Col. Larry Wilkerson: Trump Caves Under Pressure — Iran’s Capabilities Now Bigger Than Ever
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The drone incident near the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights the extreme danger of miscalculation in the absence of a US-Iran 'incident at sea' agreement.
- ❖Trump's military buildup near Iran is a bluff aimed at forcing a JCPOA-like agreement, not initiating war, but risks accidental escalation.
- ❖Netanyahu's objective is regime change or chaos in Iran, which the IDF reportedly opposes due to the catastrophic consequences for Israel.
- ❖Iran's missile program is its primary defense, making Israeli demands for its dismantling absurd and destabilizing.
- ❖US advisors have informed Trump that a 'quick and decisive' attack on Iran without risking a long-term war is impossible.
- ❖Economic pressures and sanctions are pushing Iran closer to Russia, creating a stronger anti-Western bloc.
- ❖The US government's primary motivation in the Ukraine war is to keep Russia occupied and drain its power, using Ukrainian lives as a means to an end.
- ❖China and other non-sanctioning Asian economies are thriving economically amidst global conflicts, emerging as the 'winners' in the current geopolitical climate.
- ❖Col. Wilkerson argues that Israel's creation and ongoing policies are the root cause of America's current geopolitical problems and the potential 'unraveling of the American Empire'.
Insights
1US-Iran Tensions Driven by Bluff and Lack of Protocol
Col. Wilkerson asserts that the current US military display near Iran is a bluff by Donald Trump, who is ultimately seeking a nuclear agreement similar to the JCPOA that he previously abandoned. The absence of a formal 'incident at sea' agreement between the US and Iran creates a highly dangerous situation where a minor incident, like a drone over an aircraft carrier, could quickly escalate due to miscommunication or miscalculation.
Wilkerson states, 'I don't think there's any chance in the world other than an accident... that he's going to order them to shoot. I really don't. I think this is all Donald Trump bluffing.' He also details his past efforts to establish an 'incident at sea agreement' with Iran, which were unsuccessful, leaving a critical gap in de-escalation protocols.
2Israel as the Primary Obstacle to Regional Stability
Wilkerson unequivocally identifies Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, as the biggest problem in the Middle East. He argues that Israel desires chaos or regime change in Iran and actively works to prevent regional stability, fearing a flourishing Iran or Lebanon. This objective is seen as a major impediment to any US-Iran agreement.
He quotes the Omani foreign minister: 'The big problem in the region is Israel. Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Egypt. The big problem is Israel.' He adds, 'What Netanyahu wants is regime change. Period. Or chaos. He'll take either one.'
3Iran's Missile Program is Non-Negotiable Defense
Demands from Israel, such as the removal of all enriched uranium and restrictions on Iran's missile program, are deemed 'absurd' by Wilkerson. He explains that Iran's missile capabilities are the backbone of its defense, serving as the equivalent of conventional military strength for a country with long, difficult-to-defend borders and numerous adversaries.
Wilkerson states, 'It's absurd. It's like saying, 'Okay, you're 90 million people with a long, long, almost impossible to defend border and you have enemies galore... and we want you to disarm.'... their main defense is their missile. And to take that away from them is to leave them naked in a very dangerous region.'
4No 'Quick Strike' Option for US Against Iran
Trump's advisors reportedly informed him that a 'quick and decisive attack' against Iran that wouldn't risk a long-term war does not exist. Wilkerson supports this, noting Iran's significant defensive capabilities and the high probability that any such action would lead to a much larger conflict.
Responding to a Wall Street Journal report, Wilkerson says, 'Bingo. It doesn't. It doesn't. It simply doesn't exist.' He estimates a '10% chance of success and you get a 85-90% chance of starting a bigger war' for even limited operations like capturing Iranian leaders.
5Ukraine War as a Proxy for Crippling Russia
The US government's involvement in the Ukraine war is not driven by a genuine concern for Ukrainian democracy or freedom, but rather by a strategic objective to keep Putin occupied and drain Russia's power. Ukrainian lives are being sacrificed for this geopolitical aim.
Wilkerson states, 'We are using the blood of Ukrainians to foul up Putin's machine. That's what we're doing.' He adds, 'It has everything to do with what Lindsey Graham wants it to have to do with, and that's keeping Putin occupied and draining his power. Period.'
6China and Non-Aligned Asia as Economic Winners
Amidst global conflicts and US-imposed sanctions, China and other non-sanctioning Asian countries (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia) are experiencing significant economic success. These nations, unburdened by military conflicts or punitive economic measures, are generating a substantial portion of the world's GDP, indicating a shift in global economic power.
Wilkerson cites a report showing 'the economic success of about 12-13 of the Asian countries... and how they don't have any sanctions on anybody. They don't have any bombs dropping... and they're the most successful economies in the world... 45-50% of the world's GDP is being generated by these 12 countries.'
Bottom Line
Israel's long-term strategy aims to keep the entire Middle East in chaos to facilitate its own expansion and dominance, extending its 'dream' as far as Somaliland in Africa.
