Iran attacks more US bases after Trump strikes key Russia-China railway link

Summary

Podcast Summary: Iran: The Latest
Episode: Iran attacks more US bases after Trump strikes key Russia-China railway link
Date: July 9, 2026
Hosts: Venetia Rainey, Roland Oliphant
Guests: Joe Barnes, Dania Dafa (Executive Director, Gulf International Forum)

---

Episode Overview

This episode provides an in-depth analysis of rapidly escalating tensions between the US and Iran, following President Trump's abrupt declaration that a ceasefire is over and the subsequent waves of military strikes by both sides. The discussion covers developments at the NATO summit in Turkey, the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, the dynamics of Gulf state diplomacy, and the likely future direction of the conflict and peace talks.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Declares Ceasefire with Iran "Over"

• (01:54 - 02:55) President Trump declares the ceasefire "over" in an impassioned exchange at the NATO summit:

  "I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum...If they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it. As far as I'm concerned, it's over."
  — Donald Trump [02:07]

• Trump blames repeated Iranian attacks on shipping and suggests US negotiators may continue talks, but he personally considers diplomacy pointless.

2. NATO Summit: A Choreographed Show

• (05:13 - 11:14) Roland Oliphant and Joe Barnes deliver an on-the-ground analysis:
  • Trump's dominating, theatrical presence.
  • The summit produced a brief, boilerplate communique prioritizing US interests, especially on defense spending (targeting 5% GDP), with little genuine debate or new financial commitments.
  • Announced aid to Ukraine is simply a repackaged sum, not new funds.

  "All of this theater and performance is about creating that sense of unity that the Russians can look at and go, do we really want to chance our arm and test the resolve of these folk?"
  — Joe Barnes [10:26]

• The summit was more about optics and deterrence signaling to adversaries (Russia, Iran) than substantive negotiation.

3. Details of the Latest Escalation in the Gulf

• (14:26 - 15:54, 17:15 - 22:56)
  • Iran attacks three ships (Qatari, Saudi, Liberian) in the Strait of Hormuz, including, notably, the Al Raqayat, a Qatari LNG tanker—a first since Qatar began mediating US-Iran talks.
  • The US responds with airstrikes on at least 80 Iranian targets; Iran retaliates with what it claims are strikes on 85 US military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, though many details remain unverified.
  • The US Treasury revokes Iran's oil sanctions waiver in response, potentially crippling a key incentive for peace.

4. In-Depth Gulf and Regional Analysis with Dania Dafa

• Structural flaws in the US-Iran MOU:

  "There's a structural problem when it comes to this MOU agreement because the Iranians believe that they have control over the Strait of Hormuz...the MOU really doesn't hold from both sides perspectives."
  — Dania Dafa [15:55]

• On Qatar’s role as mediator:

  "When this war started, the Qataris were very clear that they are not going to be mediators if they're going to be caught in the crossfire...it’ll be very interesting to see how the Qataris respond, especially that their ships have been attacked."
  — Dania Dafa [17:33]

• Gulf states’ strategic concerns:
  • Primary focus: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for economic survival
  • Relief at US assertiveness against Iran but frustration at being drawn into war

  "The Strait of Hormuz is the most strategic issue when it comes to this war. It's more important than a nuclear issue or any other file when it comes to Iran."
  — Dania Dafa [19:24]

• Gulf states’ options and constraints:
  • Carrots (financial incentives) and sticks (deterrence/force) have both failed with Iran.
  • Gulf states remain unwilling to pursue full-scale war, prefer stability, but have few good options as Iran's asymmetric tactics continue.

  "Iran perceives itself as the winner of this war. It survived it...it saw that it could implement costs on the international economy and that Trump was risk averse..."
  — Dania Dafa [22:56]

5. Prospects and Predictions

• Possible Gulf state responses:
  • Strengthened military escorts in shipping lanes considered; potential greater Western/naval presence in the region.
• Outlook on escalation:
  • Iran threatens to close not just the Strait of Hormuz but also the Bab El Mandeb, and to attack neighboring oil infrastructure if US strikes continue.
  • Gulf states seen as increasingly boxed in, seeking a fragile middle ground between active warfare and complete submission to Iranian demands.

