James Scahill DROPS BOMBSHELL on US Policy — Owen Jones Left SPEECHLESS

What does it actually look like when a major power launches a war and the targeted government refuses to collapse? That is the central question at the heart of this conversation, and the answers being discussed here are ones you will not find in most mainstream news coverage.

Owen Jones sits down with James Scahill, co-founder of Dropsite News and one of the most important investigative journalists working today, to break down what is actually happening in the US-Iran conflict — not from press briefings or official statements, but from direct conversations with Iranian officials, senior diplomatic sources, and people who have been inside the negotiation rooms.

What emerges is a picture that is fundamentally different from what is being presented publicly. James explains how Dropsite News has been reporting directly from the Iranian side of this conflict — something almost no Western outlet is doing — and what that reporting reveals about strategy, endgame, and the gap between what officials are saying on camera and what is happening behind closed doors.

Among the most significant revelations discussed in this conversation: Iran was making concessions in negotiations that went beyond previous international agreements, and former US negotiators acknowledged this privately. Yet the bombing campaign began anyway. This raises a question that James addresses directly — if the concessions were real and verified, what was the conflict actually about?

James introduces a distinction that reframes the entire conversation. The difference between regime change and regime destruction is not a minor semantic point. Regime change means replacing leadership while preserving state institutions. Regime destruction means deliberately collapsing those institutions entirely — turning a functioning country into a failed state, as has happened in other parts of the region over the past two decades. The Libya example from 2011 is used as a documented historical parallel: a country with functioning infrastructure and government structures that became ungovernable almost immediately after external forces dismantled its institutions. James argues the same pattern is being pursued at a far larger scale.

The conversation also goes deep on the assassination campaign targeting senior Iranian officials. James explains that the people being eliminated are not always the most militant figures — in several documented cases, they were perceived moderates and potential negotiators. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, had moved toward the reform camp in recent years and was widely seen as someone who could have played a role in ending the conflict diplomatically. His elimination, James argues, guarantees that the remaining voices are the hardest and least flexible ones — which itself becomes a justification for continuing the campaign indefinitely.

Owen raises the broader historical stakes. If Iran's government survives this campaign intact and the initiating powers are eventually forced into a negotiated exit, the historical record would show an outcome comparable to major strategic retreats of the twentieth century — but compressed into months rather than years or decades. James responds with what he describes as the most likely endgame: a publicly declared victory that does not match the actual outcome on the ground, supported by a shifting set of stated objectives that have already changed multiple times since the conflict began.

This is a long-form geopolitical conversation for viewers who want more than headlines. If you care about journalism, foreign policy, international relations, asymmetric conflict, or the way power actually operates behind official narratives, this conversation will give you a framework that most coverage simply does not provide.

Drop your thoughts in the comments. Where do you think this conflict is heading? And where in the world are you watching from?