The latest joint X Space hosted by Tehran Times and Sputnik featured former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski in a wide-ranging discussion on the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. 

The conversation focused on the escalation of the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, the role of Washington, the CIA and Israel in shaping U.S. foreign policy, growing tensions between Russia and NATO, developments inside the Pentagon, the transformation of the U.S. military-industrial complex through technologies such as drones, AI and data systems, and the increasingly serious risk of nuclear escalation. 

Throughout the discussion, Kwiatkowski shared her assessment of U.S. strategy, domestic political dynamics and the challenges facing American military and financial power.

Sputnik: To what extent is Zelensky acting independently versus taking direction from Washington, and what is the role of the CIA and the Trump administration in Ukraine?

Karen Kwiatkowski: "I think a great deal of what we are seeing ultimately comes from Washington. Ukraine did not have the capability, even years ago, to take on Russia as a whole. What happened in Ukraine was cultivated, encouraged and manipulated through U.S. government involvement, particularly from 2014 onward and under Zelensky. The United States, and Britain as well, have had an interest in preventing peace talks, encouraging deeper strikes and continuing to weaken and harass Russia.
The CIA is enormously funded and has very little accountability. It has interests of its own that can survive changes of president. Ukraine was a place where the CIA could operate relatively freely for decades; I would describe it as a CIA 'playground.' In my view, the CIA, Israel, war and imperialism had already found a home in Ukraine before the current war. I see this less as one president's war than as 'CIA's war.'"

Tehran Times: From a military perspective, what is happening regarding the U.S. strike on a civilian wedding in southern Iran? Why are civilian areas targeted with precision weapons, and how should the American people respond?

Karen Kwiatkowski: "I think the U.S. government and the Pentagon are increasingly fighting in the way the Israelis fight. They increasingly view these conflicts as 'total wars.' Hitting civilians, children and families, including deeply heartbreaking targets, has become part of the targeting portfolio.
We have seen this pattern in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa. I don't believe the people directing these operations would simply apologize and say that attacks on schools or other civilian locations were accidents. The United States has enormous intelligence capabilities and the ability to distinguish targets. To me, this represents a late-stage imperial military strategy, essentially a total-war approach. The purpose is not simply to defeat an opposing military force. It is to assault the humanity of the opponent and deliberately impose suffering on civilians.
There is also a huge disconnect between Americans and their government. Trump campaigned on MAGA, ending foreign wars and bringing troops home. Once elected, however, much of what he had promised did not happen. 'They all lie.' Voting is not working in the way people expect it to work. Americans repeatedly vote for candidates who promise peace, while the country continues to fund imperial wars despite enormous levels of national debt.
If Americans want to stop this, they need something beyond simply voting. And we also have to recognize the enormous influence of the Israel lobby. In my view, the Zionist government of Israel sets U.S. foreign policy in more ways than most Americans understand.

Tehran Times: What does the current situation inside the Pentagon tell us—especially with Hegseth removing individuals deemed disloyal and the resignation of Dan Driscoll?

Karen Kwiatkowski: "I think the Pentagon, the U.S. military and the political leadership above them are already very weakened. Historically, when an administration fires large numbers of generals and admirals and replaces them with people considered more loyal, it is usually an attempt to ensure that the military will carry out a particular political agenda.
The Trump administration places a very high value on loyalty, but professional military feedback is increasingly interpreted as disloyalty. That is deeply dysfunctional. I also think appointing Hegseth was a sign of weakness; he was not qualified for the position and was essentially a political hack.
If someone like Brian Mast were chosen to replace Dan Driscoll, I would see that as another indication that the administration wants the U.S. military to become more closely aligned with Israeli military ideology. I consider Mast a particularly strong Zionist ideologue. The Israeli military operates according to a different set of values and tactics, and in my view, it has not demonstrated that it can actually win wars, even though it can carry out what I would characterize as genocide. What I see in Washington and at the Pentagon is weakness, panic, fear and incompetence."

Sputnik: Regarding modern military-tech developments and reports that Trump might consider nuclear weapons against Iran: is this a bluff or a genuine danger?

Karen Kwiatkowski: "Modern warfare is moving toward cheap, disposable drones and AI, clashing with the traditional military-industrial complex model built on expensive systems.

Regarding nuclear weapons, Trump has a very strong need to 'win' and may be willing to sacrifice lives to achieve that. What worries me is the politicization of military leadership. If professional officers are replaced with loyalists, you remove barriers that might prevent a president from using nuclear weapons first.

What worries me even more is the possibility that Israel could use those threats as 'top cover' for some kind of false-flag operation—an incident involving a nuclear device or radiation that is attributed to Iran to pressure Trump into responding. The role of intelligence agencies like the CIA and Mossad in such a scenario could be extremely insidious. Preventing nuclear escalation is imperative.