So for a few hours this week, it looked

like US Iran diplomacy was effectively

dead. An Iranian drone flew towards a US

aircraft carrier. Iranian gunboats

chasing a US flag tanker in the straight

of Helmuz. American jets shooting down

not one but now two drones and a US

destroyer rushing in to escort that

ship. But yet quietly and almost

absurdly, US officials have still been

insisting that nuclear talks with Iran

are not just ongoing but will continue.

So today, I wanted to unpack why

Washington and Tran are still talking

even as they edge towards more sustained

open confrontation. What these flare-ups

tell us about Iran's internal politics,

and why the biggest risk right now isn't

about war, but about miscalculation, the

escalation ladder, and what we've been

told sometimes isn't actually always

what happens in diplomacy. This is the

global gambit. How you going everyone?

Welcome back to the channel where we

look at geopolitics, economics,

international relations. And well, we

jump around from Ukraine, Russia to the

United States, Greenland, and Europe,

but this time to the United States and

Iran. We're looking at what is perhaps

military confrontation and diplomacy,

but they're happening together. Drones

being shot down, these tankers are being

chased, but negotiations are still being

scheduled and held. So that overlap

tells us something crucial about the

current state of US Iran tensions. But

before continuing, I want to know what

you think. Is this a relationship that

is sliding uncontrollably toward war, or

is it something perhaps more stable

based on what we see from the diplomatic

side? Let me know in the comments below.

From my perspective, it's best

understood as managed confrontation set

of coercive military signaling running

in parallel with that diplomacy, the

backdoor dealings. Both sides testing

the limits whilst also trying to avoid

crossing them indefinitely. You see,

this isn't about hype. It's about

understanding how armed pressure and

negotiations can coexist and why that

coexistence is inherently fragile. So,

let's start with the incidents

themselves, which by the time this video

goes live, there may have been more of

and broader developments. Anyway, but

earlier this week, a US aircraft carrier

operating roughly 500 miles off Iran's

southern coast detected an Iranian

Shahed 139 drone approaching it. Now,

according to US Sentcom, the drone

continued maneuvering towards the

carrier even after deescalatory steps

were taken. Eventually, a USF-35 had to

shoot it down. Hours later, two IRGC

gunboats supported by Iranian

surveillance drones sped towards a US

flagged oil tanker transiting the

straight of Hormuz, something the

Islamic Republic has threatened to do.

Iranian forces reportedly radio threats

to board and seize the vessel, but US

destroyer with air support escorted that

tanker out of danger. Crucially, no

shots were fired. There were no

injuries. There was not even damage. But

taken together, these were deliberate

probes. And crucially, they happened

while the US is building up what Donald

Trump himself has called this Armalda in

the region. From carrier strike groups

to missile defenses, advanced aircraft,

all precisely to deter Iran from this

kind of behavior. Which of course then

raises the question What for? Why now?

And what next? Because there is a

paradox here. Of course, despite these

provocations, the White House has been

publicly confirming, almost

telegraphing, that the US and Iran talks

are expected to proceed this week. Even

more, US envoys have been planning to

meet Iranian counterparts that were

originally in Turkey to discuss not just

Iran's nuclear program, but also its

ballistic missiles and support for the

overall regional proxies. something that

Moscow, and you can find in a segment on

my second channel, is trying to engage

itself in. Donald Trump himself has

hinted that a deal is possible and tells

us something important about how

Washington currently views this crisis.

From the US perspective, this military

buildup is not about preparing for

allout war tomorrow. It's about forcing

diplomacy on the American terms. Again,

I international relations or diplomacy,

it's about optics half the time. And

Trump very much wants to demonstrate or

give the idea that the United States

controls the narrative, the direction of

these talks. Since the violent crackdown

on protests inside Iran, the Trump

administration has openly escalated its

rhetoric with Trump himself suggesting

that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali

Khan should be removed. Simultaneously,

the US has surged forces into the region

at scale rarely seen out of active wars.

the media cycles building up building up

the seeming inevitable engagement

between Iran and the United States. But

is it inevitable? That is more of the

question here. Trump has a tendency to

talk the talk, but then often not

necessarily follow through. Look at

Greenland. So this combination of

rhetoric and force is a classic gunboat

diplomacy negotiations backed by this

implicit threat of overwhelming military

power. But of course, there's problems

with that. Washington's demands go far

beyond nuclear limits, and US officials

have made clear that any deal would

require Iran not only dismantle its

enrichment program, but abandon its

ballistic missile capabilities and roll

back any of what remains of its regional

influence. Unsurprisingly for Tran,

those demands are absolute red lines.

Iranian officials have stated repeatedly

that civilian nuclear capacity, military

forces, missile forces, and drone

capabilities are not negotiable. From

their perspective, accepting those terms

would amount to not really a deal, but

to strategic s surrender, which at a

time when the Islamic Republic is at the

weakest it's ever been, arguably

speaking, well, it's it's a no-go and

something that surprisingly the Trump

administration continues to push hope.

Simply put, the diplomacy doesn't

collapse because both sides right now

see value in it. But it is operating

inside a framework of mutual distrust

and these maximalist positions which

make progress inherently unstable. Just

look at the efforts to engage over the

nuclear talks in the past. In other

words, this is coercive signaling lay on

top of diplomacy. Not a breakdown of it,

but always on the precipice of just

doing so. Now, if you're enjoying this

video, then do consider subscribing. I

try to go beyond what is said in the

headlines and offer a little bit more of

a nuanced take. Things like to be

presented very binarily, but it's never

the case in international relations.

