TEHRAN – In this exclusive interview with Tehran Times, Christoph Hörstel, founder of the German political party Die Neue Mitte, political analyst and former journalist, examines the evolving strategic dynamics between the United States, Iran, and the Persian Gulf states in the event of a renewed regional conflict.

Drawing on his long-standing analysis of Western foreign policy, Hörstel discusses the reliability of U.S. security guarantees in the Persian Gulf, the shifting perceptions within Arab societies regarding Washington’s role in the region, and the potential reorientation of Persian Gulf states’ foreign policy in response to perceived U.S. failures. He also highlights growing tensions surrounding the Abraham Accords, internal Arab political sensitivities, and the implications of U.S.-Iran escalation scenarios for regional stability.

The following is the full text of the interview:

 Many Western officials described the attacks on Iran as a “limited deterrence operation.” From your perspective, were these strikes truly about deterrence, or were they part of a broader long-term strategy to politically and economically weaken the Islamic Republic?

The long-term strategy of the West, especially the U.S., has always been to get Iran’s oil and gas resources under control. There is added value in this nowadays, as Russia is supposed to lose its export routes and China should somehow be excluded from profiting from Iran’s resources at market price levels. So they make it more difficult and more costly to ship oil to China.

Washington, in fact, wants leverage. They want power, for example, in exchange for a U.S. bridgehead for Taiwan. They want to arm Taiwan and use it against China. And if they have some pressure over oil resources, they hope they can get some acceptance from China regarding this, which China, of course, usually refuses.

Do you think the war changed the balance of power in West Asia in a lasting way, or did it instead expose the limits of American and Israeli coercive power?

“In fact, I think both. Washington came to know the hard way that its whole military setup is old-fashioned, as are its armament and overall strategy. The last big war they are still mentally shaped by is the Second World War.

At the same time, the shortcomings in Iran’s internal policy and the handling of dissent inside Iran do not keep the Iranian people from uniting under a serious threat and, of course, emerging like this as a very strong contender — both the Iranian government and the people — in the regional and global sphere.

Iran will not bow to any pressure, even in the case of a nuclear attack. That is the assessment of good American officers whom I consider valuable sources. They say that even if a nuclear bomb were dropped on Iran, Iran would not bow down.”

“And of course we understand the reasoning for this, because Iran knows that if it bows down once again, if it follows what Trump wants — or what other presidents after him may want — then total obedience is what will be expected from it.

So resistance must begin one day, and I think these are the days of resistance.”

You have often argued that instability in the Middle East is not accidental but structurally embedded in Western geopolitical strategy. How does the recent war against Iran fit into that broader pattern?

“To my analysis, the Trump presidency was effectively postponed from 2021 to 2025 because the hidden power structures governing this globe preferred a dual-strategy approach involving two war theaters: Europe and the Middle East.

Trump received a time window to take down Iran and establish control until the end of his term in 2029, when the European war against Russia is supposed to begin, according to Pentagon-related papers by the RAND Corporation, a leading think tank connected to the Pentagon. In one of their papers, they explicitly mention the year 2029.

Should Trump fail to succeed in time, then Europe could be accelerated — meaning the European war via Ukraine could begin more quickly. This, in my view, is the reason why we are now seeing escalation in that theater.

We see escalation despite the current lull in large-scale fighting. There is no major war at the moment, although once again the U.S. violated the ceasefire today and Iranian people were killed.

The truly serious issue behind all of this is that if Trump proves unable to keep the American people in obedient alignment with Israel, then the deep state will remove him. He will lose his position. And that process is already underway.

Americans are turning away from Israel at remarkable speed — mainly among Democrats, but increasingly among Republicans as well, especially Republican youth. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have mobilized many of them. They are turning away from Trump and from pro-Israeli U.S. policies.

And that shift, in my opinion, could ultimately destroy Trump’s presidency.”

Germany presented itself as supportive of Israel while simultaneously expressing concern about regional escalation. Did Berlin’s response reveal a deeper contradiction in German foreign policy?

“We noticed that the Merz government is somewhat more sensitive to changing public opinion in Germany than Trump is in the United States. Germans deeply dislike genocide and are aware that the criminal attack on Iran — launched for the second time amid serious negotiations and established timetables — is heinous, illegal, and something no ordinary German could approve of.

