The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey

US President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s response to peace talks as tensions rise ahead of his trip to China, while global powers prepare military plans to restore trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz. CNA938’s Daniel Martin speaks with James M. Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

The United States and Iran are closer to a deal that would end the Iran war. James M. Dorsey tells TRT World why that does not mean that they are close to reaching agreement.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on thin ice when he declared this week on the White House press podium that “Operation Epic Fury is concluded.” Mr. Rubio’s reference to the codename of the two-month-old US-Israeli assault on Iran echoes George W. Bush’s 2003 Iraq war “Mission Accomplished” declaration, eight years before the president withdrew US forces from the country. Even so, both the United States and Iran are, at least for now, careful to ensure that a four-week-old shaky ceasefire remains in place. The question is for how long. None of the combatants -the United States, Israel, and Iran - likely want the war’s lay of the land to settle into either a slow-grinding war of attrition or a long-term no war-no-peace situation.

The good news is that Iran’s latest ceasefire proposal apparently includes elements that US President Donald Trump finds worthwhile considering, even if he insists that it doesn’t go far enough. The bad news is that the US and Iranian positions remain so far apart that a degree of renewed military conflict seems inevitable.

The gap between the US and Iranian positions is widening. Whatever understandings existed have vanished. Driving the widening of the gap are US inflexibility, the increased influence of Iranian hardliners due to the war, and the expectation that domestic and economic pressure will force the other to blink first. The question is whether the widening gap takes on a life of its own, with a renewal of hostilities making a return to negotiations in the near future next to impossible, or constitutes brinkmanship to push the other to concede first. Which way the pendulum will swing hangs in the balance.

The US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz threatens to backfire as the Trump administration and Iran seek to gain the upper hand. Iran assumes that US President Donald Trump believes it's a matter of days, or at most weeks, before the blockade's economic and military pressure compels the Islamic Republic to compromise on at least some of its demands. Mr. Trump has conditioned the lifting of the blockade on Iran putting forward a “unified” proposal that leads to an agreement on ending the war. The implication is that the proposal would have to differ fundamentally from Iran’s hitherto consistent position. That is not Iran’s perspective. On the contrary, Iran operates on the principle that time is on its side.

Will the Iran war gun remain silent by James M. Dorsey

It’s going to take more than a knife-edge game of bluff poker to get US-Iranian talks back on track. To successfully pull back from the brink, both the United States and Iran would have to fundamentally alter the assumptions underlying their negotiation strategy and what they hope to achieve in talks. That may be a tall order, particularly for President Donald Trump, who clings to the fiction of already having achieved total victory in Iran, an inflated perception of his negotiating skills and ability to dictate terms, and an overestimation of the powers of his office and country, and of what military superiority can achieve. Mr. Trump’s belief that the US-Israeli air campaign has rendered Iran militarily impotent, inflicted incalculable infrastructural damage, and that Iran is a one-man dictatorship rather than a multi-layered governance system reinforces his flawed perception of reality. On the bright side, Mr. Trump, like Iran, would prefer a negotiated resolution rather than escalation of hostilities once the current ceasefire expires on April 22. The problem is that neither the president nor Iran, both convinced that they have the upper hand, wants a resolution at any price.

The 1987 Iran-Iraq Tanker War offers important lessons for today’s US-Iranian stand-off in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The war erupted as a subset of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war after Iraq’s navy attacked Iranian tankers and oil facilities. The similarities between the Tanker War and the battle for the Strait are significant.

US embassies in three Muslim-majority countries have warned the State Department that the United States is losing the war of narratives with Iran. In cables to the State Department dated April 15, seen by Politico, US diplomats in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Indonesia cautioned that pro-Iranian digital influencers, bots, and memes effectively exploit US weaknesses, including restrictions on the embassies’ ability to respond. US embassies are only allowed to regurgitate approved, generic White House and State Department messaging rather than respond in real time to pro-Iranian social media postings with original creative content. The fallout goes far beyond Azerbaijan, Bahrain, and Indonesia, and is likely representative of much of the Muslim world and beyond.