This suggests that Israeli actions, often framed as defensive, are fundamentally offensive and destabilizing, making genuine peace or regional cooperation extremely difficult as long as this objective persists.
Understanding this underlying motivation allows for a re-evaluation of regional diplomatic efforts, potentially shifting focus from conflict resolution to addressing the root causes of Israeli expansionism and its impact on neighboring states.
Trump's increasing domestic political problems, including potential midterm losses and efforts to 'federalize elections,' could lead him to focus inward, potentially reducing the likelihood of him initiating a major foreign war.
Domestic political calculations can override foreign policy hawkishness, suggesting that internal US instability might inadvertently prevent external conflicts, at least those requiring sustained attention and resources.
Analysts should closely monitor the interplay between US domestic political crises and foreign policy decisions, as internal pressures may become a de-facto restraint on military adventurism, particularly in an election year.
The US government views Ukrainian lives as expendable tools in a larger geopolitical strategy to weaken Russia, rather than genuinely supporting Ukrainian sovereignty or democracy.
This perspective reframes the Ukraine conflict as a cynical proxy war, implying that US support for Ukraine is transactional and contingent on its utility in degrading Russian power, with little regard for the human cost.
This insight could inform advocacy for more direct diplomatic solutions or a re-evaluation of aid strategies, emphasizing humanitarian outcomes over purely geopolitical ones, and challenging the moral implications of current policies.
Key Concepts
Fleet in Being
A military concept where a naval fleet, though not actively engaged, exerts influence and poses a threat simply by its existence and potential. Wilkerson applies this to the US armada around Iran, suggesting its presence is meant to deter but risks catastrophic consequences if activated.
Lessons
- Question official narratives on international conflicts, particularly regarding stated humanitarian goals versus underlying geopolitical objectives, as seen in the US approach to Ukraine.
- Recognize the profound influence of domestic political calculations and special interest groups (e.g., Israeli lobby) on US foreign policy decisions, which can lead to dangerous and counterproductive outcomes.
- Advocate for formal de-escalation protocols, like 'incident at sea' agreements, in highly volatile regions to prevent accidental conflicts, especially when distrust between adversaries is high.
Notable Moments
The host highlights a drone incident where an F-35 shot down a drone over the USS Abraham Lincoln, with Iran responding by sending a new drone to monitor, underscoring the immediate risk of miscalculation.
This specific event serves as concrete evidence for Col. Wilkerson's argument about the extreme danger of miscalculation in the absence of formal de-escalation agreements between the US and Iran.
Col. Wilkerson reveals that US advisors informed Donald Trump that a 'quick and decisive' attack against Iran without risking a long-term war 'doesn't exist'.
This directly contradicts a common political desire for limited military options and highlights the Pentagon's realistic assessment of Iran's capabilities and the inevitable escalation of any direct conflict.
Col. Wilkerson recounts the Omani foreign minister's statement that 'The big problem in the region is Israel.'
This is a rare, direct, and authoritative statement from a regional official that challenges the prevalent narrative blaming Iran or Arab states for Middle East instability, providing a critical, contrarian perspective.
Quotes
"I don't think there's any chance in the world other than an accident... that he's going to order them to shoot. I really don't. I think this is all Donald Trump bluffing."
"It's absurd to insist on that. And Netanyahu knows that. He knows that. What Netanyahu wants is regime change. Period. Or chaos. He'll take either one."
"The big problem in the region is Israel. Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Egypt. The big problem is Israel."
"We are using the blood of Ukrainians to foul up Putin's machine. That's what we're doing."
"If you want to focus on one single entity that is America's problem right now, it is the one Harry Truman helped to create at the eastern end of the Mediterranean in 1948."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes

Col. Jacques Baud: What a US Ground Invasion of Iran Would REALLY Look Like
"Colonel Jacques Baud dissects the strategic futility of a US ground invasion of Iran, arguing that current troop levels are insufficient and such an action would backfire, exposing US allies and potentially leading to Iran's nuclearization."

Bibi DEMANDS Ground Troops As Marines Rushed to Iran
"Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for US ground troops in Iran, framing air strikes as insufficient, while the US rushes Marines to the region and struggles to secure the Strait of Hormuz against surprisingly capable Iranian defenses."

Col. Jacques Baud: Middle East on Fire — Is This the Start of Something Bigger?
"Colonel Jacques Baud dissects the escalating conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran, arguing that Western misunderstanding of Iranian culture and strategic duplicity have forced Iran into a position of necessary escalation, ultimately degrading the West's own strategic posture."

Pentagon Prepares For EXTENDED War With Iran
"This episode dissects the geopolitical maneuvers surrounding potential US-Iran conflict, revealing strategic leaks, Netanyahu's diplomatic sabotage playbook, and the true intent behind economic sanctions."