(MOSCOW) – A discussion on Russian state television examined the war involving Iran, the policies of the United States under Donald Trump, and ongoing negotiations between Moscow and Washington.
The debate took place during the programme The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov. Participants included State Duma member Andrey Lugovoy, political scientist Dmitry Kulikov, and Trump biographer Kirill Benediktov.
Solovyov opened the discussion by asking what had actually happened in the current confrontation and criticised what he described as a decline in the professionalism of the American expert community.
He argued that the United States had shifted from regional specialists to general analysts focused on broader strategic frameworks. According to Solovyov, these analysts believed that the global political situation could be reduced to control over oil production.
He said the approach was reflected in Trump’s rhetoric promoting increased US oil production and energy dominance. In this framework, he suggested, American policy targeted regions such as Venezuela and Panama while also attempting to undermine Chinese interests.
Solovyov said that some strategists believed Iran could also be brought under control through a rapid strike aimed at removing the country’s leadership. According to his account of the theory, Israel would assist in such an operation, after which a popular uprising inside Iran would quickly lead to a change of government.
He described this concept as a simplified model similar to those found in discussions of so called colour revolutions, where the removal of a ruling elite is expected to trigger broader political change.
Solovyov questioned whether such assumptions accounted for possible Iranian retaliation, including the closure of the strategic maritime passage known as the Strait of Hormuz.
He suggested that policymakers had underestimated Iran’s size, its industrial capacity and its long term cooperation with North Korea. He also said Western analysts had not fully considered the scale of underground infrastructure in Iran, including factories, storage facilities and military installations.
According to Solovyov, some Western observers had treated Iran as technologically backward, assuming that a rapid strike would bring quick victory.
He said US leaders had urged commercial shipping to continue passing through the strait despite reported attacks on tankers. As an example, Solovyov referred to a tanker connected to US interests near the Iraqi port area of Umm Qasr and Basra, suggesting that the vessel had been destroyed.
Solovyov contrasted these developments with statements by Trump claiming early success in the conflict. He referred to a rally in the US state of Kentucky, where Trump told supporters that victory had been achieved quickly.
Solovyov questioned those claims and referred to reports that dozens of children had been killed during the conflict. He argued that such casualties could strengthen Iranian resolve and create symbolic figures that would motivate continued resistance.
He said Iran’s population of around 80 million people and its large territory meant the country could sustain prolonged fighting. He also claimed that the Strait of Hormuz had been closed, raising questions about future developments in the conflict.
Solovyov then turned to energy markets. He cited an announcement by the International Energy Agency that it would coordinate the release of 400 million barrels of oil from national reserves worldwide to stabilise prices.
However, he noted that oil prices reportedly rose by around 15 US dollars per barrel after the announcement, suggesting that markets were sceptical of political assurances.
Participants on the programme continued to discuss Trump’s leadership style. One speaker argued that the US president’s behaviour appeared impulsive and compared the situation to scenarios depicted in films by Stanley Kubrick, where military escalation is triggered by individual decisions.
The panellists also criticised remarks attributed to Trump suggesting that the conflict could be seen as a “tour” for the United States while it was a war for Iran. They said such comments reflected a dismissive tone.
One commentator said that when journalists asked Trump about responsibility for missile strikes involving Tomahawk weapons, he avoided detailed explanations and left the discussion.
The programme also touched on ongoing negotiations between Russia and the United States. One participant said the talks had been continuing for about a year but questioned whether they had produced meaningful results.
Another panellist suggested that both sides might be misleading each other during negotiations. He argued that Western governments often failed to fulfil their commitments and said there was little reason to expect a change in that pattern.
The discussion concluded with speculation that a broader conflict could become unavoidable. One commentator said policymakers should avoid what he described as wishful thinking and instead prepare for serious geopolitical challenges.
He added that the United States had advantages including geographic distance from potential battlefields and economic strength linked to the global role of the US dollar.
However, another participant warned that prolonged conflict lasting several months could undermine the existing global financial system. He suggested that tensions over Iran might eventually affect the stability of the international economy.
The programme ended with the panellists arguing that the current crisis could influence US domestic politics, including future election campaigns, particularly if American casualties increase.
Russian state TV show “The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov,” featuring host Vladimir Solovyov, State Duma member Andrey Lugovoy, political scientist Dmitry Kulikov, and Trump biographer Kirill Benediktov.