If the US, Israeli, and Iranian armed forces have anything in common, it may be militant interpretations of faith as a motivational driver that demonises the enemy, projects war as inevitable, and obstructs, if not precludes, long-term negotiated conflict resolution. The pathways of the three militaries towards positioning faith as an overarching ideological driver differ. They represent alternative models for the indoctrination of militaries with faith. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is the easiest, most straightforward model. It also suggests that faith as a motivational driver has its limits.

US President Donald Trump has made Iran’s nuclear ambitions, alongside free passage through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the key to permanently ending the war. The contours of a potential agreement on the nuclear issue have been on the table since last June, when Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran during which the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities. The contours remained on the table in negotiations this year that were interrupted on February 28 when the US and Israel launched their latest assault on Iran. The reasons why US Vice President JD Vance and chief Iranian negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, failed to bridge the gaps between its position during talks in Islamabad a week ago have less to do with the details of a realistically achievable deal and more to do with the parties’ political needs. That is particularly true for Mr. Trump as Pakistan proposes a second round of talks in the Pakistani capital later this week.

Several factors doomed US-Iranian negotiations in Islamabad to end the Iran war from the outset. Even so, the failure did not immediately spell doomsday, that is until US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, his first response to the failure, announcing that the United States and other unidentified countries would blockade the strategic Strait of Hormuz. “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will reach an “ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT…. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!” Mr. Trump said in one of two postings. “At an appropriate moment, we are fully “LOCKED AND LOADED,” and our Military will finish up the little that is left of Iran!” Mr. Trump added. In many ways, Mr. Trump’s escalation of the Iran conflict may have been inevitable, given that breaking the stalemate in Islamabad would have required fundamental changes in the US and Iranian approaches to negotiations.

In anticipation of Pakistan-mediated US-Iranian talks In Islamabad on ending the Iran war, James discusses the prospect for a permanent halt to hostilities on Radio Islam.

A fragile halt to Iran war hostilities was always a question of who blinks first. Even so, both the United States and Iran are declaring victory. However, a careful reading of Donald Trump and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's social media postings suggests that the US president blinked the most. Iranian officials point to Mr. Trump's acknowledgment that the Islamic Republic's plan to end the war, involving ten points, which the president earlier rejected, was "a workable basis on which to negotiate." In return, Iran has agreed to halt attacks on Israel and the Gulf states and to open the strategic Strait of Hormuz under continued Iranian control. Even so, there is no indication that the gap between US and Iranian demands has narrowed. Narrowing the gap will require significant compromise by both parties. Yet, fresh out of the starting block, Mr. Trump’s acceptance of the Iranian plan as a negotiating framework is an initial Iranian success with a caveat.

On this edition of Parallax Views, James M. Dorsey discusses the Iran War's potential consequences for the United States, Europe, the Gulf States, Israel, and Iran itself.

Three months into the new year, 2026 is emerging as a year of potentially serious setbacks for US President Donald Trump. Trapped in an expanding Iran war with no good exit strategy, Mr. Trump risks not only losing this November’s mid-term elections. He’s also at risk losing key pillars of his far-right European support base.

James discusses on TRT World what happens of US President Donald Trump unilaterally ends US involvement in the Iran war.

The Gulf states, rather than Iran, may shape the next phase of the war. With Yemen’s Houthi rebels entering the war and threatening to close Bab al Mandab, the crucial waterway that links the Suez Canal with the Indian Ocean, Saudi Arabia, alongside the United Arab Emirates, may feel that their defensive posture is no longer sustainable. If so, the Gulf states, rather than the United States and Israel, could emerge as the players capable of forcing Iran to rethink its strategy of attempting to increase pressure on US President Donald Trump to negotiate an end to the war that does not involve the Islamic Republic’s surrender.

James discusses recent developments in the Iran war on Radio Islam.

The US-Israeli war against Iran has scholars, journalists, and pundits comparing the conflagration to Britain, France, and Israel’s invasion of Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal after President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the strategic waterway 70 years ago. The jury is out on whether Iran is America’s Suez. The answer is probably Yo, yes, and no. History rendered the Suez war a symbol of the demise of the British and French colonial empires or, in the words of British historian Corelli Barnett, the “last thrash of empire.” US pressure and the Soviet Union’s threat to come to Egypt’s aid forced Britain, France, and Israel to accept a humiliating ceasefire and withdraw their troops. The similarities between Suez and Iran are glaring, but the differences are likely to count the most.

