more and more violent? #Nima You know, it’s so interesting that you mentioned the UN—the United Nations. There were times, I’d say the golden times of the United Nations, when they were capable of doing something, of preventing something. That has somehow disappeared from the scene. It’s not because of the UN as an organization; it’s because of the United States. After World War II, the U.S. was the sole superpower, and every country, before voting in the Assembly—even those in the Security Council— was somehow looking to the United States: what’s the decision on the part of the U.S.? Then they decided how they would vote. But the influence of the United States has somehow diminished over the years because of the rise of BRICS and the rise of China. Russia isn’t in the same place either. You remember, in 2000, when Putin came to power, Russia was a total mess. And, you know, it took Russia about ten years—from 2000 to 2010—to put an end to the conflict with Chechnya, with Dagestan, with those groups that were somehow, you know, working together with the CIA to destabilize Russia. But all those destabilizations have disappeared from the scene. And now you see China growing, BRICS growing, as a powerful alternative to what the United States has to offer. That has changed the reality of the U.N. The U.N. today is not influenced by the United States; it's influenced by all these powers. That’s why, when it comes to Palestine and Israel, you see the United States is simply alone. Nobody’s voting the way the United States is supporting Israel. Nobody agrees. Most countries don’t agree with the United States and its policies in West Asia. I said that to come to Brazil. Brazil is a huge country—look at the map, you see how huge Brazil is. Brazil is the most important country in Latin America, considering the economy. But Brazil didn’t have that much leverage when it comes to foreign policy. They weren’t that focused on foreign policy. But Brazil is in the process of changing, and the change is happening drastically because of its connections with China, with Russia, with BRICS. They see that the United States is not—well, I don’t know, you may remember when Donald Trump came to power—he simply went against the current president of Brazil, supporting Bolsonaro, the previous -- 3 of 16 -- president, and saying, “You have to do this and that,” whatever he thought. He was trying to force U. S. policies on Brazil—either you do it, or you get 50% tariffs on Brazil. The Brazilians said, “Go with the 50% tariff.” #Pascal Yeah, and by now, you know, we know that Brazil overall had it easy. I mean, Venezuela just got regime-changed—hundreds of people dead, the president kidnapped. I mean, it's kind of stunning, isn’t it? The kind of things the United States can get away with these days and even receive applause from Europe, which for me as a European is even more... I don’t know how to call it. It’s not so much surprising, but it just makes my stomach turn. It’s like all the things—all the speeches of these people, all the calling out for a rules-based order and calling themselves moral superpowers—and then they just go along with the most horrible infringements of international law. And they still pretend that everything’s all right. Is Latin America, South America, is Brazil perceiving that, or is it kind of, you know, that it has always been like this? #Nima You know what has happened in Venezuela? I think the whole of Latin America is under such pressure from the United States. It’s not just Venezuela—you see it with Cuba, and something may happen there too. It could even spread to Colombia. You mentioned Europe—what has happened in Europe? What has happened in Ukraine? Who’s going to pick up the pieces of Ukraine? It’s going to be the Europeans. And who’s going to take the pieces of Venezuela and Cuba if something happens in Cuba as well? You see all these people coming to Brazil. The United States, through its foreign policy, has put tremendous pressure on Europe for such a long time. It’s not just about Ukraine. You look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine—they’ve been devastated. One of the main problems Europe is facing today is these, you know, uncontrolled borders, because when undocumented people come to a country, they can bring huge challenges. Iran has the same issue with Afghanistan. It’s not just Europe being affected by immigration. When I went to Iran—I was there for 40 days, in December 2025—I learned that more than 12 million Afghans are in Iran, mostly undocumented. A country of about 91 million taking in 12 million immigrants in such a short time—that’s a lot. It was after the United States left Afghanistan. It’s not just during, you know—it was huge. And these are the consequences, the outcomes of U.S. foreign policy, as nobody’s taking responsibility for that. Nobody is willing to push hard against the United States, even though these policies are affecting us. Here in Brazil, it’s the same. There isn’t really an honest, you know, a working relationship between Brazil and the United States, because the U.S., under the Trump administration, wasn’t capable of communicating with the Brazilian president. And they saw no outcome—no viable outcome—if they tried to talk with the United States under the Trump administration. That’s the problem. -- 4 of 16 -- #Pascal So, like, the heavy hand of the U.S.—and along with that, you know, the complacent European states that go along with it, cheer it on, participate in these “coalitions of the willing.” Now they’re trying to do this again with Ukraine, pushing Ukrainians into the bayonets of the Russians, making this bloodletting all but inevitable, and then blaming it on Russia. And they call people like us “Russian propagandists” for simply pointing out that their actions have consequences too. How is it… You know, your channel is called *Dialogue Works*, and I love that title because that’s how I want the world to be. I want dialogue to work things out. But we see that the warmongers refuse