  "If you already put the sticks forward, nothing changed, and you put the carrots forward, nothing changed, then something else has to change. The consequences have to be higher. But it is a very difficult situation and there's really no clear answer."
  — Dania Dafa [26:34]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump on Iran’s leadership:

  "They're sick people. They're led by sick people and they're vicious, violent people." [02:09]

• On media and misinformation:

  "The fake news likes to say how well they're doing, they're doing terribly."
  — Trump [03:23]

• On NATOs choreographed unity:

  "It's a show for the public, but it's also a show for each other and it's a show for the Russians and other adversaries."
  — Roland Oliphant [10:49]

• On the ineffectiveness of current strategies:

  "Maximum pressure didn't work...Engaging Iran through containment didn't work...perhaps they're thinking as an incentive structure for Iran to bring forth an economic interdependence strategy..."
  — Dania Dafa [21:28]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Trump’s end to ceasefire: 01:54 – 02:55
• Trump’s formal address at NATO: 03:16 – 04:30
• NATO summit discussion: 05:13 – 11:14
• Details of Gulf ship attacks & military retaliation: 14:26 – 15:54
• Expert analysis with Dania Dafa: 15:55 – 26:34

---

Tone & Style

The episode carries The Telegraph’s trademark blend of sharp, accessible analysis with on-the-ground reporting. The tone alternates between urgent (reflecting rapid events) and reflective, especially in expert interviews. Trump’s statements convey characteristic bravura and hyperbole, while the hosts and analysts strive for balance and context.

---

In Summary

This episode captures a pivotal moment in the US-Iran conflict as hopes for a negotiated peace appear to collapse amidst spiraling violence and diplomatic theater. The analysis underscores the complex interplay of military, economic, and diplomatic pressures in the Gulf, while expert voices lay bare the limitations of current strategies and the acute sense of uncertainty hanging over the region’s future.

Transcript

[Venetia Rainey]

The Telegraph. I'm Venetia Rainey and this is Iran. The latest. It's Wednesday, 8th of July, 2026, day 17 of the 60 day deadline to reach a peace deal between the US and Iran. But will there be any more talks? On today's episode, we're going to be looking at Trump's sudden declaration that the ceasefire with Iran is over. That follows a major new round of violence in the Strait of Hormuz. We're going to be getting into all of that for the Gulf expert and asking, how do we stop Iran's attacks on shipping?

[Donald Trump]

A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.

[Dania Dafa]

Today, President Trump says Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the attacks.

[Donald Trump]

The Pentagon is weighing a takeover of

[Roland Oliphant]

that island as a way to force

[Donald Trump]

the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran begged for this ceasefire and we all know it.

[Joe Barnes]

The question before us now is how much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle east permanently?

[Donald Trump]

Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? Come on.

[Venetia Rainey]

But first, let's get all the latest from the NATO summit in Turkey. Everyone had been braced for impact with Donald Trump, and we didn't have long to wait. In an early morning fireside chat thing this morning with NATO Secretary General Mark Ritter, Trump quickly stole the show by calling Iran evil and a cancer that needed to be cut out. He went on to announce that talks weren't working and the ceasefire with Iran was over. All comes in the wake of Iran bombing three more ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which has clearly frustrated the US leader. Let's take a listen.

[Dania Dafa]

Mr. President, is the ceasefire over?

[Venetia Rainey]

Is the ceasefire done? Is the MOU dead?

[Donald Trump]

It's a very interesting question to me. I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum. You know what scum is? They're scum. They're sick people. They're led by sick people and they're vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it. As far as I'm concerned, it's over. I'll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate. They're good people. Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner. But they have to come back to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a waste of time dealing with them. They're liars. We make a deal and they If I make a deal with him, we have a deal, and he goes out, he talks, we make a deal. Everyone's agreed, no nuclear weapon. We make a deal. They go outside, talk to the press, they say, we never even talked about it. There's something wrong with them. They're cuckoo. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.