As a general rule, Germany expresses so-called ‘concerns’ about many issues, including genocide and the attacks on Lebanon. However, the political establishment understands that these concerns do not necessarily lead to concrete actions or decisions. These expressions of concern are merely intended to appease public worries. Politically, they mean nothing.

And in the case of Israel, they often carry the opposite meaning. In effect, the message is: ‘Look, Israel, we are criticizing you because we must do so to maintain our position in government, but in reality we support you — so please continue.’ This is the double message. In fact, concerns directed at Israel function as a form of double code.

There is also a deep contradiction in German policy, as in all Western countries. Many governments rule against the interests of their own people and their most vital needs.

This includes mass immigration, particularly from Syria; participation in anti-Russian policies in Ukraine; self-destructive sanctions against Russia; cutting ourselves off from vitally needed energy resources and raw materials; military buildup against Russia; preparations for war with Russia; costly climate policies without sufficient justification; suppression of cash payments; and increasing government control over the population.”

Has the Iran war demonstrated that Europe lacks genuine strategic autonomy from the United States, especially in matters of war and sanctions?

“Europe, unfortunately, is largely an assembly of vassal states. Germany is in an even worse situation — a completely non-sovereign country, according to official statements. This is not some kind of outrageous claim from fringe figures. No, this has been stated officially by senior politicians such as Wolfgang Schäuble, former interior minister and longtime head of the German parliament, as well as by Professor Egon Bahr, former consultant to Willy Brandt. He told me directly that Germany is not a sovereign state. Many others have said the same thing.

Unless all EU governments are replaced with more faithful, honest, and straightforward leadership, the EU risks losing its welfare, its global status, and even its internal peace due to the maximized influx of openly hostile immigrants, including from unstable Muslim countries, combined with hostile anti-Muslim policies inside the EU.

That, in fact, is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe for civil war. And our governments, including Germany’s, are fostering this trajectory. I believe this is what they want in the medium to long term.”

Do you think public opinion in Europe is beginning to diverge from official government positions regarding Israel, Iran, and the future of Western interventionism?

Yes, definitely — not only on these issues, but on many others as well. This includes mass migration, participation in anti-Russian policies in Ukraine, the self-destructive sanctions against Russia, military buildup against Russia, costly war preparations against Russia, and expensive climate policy measures.

But one thing is very clear: Iran has gained reputation, respect, and credibility among Western populations. People in the West are beginning to take Iran more seriously and, in a way, to treat Iran more equally than before. That is interesting.

How do you explain the transformation in Trump’s rhetoric — from demanding regime change and threatening Iran with destruction to now claiming that he wants to negotiate? Do you think there is any honesty behind it?

Well, honesty in Trump is a very difficult subject because the guy is simply not himself. He is just following orders and trying to enrich himself. It is his own personal interest, and perhaps that of his family, that he is truly interested in. As for the rest, I think he simply does not care at all.

Trump is mainly echoing concerns coming from the American public and Republican youth. That is why he has slightly changed his wording.

The killing of Charlie Kirk — who helped Trump become president — proved extremely costly in terms of Republican youth support. Without Charlie Kirk, I do not think Trump would be president today. A new movement is now emerging and growing. Tucker Carlson and Douglas Macgregor are trying to limit the damage that deep state strategies and planning are inflicting on America.

These figures are not openly speaking about the deep state, but they are clearly acting against it. This represents a completely new mixture of political convictions.

Douglas Macgregor said something very important: that Americans finally need leaders who can be trusted. He argues that such people do not exist in government today — neither in the Biden administration nor in the Trump administration. If any of these officials says something, nobody believes it is true. Nobody believes the Americans will actually do what they say.

And he says that this is exactly what America needs: ‘One man, one word. Boom. It is done.’ In other words, policy should mean something once it is stated. I think that is very correct. America has lost an enormous amount of respect throughout the world.

If the U.S. and Iran eventually reach an agreement, do you believe it will produce lasting stability, or would it merely be a pause before conflict restarts between the U.S., Israel, and Iran in the short or long term?

That is a very serious question, especially coming from a sincere Iranian, and I must, so to speak, give you bad news. Lasting stability is impossible without honest policies and honest leaders.

Both the U.S. and Israel abandoned honesty in politics a long time ago. Even if there is temporarily a pause or a shift in policy, certain realities remain on the table. One of them is the greed of the Zionist and American establishment. They always want more and more and never seem able to stop.

At the same time, both countries are financially exhausted. They are burdened with enormous accumulated debts that they have no realistic way of honestly repaying. The American establishment today believes it needs control over Iran’s natural resources in order to maintain the high standard of living to which it has become accustomed. It does not want to step back from that.