For the Gulf states, US President Donald Trump’s potential deal to end the Iran war threatens to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Gulf states would welcome ending a conflict that has jeopardised their economic diversification and development plans, shattered perceptions of the Gulf as a wealthy island of stability that hosts global transportation and finance hubs and data centres, and has seriously damaged oil and gas installations that remain the backbone of their economies. It would also spare them from having to retaliate against Iran for its missile and drone attacks more aggressively. On the other hand, the Gulf states fear that whatever deal Mr. Trump may conclude will fail to remove Iran as an imminent threat.

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran is about to escalate with no exit strategy in sight. Several factors are pushing the combatants toward escalation:  US President Donald Trump cannot credibly declare victory and an end to the war as long as Iran controls passage through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.  Israel signalled its intent to emasculate Iran militarily and economically for years to come with this week’s assassination of five top Iranian officials and an attack on the Islamic Republic’s South Pars Gas field.  Iran, determined to prolong the war in the belief that it has the longest breath and ability to absorb body blows, has vowed to retaliate for the Israeli actions in ways that inevitably will spark an escalation of the hostilities

Since returning to the Oval Office in January of last year, US President Donald Trump has changed global diplomacy, placing himself at the centre of international relations. Countries manoeuvred to stay in Mr. Trump’s good books and avoid becoming targets of his ire. However, Mr. Trump’s success may be running out of steam with America’s European and Asian allies refusing to heed the president’s call to help secure shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

President Donald Trump would be well advised to learn the lessons of the last time the United States sought to protect Gulf shipping by escorting oil tankers in the region’s waters. In 1987, the United States escorted Kuwaiti vessels that the Gulf state had reflagged with the US Stars and Stripes to allow the US Navy to legally protect them during the Tanker War, a facet of the Iran-Iraq war in which both sides attacked shipping. I stood on the bridge of the USS Fox, a destroyer, accompanying the first reflagged vessel, the MV Bridgeton, one of the world’s largest tankers, which hit an underwater Iranian sea mine some 135 nautical miles north of the Strait of Hormuz. The explosion breached the outer hull of the Bridgeton and forward cargo tanks, spilling oily residue into the water. No one aboard the Bridgeton was hurt. The incident handed Iran a significant public relations victory on a silver platter. More importantly, it demonstrated that naval escorts provide at best limited protection unless the protecting power controls the waterway. It also showed that warships are potentially more vulnerable than the vessels they are protecting. The 413,000-deadweight-ton Bridgeton steamed under its own power to Dubai for repairs. Had the 8,000-ton Fox, rather than the Bridgeton, hit the mine, it would have likely suffered severe damage and potentially seen members of its crew killed or injured. The incident and the course of the current Iran war illustrate the pitfalls of any US attempt to wrest control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz from Iran.

The United States bombing of Kharg Island, Iran’s foremost oil export terminal, suggests that President Donald Trump may realise that he has no good options in Iran. Without the bombing, any Trump declaration of victory would likely have rung hollow with critics comparing it to President George W. Bush’s 2003 Mission Accomplished in Iraq speech, after which the war continued for another nine years. Even so, Mr. Trump faces unpalatable choices that don’t include the falling silent of the guns at a time of his choosing, despite the death and destruction wrought by the US and Israeli militaries.

James discusses the Iran war on RTHK.

The question is not if but when US President Donald Trump will unilaterally declare victory in the Iran war. The problem is that it takes three to tango. Both Israel and Iran would have to agree, and both have little interest in ending the war any time soon.

Iran has named Mojtaba Khamenei as its new supreme leader after the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, in a US-Israeli strike — a move that could reshape the country’s political future and its relations with Washington. The appointment comes despite strong opposition from Donald Trump, who had previously said the younger Khamenei would be “unacceptable” as Iran’s next leader and suggested the United States should have a say in the succession. So, who exactly is Mojtaba Khamenei? And with Washington openly opposed to his leadership, could his appointment push tensions between Iran and the US to an even more dangerous level? On The Big Story, Hongbin Jeong speaks with Dr James M. Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, to find out more.