There is a reason we call it the gray

zone, especially when it comes to

potential conflicts like this. Now, one

of the most underappreciated parts of

this story is what is happening inside

Iran in the perspective of what's

happening in the context of what's

happening between the US and Iran.

Several people argue that these

incidents may not reflect a unified

Iranian strategy at all, but factional

infighting combined with this regime

survival instinct. Hardline elements

within Iran security establishment have

long opposed any form of negotiations

with the US. And so when talked to in

these factions often attempt to sabotage

diplomacy, creating what's known as

facts on the water, calibrated

provocations designed to raise costs,

but without triggering open war. Iran is

very good at this. They're very good at

pushing the limits, especially with the

United States, to see just how much they

can squeeze out of them concessions

before then dialing back the pressure to

ensure that there isn't an actual follow

through of threats by, say, the Trump or

even Biden administrations. Tran

interprets Washington's maximalist

demands and repeated hints at regime

tank as an existential threat. And so

another US strike would not be a limited

punitive action. It would be seen as the

opening move in a sustained campaign

aimed at destabilizing or overthrowing

the Islamic Republic. Indeed, this time

around, I do not think that the Islamic

Republic is treating this lightly. When

they say that they will go to allout

conflict, they do genuinely mean it

because of their relative weakness to

say 6 months ago after Operation Rising

Lion or Operation Midnight Hammer. So,

it fundamentally influences the Iranian

behavior. Iranian leaders believe that

restraint invites that pressure while

defiance creates leverage. This is why

Tran has adopted what some describe as

this madmanstyled signling strategy,

issuing consularatory messages about

negotiations while simultaneously

demonstrating its capacity to impose

regional costs on anyone or anything.

Hanameese reinforced this logic in his

recent speeches warning that any attack

on Iran would trigger wider regional

war. A explicit statement that he's

never really made before. So this dual

track approach is not incoherence. It is

very much deliberate, a survival

strategy and one rooted in the belief

that the primary objective of US

pressure is that regime change. Although

reports from the American side

demonstrate that even Trump's not sure

how much of an immediate threat Iran

poses compared to say in June of 2025.

The danger therefore is that these

calibrated provocations rely on the

precise control from Tran. But in a

already crowded military environment,

that control can easily slip even for

something quite as cunning and

calculating as the Islamic Republic.

That's where things therefore become

genuinely unstable. Any potential US

military action against Iran, even a

limited one, will carry enormous risks.

What is that escalation ladder going to

go up to? The outcome would depend on

the scale, the targets, and the

political intent of the strike. This is

what we keep seeing deliberated in

conversations and press releases from

the White House. Trump has historically

favored surgical operations, leadership

decapitation, strikes on the IGC bases,

and attacks on the security forces such

as the Baz and police units accused of

repressing the protesters. But these

limited strikes could have cascading

consequences. Most of all for the

Iranian people. Military action could

consolidate the regime rather than

weaken it, bleeding those factions apart

and ensuring a solid base. Many Iranians

fear scenario similar to say Syria or

Libya. State collapse, civil war, and

prolonged instability. You have to

consider the independence movements of

Bitistan or the Kurds. Iran's political

and security institutions remain deeply

entrenched but not immune. So a

successful strike on senior leadership

could trigger a succession crisis

deepening competition between civilian

institutions or what remains of them and

the military security elites. Given

where the real power lies that could

increase the likelihood of a more

overtly military dominated state under

the IRGC, even more radicalized and

theocratic. Iran has made it clear it

would retaliate directly or through

whatever forces remain that would

potentially draw Israel and the Gulf

states into a border confrontation and

of course economically the risks are

global. If Iran targets shipping more

purposefully in the straight of Himus or

energy infrastructure in the Gulf, oil

gas prices would spike. That would fuel

the inflation, the strain fragile

economies, accelerate capital flight

particularly from the Gulf States and

intensify migration pressures towards

Europe. and see how this quickly begins

to affect everybody.

While with unprecedented US force

concentrations, Iranian harassment at

the sea and diplomacy still limping

forward, this margin for error is

shrinking. There is no way to play that

down. The urgency is there in this

environment escalation would not require

a decision. It only requires a minor but

potentially catastrophically

implementing the mistake. So where does

this leave us then? Well, as I made in

another video about potential scenarios,

the more that things begin to escalate

or we get nearer to perhaps our zero,

those scenarios perhaps become a little

bit more refined simply that talks

continue possibly in Aman or perhaps in

Turkey with nuclear issues prioritized,

the missiles postponed, diplomacy

somehow limps forward, but under this

strained pressure, perhaps Russia has a

relevancy here. Negotiations, however,

perhaps may stall, not because of the

strategy, but because neither side wants

to appear weak domestically. Trump's own

ratings at home are not good, and often

leaders will turn to foreign policy. But

in this case, it may not be that worth

it. A miscalculation forces a response,

locking both sides into escalation

neither actually wanted. So, right now,

the first option is still alive, but of

course, it is fragile. The Gulf States

are insistent on this being pursued and

because they don't want a collapse of

the diplomacy for their own

self-interests. They are a reminder of

how thin the line between negotiation

and confrontation has been but can

always be in any scenarios that we can't

immediately foresee. But that's it for

me everyone. Thanks very much for

watching. If you enjoyed this video then

do consider subscribing. Let me know in

the comments what you think about this

war and diplomacy running in parallel

not sequence. If you want more like it,

then do support the channel. You can

find links in the description to do so.

And I'll see you all in the next one.

Short update. Things are moving quickly.

Take care.