[Venetia Rainey]

Now, what that means in practice really remains to be seen. If Trump's chief negotiators are still talking with Iran, then does that mean the 60 day deadline is still in play? Or is it effectively dead in the water after such a bruising statement from the leader of America? Later on, Trump gave his formal address as part of the summit.

[Donald Trump]

I was there for one reason, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I call it we de Nuclearize Iran. And that's happened. They will never have a nuclear weapon. That stuff is so far down under a mountain. It's a granite mountain that collapsed on top of it. Take months to get it out. I think it's a tremendous success. Iran, and you see the oil prices are lower than they were when I started, and people like to say that. But look, they have no military left. Their air force is gone. As I said, their ships are gone. 159 ships are gone. They're at the bottom of the sea, their radar is gone. Everything's gone. So when you say not a success, it's a tremendous success. The fake news likes to say how well they're doing, they're doing terribly. They have 350% inflation. When the war started, they had like 6%, 5%. They have. They want to make a deal, but they don't know how to make a deal. And then they go around shooting ships at night. I don't like that. You know, they're dealing with very fine people. They're dealing with Steve Witkoff, they're dealing with Jared Kushner and J.D. vance, and they're dealing with Marco and Scott. They're dealing with great people, but I don't know, I think they're a little loco, they're a little crazy.

[Venetia Rainey]

Now, you might think that Trump was the only show in town at NATO. Not quite true. Today we also saw NATO hold that actual formal alliance meeting, you know, when they're actually supposed to get some work done on all of this stuff. Plus, the 32 world leaders gave various doorsteps speeches. We also had sideline meetings between Trump and the leader of Ukraine, Zelenskyy, as well as the leader of Syria, Ahmed Al Shara. Do listen to our sister podcast, Ukraine, the Latest for all of their coverage of today for that side of the story. They also have a fantastic interview with the Czech president about how to boost European security to deal with Russia. Watching and covering as much of today's action as humanly possible was my co host Roland Oliphant and diplomatic editor Joe Barnes. They sent this dispatch.

[Roland Oliphant]

Joe, we're coming to the end of this one. This is your. Is it your fourth NATO summit?

[Joe Barnes]

Fifth. Fifth or in a row at least.

[Roland Oliphant]

You're an absolute veteran. What do you take away from this one?

[Joe Barnes]

I think we've been hoodwinked a little bit. Donald Trump comes in all guns blazing as we said last night. He's giving it all about taking over Greenland again, reviving that call to own the Arctic island which is technically part of the kingdom of Greenland. And then suddenly we get today the Iran wars back on. The Greenland's mentioned again. NATO allies are terrible people. They've upset me. But then actually the atmosphere in the room is we're hearing from people who have been in there that he, that all 32 allies spoke. And then after that point he essentially took the floor again and thanked everyone for their, for their amazing, their amazing support for him and his, his demands to have them spend more money. So it almost feels like an anti climax. But that is essentially what NATO wanted. It was a whole exercise of damage limitation.

[Roland Oliphant]

Yeah, that's exactly what they wanted. And they got this really short communique. It's like six points. It fits on one sheet of A4. And it's mostly kind of boilerplate. You know, we stand with Ukraine, we oppose terrorism, we think Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb and we all want to spend more money on weapons. And point six is, thank you very much Turkey for doing such a good job hosting us. Which isn't really even a security point at all.

[Joe Barnes]

No, exactly. It's quite a mute point. And in the past these statements have been pages almost felt like reams of paper. But then in the Hague last year, they took this strategy where they essentially condensed it into a single page of A4 because they know that's what Donald Trump wants. He wants things straight to the point. It was all about his 5% of GDP spending issue. They didn't have a goal to reach at this time around. It was essentially the whole summit was seen as a review of their, of their movement towards this. And they basically got a line saying NATO allies are moving towards big clapping exercise.

[Roland Oliphant]

In a way.

