Veteran journalist and geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar says the U.S.–Iran standoff has reached “the razor’s edge,” with a fateful decision looming and consequences that could spread far beyond West Asia.
Speaking on Dialogue Works on Monday, February 23, 2026, Escobar argued that the escalation is being driven from the top, and that President Donald Trump now owns whatever comes next. “The whole thing was brought by the President of the United States himself,” Escobar said. “So anything that he does, any decision that he makes, it’s on him. It’s his personal responsibility.”
Escobar’s central claim is that Iran is no longer the isolated target Washington once imagined. In his view, Iran is strategically backed by Russia and China and embedded in the trade corridors and energy flows that bind Eurasia together. That changes the meaning of any military strike: it becomes not just a U.S.–Iran clash, but a confrontation that risks “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time” — Iran, Russia, and China.
And if the conflict escalates toward maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, Escobar warns the shock could hit the entire global economy.
A crisis with a name on it
Escobar begins with a reminder: Trump previously withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Escobar calls it “the Grand Nuclear Deal,” stressing it was agreed in Vienna and “ratified by the UN.” He describes the current moment as the return of a crisis that did not have to exist.
Now, Escobar says, Trump wants a new deal on terms Tehran sees as surrender. “Since he cannot have the deal that he wants, which is basically a capitulation of Iran, this is where we are in this fateful week,” he said.
Escobar described a potential diplomatic meeting in Geneva as a “last chance saloon,” but he expects it to start “on very, very nasty terms” after another ultimatum from Washington. Tehran, he says, has signaled it will only discuss the nuclear file — not its ballistic missile program and not its regional alliances.
That refusal matters because Escobar frames Washington’s demands as a three-part package: nuclear restrictions, missile limitations, and an end to support for the “axis of resistance.” Iran, he says, might talk about one item, but not the other two.
“The decision to attack… has already been made”
Escobar’s most alarming assertion is that Washington has moved beyond debating whether to strike and is now debating how.
“The decision to attack Iran, we still don’t know how, has already been made,” he said, citing what he described as informed signals and analysis “coming from the Beltway.” “So now we are in the how stage.”
He listed possible options: a short, intense bombing campaign in the style of Iraq 2003; a “decapitation strike” aimed at Iran’s top political and security leadership; or attacks subcontracted to Israel to provide Washington plausible deniability. In Escobar’s view, the U.S. could try to hide behind the line “it was the Israelis,” then claim it must intervene to “protect Israel.”
But he insists that tactic would not prevent Iranian retaliation. “It doesn’t matter,” he said. “Because the response from Iran will be there.”
Who is pushing — and why Escobar calls it “capture”
Escobar argues the drivers of escalation are not American national interests but the strategic priorities of pro-Israel hardliners and the system of money and influence behind them. He describes Trump as squeezed between powerful donors, the defense-industrial ecosystem, and a long-standing Washington obsession with regime change in Tehran.
“If he decides not to attack,” Escobar said, “his donors… the international Zionist axis… they’re going to go for him.” He also claimed “literally, practically all the nodes of the industrial military complex… want this attack against Iran,” listing weapons makers, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, media, think tanks, and academia as part of a broad pro-war machine.
Readers should understand this is Escobar’s framing, not neutral language. He is making a political argument about power. But within his worldview, it explains why escalation persists even when the costs seem obvious.
The “limited strike” illusion
A key question in any crisis is whether there is a “small” option that avoids a bigger war. Escobar is skeptical.
First, he argues that Iran has prepared layered responses tailored to different forms of attack. Second, he believes the region is too interconnected for a strike to remain local. Third, he doubts Washington’s leadership can manage escalation rationally.
Escobar’s portrait of Trump is brutal: a leader surrounded by “mediocre functionaries,” trapped in an echo chamber, consuming TV soundbites rather than intelligence. “He does not read anything,” Escobar said. In that context, he suggests, even a “calibrated” strike can spiral.
And the strategic math, in his view, is ugly: if Trump attacks, he risks a regional fire; if he doesn’t, he risks rebellion from the networks demanding he does.
“Less than zero” national gain
Escobar’s assessment of U.S. objectives is striking: he says there are none that benefit America.
“He doesn’t have objectives,” Escobar said. “The objectives are the Zionist objectives. And there’s only one… Smash Iran as a regional power in West Asia. Period.”
In his view, an unprovoked strike would alienate large parts of the Muslim world, deepen hostility across the Global South, and intensify confrontation with Russia and China. “What does the United States gain…? Less than zero,” he said.
He also suggests domestic U.S. politics would punish Trump. Escobar claims “MAGA is against it,” and says “70% of the American electorate… is against this war.” His conclusion: a war could turn Trump into a “lame duck” quickly and cost him the midterms.
So why do it?