Iran may have played into Israel and the United States’ hands by firing drones and missiles at Azerbaijan and Turkey. Beyond risking sucking Turkey and Azerbaijan into the Iran war, the attacks could boost efforts to spark ethnic uprisings in Iran, even though US President Donald Trump, in an apparent 180-degree turn-around, this weekend threw cold water on initial Israeli and US plans to encourage ethnic insurgencies. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Mr. Trump said he had “ruled out” encouraging Kurdish groups from entering the fight with the Iranian government. “They’re willing to go in, but we really—I’ve told them I don’t want them to go in. The war is complicated enough without having, getting the Kurds involved,” Mr. Trump said. It was unclear if Mr. Trump’s about face would force Israel, to fall into line. Israel has maintained long-standing relations with Iranian Kurdish and other armed ethnic groups in the Islamic Republic. The Iranian attack came as US and Israeli warplanes targeted military, security, and intelligence bases in a swath of land that stretches from the Azerbaijan-Iran border to Kurdish-populated areas near Iraq. Twenty per cent of all bombings have focussed on Kurdish and Azeri areas of Iran. Mr. Trump’s turn-around appeared to be at odds with the pattern of Israeli and US bombings, which potentially create an environment conducive to ethnic insurgencies, starting with Kurdish and Azeri-populated areas. The bombing campaign “suggests the (Israeli and US) intent is to facilitate Iranian government loss of control in restive regions of Iran,” insisted Robert S. Ford, a former US ambassador to Algeria and Syria.

The Middle East tinderbox was struck ablaze on Saturday when the US and Israel launched air strikes on Iran. How might this conflict shape the power dynamics in Tehran as well as the broader region? BFM 89.9 discusses the stakes at play with Middle East expert Dr. James M. Dorsey.

Iran is challenging the might-is-right cornerstone of Donald Trump’s foreign policy by refusing to bow to the US president’s demands and fighting a war that within hours expanded across the Middle East. In doing so, Iran is going where no other country, including Venezuela and NATO ally Denmark has been willing to go when threatened with military force if they did not accept Mr. Trump’s demands. Iran was betting that Mr. Trump would want a quick strike against Iran that would not entangle the United States in a protracted conflict and potentially force it to put boots on the ground. It was a miscalculation. Nevertheless, it was a risk Iran willingly shouldered. Joined by Israel in the attack on Iran, Mr. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu have suggested that regime change was the attack’s goal. Mr. Trump has acknowledged that achieving that goal could involve protracted hostilities in which US troops may be killed. Mr. Khamenei was killed on the first day of the US and Israeli strikes. So were other officials, including the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, who was appointed by Mr. Khamenei. Even so, it would be premature for the United States and Israel to declare victory. Mr. Khamenei’s death does not mean the collapse of the regime.

James discusses on Radio Islam the Iranian-US standoff, Iran’s ethnic challenges and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel.

James discusses on BFM 89.9 the prospects for a diplomatic path to prevent US-Iranian tensions from boiling over.

James discusses on CNA938 what this week’s Board of Peace meeting in Washington means for Gaza and US President Donald Trump’s ambition to control, if not replace the United Nations as the worlds’ foremost peacemaker.

It’s crunch time when Donald Trump’s Board of Peace meets in Washington this week to finalise the implementation of the second phase of the president’s Gaza ceasefire plan.

James discusses on Radio Islam this week’s anxiously awaited White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, next week’s Board of Peace gathering in Washington focussed on Gaza, and the future of US-Israeli military relations.

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest James M. Dorsey, independent journalist and scholar at The Turbulent World Substack, breaks down the latest developments shaping the Middle East. We start with the high-stakes U.S.-Iran talks, where Dorsey explains the deep mistrust between Washington and Tehran, the obstacles to a deal, and why, despite tensions, he doubts Trump seeks a full-scale war. We explore what military action against Iran could mean for the Gulf States, Turkey, and the Caucasus, and the broader question of regional stability. Next, we analyse Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, D.C., his fraught relationship with Trump, and what’s at stake politically for Israel as elections approach. Dorsey explains what Netanyahu likely seeks from the former president on Iran and why mutual distrust may be defining their interactions. In the latter half, we dive into the rising rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, examining shifts in Saudi regional strategy, the UAE’s backing of militias and separatists, and the potential dangers this poses across North Africa, especially in Sudan. We also discuss the UAE’s growing closeness with Israel, Qatar’s positioning in the Saudi-UAE rivalry, and what these dynamics reveal about the future of Middle East geopolitics.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting this week with US President Donald Trump could determine war and peace in Iran and Gaza and the immediate fate of the West Bank.