[Joe Barnes]

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. What was really interesting, there's this NATO countries, well, European NATO countries and Canada had pledged to do $40 billion or euros. It's roughly the same amount of money these days to give to Ukraine. That has now become 70 billion. But actually if you do the maps, it's not changed. The only thing that's changed is the inclusion of, of the European Union's 90 billion loan, which 60 billion of that goes to Ukraine over two years. So actually they've taken an old 40 billion number, slapped on the 30 billion and then crunch them together.

[Roland Oliphant]

So they're repackaging existing money as a.

[Joe Barnes]

Yeah, so there's not, it's not actually 70, it's not 70 billion in new money. It's, it's, it's, it's a load of money that's already been there and. Well, yeah, it's, there's nothing new. And is that really a win for anyone?

[Roland Oliphant]

It's quite interesting, isn't it? The other thing that struck me about this, and this is my first NATO summit, to be fair, but journalistically, there's two sides to this coin. One point, it's been fantastic for me. I've made a lot of contacts. There was a, there's a bit more access than I actually expected. I've shaken a lot of hands, I've learned things. That's not, that's. But that's not material that is generated now for the readers and the listeners and for the actual readers and, you know, listeners and everything. To be honest, I'm wondering if we're doing them a bit of a disservice because a lot of this seems to have been just pure theater. Yeah, no, for sure look, massively choreographed. You know, they were only in there for about an hour, then they all gave speeches they'd already prepared and then they agreed to something they'd already written. Was any of this worth it?

[Joe Barnes]

Well, no. So the theory is, in the room, you've got 32 allies, you got Mark Russ as the Secretary General. He will kick off, he will then pass to the host nation, President Erdogan for Turkey in this regard. And then basically everyone has three minutes each to go around and they go around in a circle and all, and all speak. So. And that doesn't give you a genuine back and forth of conversation. And essentially, as you say, it's a choreographed pre written speech that is given. When we interviewed the Czech President earlier, we heard that he was speaking about a pledge by an idea by Norway to start sending, for sending extra air defense missiles and interceptors to Ukraine. That's not something that you can do off the cuff, that has to be pre prepared and you have to work out actually in theory. You ask your generals and your war planners, can this work? Does this. Does. Can I actually make this pledge or am I going to look silly?

[Roland Oliphant]

But that's it. They spent half an hour and I am pretty sure it was half an hour because I tried to time it. And Also there's about 32 liters, so it's about 1 minute per litre. Just walking across a stage so they can shake hands with President Erdian and Mark Rutter and take a photograph.

[Joe Barnes]

So we're just passing through a security barrier here. Thank you.

[Roland Oliphant]

I mean, I'm just wondering, what's the actual purpose of all this performance?

[Joe Barnes]

Well, that's essentially what it is. And like they take away one of its point one in the statement or the communique is the ironclad commitment to Article 5. All of this theater and performance is all about creating that sense of unity that essentially the Russians can look at and go, do we really want to chance our arm and test the resolve of these folk?

[Roland Oliphant]

That's really what it is. It's a show. It's a show for the public, but it's also a show for each other and it's a show for the Russians and other adversaries.

[Joe Barnes]

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly what it is. That is the NATO summit in, in five minutes.

[Roland Oliphant]

So there you are. Joe, thank you so much. I know you're going to have a hell of a job writing up the newslines and maybe a splash today, potentially. Thank you so much for walking us through that.

[Joe Barnes]

Pleasure. Thank you.

[Venetia Rainey]