Because, Escobar argues, the U.S. system is under economic stress and war is the empire’s traditional escape hatch. “From the point of view of an empire in extreme distress,” he said, “there’s only one solution… war.” War, in that logic, is used to change the subject, reset the narrative, and shake up global markets — even if the results are unpredictable.
The twist that changes everything: Russia and China
This is where Escobar’s argument becomes the “new axis” thesis: Iran is now tied into serious strategic partnerships with Russia and China, and those ties raise the costs of attacking Tehran.
“If there is a cherry on this incandescent volatile cake,” he said, Trump would be “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time. Not only Iran, but Russia and China.”
Escobar describes Russia–Iran ties as “very serious,” including military and technical cooperation. On China, he stresses something even bigger than arms: energy security and connectivity.
For China, he says, Iran is “a matter of national security” because it supplies energy and sits on the land corridors linking East and West. He points to routes increasingly used through Central Asia into Iran, then onward to Turkey and Europe — especially as sanctions complicate routes through Russia. Iran, in his telling, is not peripheral. It is central.
He also claims Chinese support includes “research ships” and “ultra-high-tech information… passed in real time,” and notes cargo flights arriving in Iran, alongside Russian IL-76 flights. Diplomatically, he adds, Iran is supported through BRICS and could frame any attack as a war against multiple BRICS states and the Global South.
The corridor map behind the war map
Escobar pushes viewers to look beyond the military build-up and see the infrastructure struggle beneath it.
He describes Iran as an ancient bridge between East and West, and suggests Tehran could become “the capital of a new Eurasian project… somewhere between Shanghai and St. Petersburg.”
That isn’t just rhetoric. Escobar ties it to real projects: ports, rail lines, and trade corridors that reduce Eurasia’s dependence on Western-controlled routes and financial chokeholds. He highlights the International North–South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), linking Russia, Iran, and India. He says his recent documentary — produced with Iranian support and extensive access — follows that corridor from the Caspian through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
For Escobar, corridors are power. And that is exactly why Iran matters so much. A strike on Iran is not only about nuclear claims or regional rivalries. It is also about interrupting Eurasian integration.
His slogan is the opposite of war logic: “Make connectivity corridors, not wars.” Or, in his updated protest line: “Make connectivity, not war.”
Hormuz: the fuse to a global economic shock
If Escobar has one warning designed to cut through noise, it is the Strait of Hormuz.
“If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked one way or another,” he said, “this will implode the global economy.” He links that to systemic financial fragility — especially the size of derivatives exposure — and argues a disruption could trigger cascading failures far beyond energy markets.
He also suggests Iran does not need a single dramatic shutdown. It can apply pressure gradually: an incremental blockade, “death by a thousand cuts,” using timing and tactics to disrupt flows, raise insurance costs, and shake confidence.
In other words, Iran’s leverage is global, not local. That is why Escobar believes Washington is playing with fire.
Iran’s posture: calm diplomacy, hard preparation
Escobar repeatedly describes Iranian officials as steady and prepared. He calls the foreign minister “self-confident” and “unflappable,” and says Iran’s security institutions appear psychologically ready for a serious confrontation.
He agrees with the interviewer’s point that Iran does not underestimate U.S. power. Instead, in this framing, Iran expects pain but believes it can endure — and retaliate in ways that make victory impossible for Washington.
Escobar is careful, however, to underline the human cost. He says it is easy to claim you should let an enemy “commit a mistake,” but that mistake will bring “a lot of suffering” and “blood.” War, in his view, is not a chess move. It is tragedy.
The crossroads
Escobar’s bottom line is that the world is approaching a decision point that could “seal what’s going to happen from now on in the major battlefield.”
He describes the battlefield in sweeping terms: on one side, the “empire of chaos” aligned with pro-Israel hardliners; on the other, BRICS and the Global South, building trade routes and strategic partnerships designed to outlast sanctions and coercion.
Whatever one thinks of Escobar’s language, the structure of his argument is consistent:
- Diplomacy is being squeezed by ultimatums and maximal demands.
- Military options are multiplying and may already be chosen inside Washington.
- Iran’s retaliation could expand the war across the region and into global shipping lanes.
- Russia and China’s backing changes the costs and the consequences.
- The deeper struggle is over Eurasian integration: trade corridors versus war corridors.
And that leads to his closing message: while headlines focus on bombing plans, a parallel story is unfolding across Eurasia — a push to build corridors, ports, and connectivity that shift power away from Western control.
Escobar wants readers to understand that Iran is not only a target. It is a hinge. And if Washington strikes it, the shock could travel far beyond Tehran.
The world, he suggests, is being offered two maps. One is a war map. The other is a corridor map. And which one wins may decide far more than the next battle.
“Make connectivity, not war,” he says.