James discusses the US-Iranian talks, the Saudi-United Arab Emirates conflict, and the killing in Libya of Seif al-Islam on Radio Islam.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has some advice for US negotiators in advance of Friday’s US-Iranian talks in Oman aimed at avoiding a military conflagration that could spark a regional war in the Middle East. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mr. Fidan suggested that the US tackle one contentious issue at a time rather than seek a package deal that addresses all US demands, starting with curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme. “My advice to our American friends is, close the files one by one. Start with nuclear. Close it. Then the other, then the other, then the other. If you put them as a package, it will be very difficult for our Iranian friends to digest and really process it,” Mr. Fidan said days after talks with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. Turkey, together with Qatar, has played a key role in attempts to avert a military conflagration as US President Donald Trump, threatening to attack Iran if the talks fail, amasses an armada in the Middle East.

A US military intervention in Iran doesn’t just risk exposing Gulf states and Israel to Iranian retaliation. It also raises the spectre of a regional war spilling over into the Caucasus. With no US or Israeli targets within its borders, Iran has threatened to retaliate against Israel and US military bases in the Middle East, a threat directed at Gulf states and Israel rather than NATO member Turkey. While Iran is unlikely to attack Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase that hosts the US military’s 39th Air Base Wing, an uptick of ethnic nationalism, particularly among Azeris, a Turkic group who account from anywhere between 16 and 24 per cent of the Iranian population, could draw Iran’s neighbours, Turkey and Azerbaijan, into a wider regional conflict on the principle of ‘you may not want war but war wants you.’ Militant supporters of Israel in the United States, like the influential, far-right, Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum appear willing to shoulder the risk. The Forum has advocated a US targeting of Azeri units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or IRGC, which the Forum describes as the Guards’ most brutal. The IRGC is among the prime targets that the US military has presented to US President Donald Trump.

Disarmament of Hamas is the next battleground on which Israel and the group will each attempt to shape Gaza’s future in their mould. The prospects don’t bode well for ordinary Gazans with US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace’s cards stacked in Israel’s favour. That is not to deny that Hamas either needs to disarm or be integrated into a unified Palestinian police force that maintains law and order in the Strip. Without disarmament as well as an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the introduction of an international stabilisation force, relief and rehabilitation efforts will remain hampered, and reconstruction will not get off the ground. The problem is that the Board’s implementation of the second phase of Mr. Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan is off to a problematic start.

James discusses Iran, Gaza, and the Saudi-United Arabs Emirates dispute in Radio Islam’s Middle East Report.

James discusses US President Donald Board’s Board of Peace, Iran, Greenland, and the world order with podcaster J. G. Michael @ViewsParallax.

James discusses Donald Trump’s Board of peace, the Saudi-UAE dispute, and Iran on Radio Islam.

James discusses the Board of Peace and Gaza on RTHK’s Backchat programme. To read the transcript, go to https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/the-board-of-peace-creating-a-new

[BFM 89.9] Over the past week, US President Donald Trump has floated a proposal he calls a Board of Peace, a new international body linked to Gaza that would sit outside the United Nations framework. Dr James M. Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies tells BFM 89.9 if this is a workable plan. To read the transcript, go to https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/board-of-peace-a-trump-dream-or-reality

James discusses Iran and Greenland

Images of the mass anti-government protests in Iran may be reminiscent of the popular revolt that toppled the Shah in 1979, but that is where the similarities stop. Based in Tehran at the time, I covered the revolution that was the Islamic Republic’s midwife. employing the kind of violence Iran’s current Islamist leaders are capable of. That is not say that hardline supporters of the Shah and senior military commanders rejected a brutal crackdown. On the contrary. Men like Ardeshir Zahedi, the Shah’s influential son-in-law and storied ambassador to the United States, Major General Manouchehr Khosrodad, the founder and commander of the army’s airborne wing, Nematollah Nassiri, the head of Savak, Iran’s feared intelligence agency, Major General Reza Naji, the tough Isfahan martial law commander, and Tehran police chief and martial law administrator Mehdi Rahimi had little compunction about killing thousands to salvage the Shah’s regime. They made that clear at a dinner hosted by Mr. Zahedi.