Tomorrow on this podcast, we're going to be looking at Turkey's unique role in this defence alliance and why NATO needs Erdogan more than ever. And on Friday, we're going to be focusing on the future of the transatlantic security relationship. So don't miss those episodes. Lots to get into. And of course we'll keep covering everything that's happening in the Middle East. And let's dig into that now, because the background to Trump's frustration is crucial. To be fair, I think he's got pretty good reason to be annoyed. Iran has attacked another three ships in the Strait of Hormuz this week. We mentioned one of them yesterday, but we didn't have the full details we do now, so I'm just going to run you through it. So it was the Al Raqayat, a Qatar owned liquefied natural gas tanker that was struck by a projectile off the coast of Oman on the 6th of July. So that was Monday they put out a distress call from the ship's bridge. Mayday, mayday, mayday. This is vessel Arakayat. We are being hit by a drone on the port side. Top of engine room. Engine room fire and full of smoke. Unable to assess further damage. Now, this is quite significant. It's the first time a ship from Qatar who's been a mediator in the talks between Washington and Tehran, it's the first time one of their ships has been struck since right at the beginning of the Iran war at the end of February. We're going to get more into that with our guest today shortly. The other two ships was the Wedian, a Saudi owned crude oil tanker carrying Saudi crude oil also hit on Monday, July 6, and Cyprus Prosperity, a Liberia flagged crude tanker which was carrying oil to Fujairah port in the UAE that was hit yesterday on July 7th. So Tuesday, no casualties from any of these, but crucially, they were all crossing via that Omani route we'd been banging on about. So the south of the Strait of Hormuz, that is not Iran's official route. We've seen spats over this repeatedly over the last few weeks, but this time was a bit different. The US responded not just with force, which we're going to get onto shortly, but also by revoking a temporary oil sanctions waiver. So the US treasury cancelled that license that it had granted under the Memorandum of Understanding just a few weeks ago that had temporarily allowed Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and related products. Some have described this as a potentially major blow to the peace agreement. Then, of course, the US went in with military action. CENTCOM put out a statement last night saying, we have begun a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway. The US strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous and a clear violation of the ceasefire. The US has said it's hit over 80 targets in this latest wave of strikes and we've had quite a few of those confirmed on the Iranian side. So they said coastal bases and civilian facilities were struck in the provinces of Hormozagan and Masha. There were more strikes in Bandar Masha, which is southwest Iran, and apparently an Iranian soldier was killed there. And there were strikes in the Buhesha region in southwest Iran. So these are all clustered along the coastline along the Strait of Hormuz. Iran didn't wait long to respond itself and it said it targeted 85 US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. That's according to the irgc. Impossible to verify that number or for that matter the US number, but clearly there's a tit for tat element to the Iranian response here. Kuwait said it intercepted two ballistic missiles and 13 drones overnight. That's according to its Defence Ministry. No injuries. I haven't seen an official statement from Bahrain confirming what was intercepted or in fact hit. Then this morning, Trump declares the ceasefire is over. And in response to that, Iran lays out the steps that it's going to take if attacks on the Islamic Republic continue. It says first it will stop all oil, leaving both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab El Mandeb Strait. Now that's the choke point on the other side of the Gulf that links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. They said they would then start to destroy neighbouring countries oil infrastructure. This plan was published by the semi official Fars News Agency. We're going to take a short pause now. Coming up after the break, we'll be discussing all of that with our expert from the Gulf. Welcome back, you're listening to Iran, the latest with me, Venetia Rainey. I'm joined now by our guest to discuss everything that's been happening over the last few days, Dania Dafa, executive Director of the Washington based Gulf International Forum. Dania, welcome to Iran. The latest. I just want to start by getting your initial reaction to this tit for tat violence that we've seen over the last few days, including the strikes this morning on Bahrain and Kuwait.

[Dania Dafa]

Sadly, there's a structural problem when it comes to this MOU agreement because the Iranians believe that they have control over the Strait of Hormuz. And actually when you read the mou, it's not worded in a way that's very clear. The fact is though, the MOU does say that there should be a rite of passage and that would be allowed in exchange for Iran sanctions lifted off Iranian oil. But the issue is, after the MOU was signed, the US has been trying to, in some ways unravel Iranian leverage. So they tried to do that in Lebanon, making a deal with the Lebanese government. And they've also tried to do that with the Strait of Hormuz by changing the passageways onto the Omani side. And so the Iranians obviously see the Strait of Hormuz as a critical component of their leverage when it comes to its asymmetric warfare. So structurally speaking, Based on Iranian assumption and based on US Assumption, the MOU really doesn't hold from both sides perspectives. And now what you see was a manifestation of that, of hostilities which seemed inevitable.