Washington has also become used to forcing its goods and software onto other countries through military power and intelligence capabilities. Honest and fair competition is not its strength, nor is it what it truly wants, despite official rhetoric.

Israel’s extremely aggressive “Greater Israel” strategy — with ambitions that, in effect, imply domination over more than 90 million Arabs in the envisioned territories — leaves no room for peace or stability in the region before those goals are pursued. And afterward, peace would still be impossible. It would become a cemetery built upon countless Muslim deaths.

We must understand this reality. As long as Israel possesses nuclear weapons, peace and stability in the region will remain impossible. That is why we in the German peace movement launched what we call a strategic petition through Gazatalks.org.

The first point of that petition is that Israel’s nuclear weapons must be removed through a United Nations General Assembly decision. Otherwise, there will never be security for Iran.

We must also understand that President Kennedy was killed because he was clearly opposed to Israel’s nuclear armament and had taken steps against it. That is the assessment of many Americans, and it is my assessment as well.

This is the difficult situation we are facing.

The second part of the petition calls for the protection of Jews worldwide, because the reckless policies of Tel Aviv are, in effect, making the world a more dangerous place for Jews everywhere. In my view, these policies are intended to encourage Jews around the world to leave their countries and move to Israel. The Israeli leadership depends on this dynamic because, at the moment, many Israelis are leaving the country. Many hold dual citizenship and are now using their second passports.

Israel understands that it is losing ground unless something major changes in its favor.

That is the extremely dangerous situation we are facing right now. On May 25th, I published an article in Germany stating that, based on 25 years of closely following Israeli and U.S. policies on a daily basis, I believe Trump and Netanyahu are discussing possible nuclear strikes against Iran behind the scenes.

Trump is in an extremely difficult position. He is caught between, as Americans say, a rock and a hard place. One option would be escalation, perhaps similar to what happened on February 28 this year — with Israel striking first and the U.S. joining afterward. The other option would be refusing escalation and risking the loss of his political position.

But even if he chooses escalation, he may still lose his position because the American people are increasingly not with him. So he is in a very difficult situation.

At the same time, Netanyahu himself appears to be under intense pressure. Reports on May 25th said he had to visit a dental clinic because of health problems, and such stress often reflects the immense pressure a person is under. That is the dangerous situation we are facing right now.

If another regional conflict breaks out, will the Persian Gulf states continue relying on U.S. protection — or move toward a more cautious approach toward Iran after the 40-day war?

We must understand that the (Persian) Gulf family states owe their entire existence and internal security to the Americans and the CIA. However, we have now reached a point where the United States — through arrogance, ignorance, decay, and especially under Trump’s leadership — has shown itself unable to guarantee the external security of the (P)GCC and other Arab countries.

At the same time, we are witnessing how the American establishment reacts to growing doubts within Arab societies regarding U.S. reliability. We now have figures such as the strongly pro-Zionist Senator Lindsey Graham openly threatening Arab countries that refuse to sign the so-called Abraham Accords.

In my view, using the name ‘Abraham’ for such agreements is deeply inappropriate. Abraham is a sacred figure and should not be associated with what I consider a treacherous arrangement involving a rogue state like Israel.

Graham is now threatening Arab governments with consequences if they refuse to sign. But one thing you and I understand about Arab pride is that this kind of pressure backfires. If you threaten people in this way, you lose them.

In fact, Lindsey Graham’s remarks may have caused another serious blow to the reputation and reliability of the United States in the Arab world. Through such statements, he is harming American interests.

My expectation is that doubts about the United States are now becoming so deep within Arab societies that many are seriously considering opening up more toward Iran’s foreign policy.

For the last 20 or 30 years, Iran has consistently tried to convince its Arab neighbors that there is nothing more valuable than good relations between neighbors. Iran cannot erase the (P)GCC countries from the map, and the (P)GCC countries cannot erase Iran from the map.

This is also a lesson European leaders should understand regarding Russia. One may dislike President Putin or disagree with Russian policies, but Russia cannot simply be removed from Europe’s geography.

I believe the (Persian) Gulf states are now taking important steps toward Iran. They are carefully considering how far they can go, but they increasingly understand that Iran is strong enough to punish any country that joins the United States in another confrontation against Tehran.

For that reason, at least on this issue, I still have some hope that things may improve.