[Venetia Rainey]

It does feel inevitable, doesn't it? And we've been here a couple of times over the last few weeks. What feels a bit different this time is that the Iranians struck a Qatari oil tanker, which I don't believe they've done since the beginning of the war. Qatar, technically an ally of Iran, they've been helping with negotiations. How significant is that?

[Dania Dafa]

I would say that Qatar is not really an ally of Iran, but has pragmatic relations with Iran, more of an ally to the US but this is a problem and I'll tell you why. Because from the Qatari perspective, when this war started, the Qataris were very clear that they are not going to be mediators if they're going to be caught in the crossfire. And as you may be aware that as developments changed and the Qataris stopped getting struck by Iran, the Qataris got involved into the mediation process, which I guess brought some sort of results with the MOU in some ways. But I think from the Qatari perspective, mediation is not only a method of just de escalation, it's also an important security imperative that assists with strategic containment from conflicts in the region. And so it's kind of a win win strategy from the Qatari perspective. Now it'll be very interesting to see how the Qataris respond, especially that their ships have been attacked.

[Venetia Rainey]

Do you think there's a chance that they will pull out of negotiating between Iran and us? That is, if there are any negotiations to get to and we'll come to that in a second.

[Dania Dafa]

Well, it's hard to say what the Qataris are going to do, but if what they said early on the war is how they're going to move forward, then there's a good chance that the Qataris will make sure to make it very clear that as long as they're caught in the crossfire, they cannot serve Iranian interests in helping to de escalate or mediate between them and the U.S.

[Venetia Rainey]

trump has said this morning that the ceasefire is over. You know, he's fed up, he's frustrated, he's called Iran evil, a cancer that needs to be cut out. Do you think the news that this ceasefire is over, that the, you know, the peace talks, which clearly aren't working, are going to be canceled? Maybe. Would that be welcomed by the Gulf states?

[Dania Dafa]

Look, I think of course the Gulf states, what they want as an aggregate is de escalation, for sure. But also what's strategically important to the Gulf states is that the Strait of Hormuz is recognized to be a waterway that has right to passage because it's critically important for many of the Gulf states economies to be able to have the Strait of Hormuz open. I mean, the Strait of Hormuz is the most strategic issue when it comes to this war. It's more important than a nuclear issue or any other file when it comes to Iran. And so in some ways, from the perspective of the Gulf states, yes, I'm sure there's a relief that the US Is responding aggressively to Iran's violations to their right of passage. But of course, there is a big disdain in Gulf capitals about why this war started in the first place. That opened up Pandora's box that put them in this very difficult situation.

[Venetia Rainey]

You said that the Gulf states overall want to get to de escalation. Is there any kind of consensus growing about how to reach that de escalation? As you say, they want us to respond with force to their attempts to use their own shipping routes close to the Omani route, Omani territorial waters. Why on earth shouldn't they be allowed to send ships through those routes? We spoke to someone from Bahrain a couple of weeks ago who said that some Gulf states would welcome a full restart of the war and that that's the only way that this issue will be solved. Where do you think Gulf states are at on this issue at the moment?

[Dania Dafa]

Well, the Gulf states are in a quagmire. Of course, they don't want instability and war in the region, but they also want a respect for their sovereignty because, you know, they have to have some form of deterrence. They were literally attacked. We had nine states attacked by Iran when the US And Israel attacked Iran. And, you know, Israel, I think, has suffered a lot less consequences than the Gulf states have suffered in this war. I think, you know, what the Gulf states want is that Iran has a level of deterrence when it comes to attacking them and disrupting the Strait of Hormuz free passage. Right now, you know, you can't go back to pre February 28th era. And so we have to see moving forward, let's say if there's a degree of stability. What the Gulf states are looking for is they realized that, okay, maximum pressure didn't work with Iran. Engaging Iran through containment didn't work. So perhaps they're thinking as an incentive structure for Iran to bring forth an economic interdependence strategy that could be used as a leverage for bringing forward stability, peace, and also the right of passage and dealing with some of the security files, such as the Iranian proxies from Iraq that had a lot of the attacks that happened on the Gulf states came from proxy forces and of course the missiles and drones.

[Venetia Rainey]

Do you think financial incentives are going to work, though? I mean, there were plenty of them in the Memorandum of Understanding, right? I mean, so many that a lot of commentators in the Middle east and in America were furious about Trump giving too many financial incentives to Iran. I note that the GCC Secretary General has denounced the attacks this morning on Bahrain and Kuwait in the strongest terms, calling them a blatant assault on the sovereignty of the countries. But it just feels like words and financial incentives potentially just no longer cutting it. Do the Gulf states feel that it might be time, for example, military escorts for ships to get out of the Strait of Hormuz and more of a Western presence in that strait?

[Dania Dafa]

Well, you asked a lot of big questions. The problem is the structural situation of this war, right? Iran has very little to lose. The Gulf states have a lot to lose. Iran has this asymmetric capability to disrupt their economies and also strike them with drones and missiles. And so it's like even asserting power against Iran doesn't necessarily make it lose enough. So the sticks haven't worked. So they're thinking about the carrots. The problem is Iran perceives itself as the winner of this war. It survived it. It sees that it survived the greatest power in the world attacking it. It saw that it could implement costs on the international economy and that Trump was risk averse when it came to that. And I think that's the situation here that the Gulf states are facing. So when it comes to dealing with Iran, I'm afraid there's not a lot of military options if the US Is going to be so assertive and risk averse at the same time. So it puts the Gulf states in a very difficult situation moving forward. And Iran is in dire need of financial. So at one point it will have to somehow try to retrieve financial gains and funds for restructuring and everything else. So no, Iran is hurting now. Let's see how high or how low Iran's pain tolerance is.

[Venetia Rainey]

How do you think things are going to unfold in the coming days, weeks? Just look into a crystal ball a bit for us. I know that Iran has put forward this plan of how they'll continue to escalate if the peace talks don't go ahead. They've threatened to close the Bab El Mandeb Strait that links the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. They've threatened to destroy neighboring Gulf countries oil infrastructure. None of this is a pretty prospect for the Gulf. Are they powerless to stop this cycle? How do you see things unfolding in the coming days?

[Dania Dafa]

The Gulf states have the capability to bomb Iran in a lot of ways the same way the US does. They have a much more stronger capability than Iran with air power. And Iran doesn't have much of a defense system. So they could theoretically attack Iran and Iran could suffer some consequences. The problem is, like I said, they have a lot to lose. They have invested a lot in their countries, they're looking at their economic visions. They don't want to escalate and they didn't start this war, frankly. And so they've been in this uncomfortable middle ground, not joining the war and at the same time not submitting completely to Iran expelling the US So they've been trying as hard as they can to stay in this middle ground. I don't know maybe how long this will last, but I think sometimes Iran is playing its leverage in the Strait of Hormuz in a really tough way because eventually you are isolating the international community and you're isolating Iran in that regard. And I think it was obvious in the beginning when the US attacked Iran that Iran was in some ways could claim some victimhood. But I think if this continues, it could be isolation from the international community perspective and a more aggressive posture towards Iran because it just seems like there's no solution. If you already put the sticks forward, nothing changed, and you put the carrots forward, nothing changed, then something else has to change. The consequences have to be higher. But it is a very difficult situation and there's really no clear answer.

[Venetia Rainey]

That was Dani Adafa, executive Director of the Washington based Gulf International Forum. That's all for today's episode of Iran the Latest. We'll be back again tomorrow. Until then, goodbye. Iran the Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph, created by David Nulls and hosted by me, Venetia Rainey and Roland Olafe. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following around the latest on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, leave a review as it helps others find the show. For more from our foreign correspondents on the ground, sign up for our new daily newsletter Cables, or listen to our sister podcast Ukraine the Latest. We're still on the same email address battleionselegraph.co.uk where you can contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show notes. The producer is Peter Shevlin. The executive producers are Venetia Rainey and Louisa Wells.