Shadowing-Übung: Trita Parsi: Trump’s Iran Strategy Is A CATASTROPHE - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Übungsmodus wählen

Jeder Modus öffnet einen Übungsraum im Vollbild.

221 Sätze

Wenn Sätze zu kurz oder zu lang sind, klicke auf Edit, um sie anzupassen.

Well, as you know, there's been a lot of news in regard to this ongoing war against Iran.

Now, we've kind of shifted away from military action and Trump is doubling down on an economic war.

If you ask me, it's mostly because he has no choice.

We've depleted some of our missiles and our interceptors,

plus military action wasn't really working to get Iran to behave So now there's this talk of an economic war.

Secretary Scott Besson of the Treasury says that there's now a new D-Day.

Although D-Day came and went, nothing really seemed to happen.

Here to help us make sense of all of this is one of my favorite experts, Trita Parsi.

Trita is the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

And he has a fantastic sub stack that I highly recommend you guys check out.

You can check it out by going to Substack, look up his name and- TritaParsy.substack.

Exactly, exactly.

Welcome, thank you for joining us.

Thank you, thank you so much.

So before we get into some of the latest news in regard to what's transpiring with the US military

and this effort to basically hide the number of casualties.

I actually wanna get your thoughts on what Secretary Scott Besson announced earlier,

which is that he would be implementing secondary sanctions that would impact countries that continue to do business with Iran.

That includes China, Turkey, Pakistan, India.

I think that he's bluffing, but I'm curious to hear what you think.

I think there's a high likelihood that at least this will end up becoming a bit of a bluff.

There's a lot of bark, but far less bite.

I'm not saying there won't be any bite, but far less by them for a couple of reasons.

One, if you really want to bite, you have to go after India, China, Russia's trade.

And particularly when it comes to China, I just don't see the administration doing it.

Partly because Xi is coming and at the end of the day,

there are other elements of the US-China relationship that you don't want to sacrifice or risk just for this issue.

But also because of the fact that at the end of the day, it is very much thanks to the Chinese

that the oil prices never went much above 120 and never reach 150 or 200.

Because they dramatically reduced their demand and shifted to other sources.

Had they not done that, we would have seen much higher oil prices.

Now the Chinese didn't do this to help the United States or to undermine Iran.

They did so because they are very, very disciplined in following their own self-interest.

And their own self interest was to make sure that they did not suffer from the consequences of a global economic recession.

So they helped stabilize oil prices in a manner that ultimately was far more beneficial to the US than to the Iranians.

So under these circumstances, if Trump really wants to pick a fight, for instance, by going after Iranian oil on the high seas, the vast majority of it going to China.

I mean, it would just be insane.

But then again, this whole war is insane.

So we should perhaps not completely rule it out.

But also because I think what I'm sensing from the administration is

that they're just going for some sort of a status quo in which there isn't any major escalation by either side.

But they wanna do something that kind of gives them the edge, certainly leaves the impression that they're in control,

but not pressure the Iranians so much that the Iranians are more or less incentivized to counter escalate.

If that's the space you wanna be in, if you wanna calibrate it that way, then you're not gonna bite a lot.

You're gonna have a lot of bark, but not a lot of bite.

Trita, to be honest with you, I don't even know what the US government is trying to accomplish at this point.

What is the goal?

Because in Treasury Secretary Besant's speech about this, he made sure to say something about regime change,

which makes me think They're still angling for regime change in Iran.

But on different days, they'll say different things.

So sometimes it's just about the Strait of Hormuz.

Sometimes it's allegedly about nuclear weapons.

I mean, let's just roll our eyes at that.

I don't think it has anything to do with nuclear weapons personally.

But I do think that Trump is having a difficult time admitting defeat.

I don't think that he is willing to accept Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz.

He's also not willing to accept that there's nothing he can do about it. And

so have you seen any clarity at all from this administration

in regard to what they need from Iran in order to lift these sanctions?

I think you put your finger on something absolutely critical, which is what are your demands?

If you take a look at, for instance, when the Trump administration under Trump won first imposed maximum pressure sanctions in late 2018.

It was combined with a list, I think it was 13 or 14 points, Pompeo's 13 points, with a bunch of demands.

And those demands were so outlandish, it was very clear.

The US was not really looking for the Iranians to live up to those.

It was just an excuse to kind of give the impression

that there actually was a strategy to get the Iranians to come to.

Yes, but there wasn't.

But this time around, there's not even a bother to have that list or have any demands whatsoever.

In his press conference, there was not a mention of it.

In his op-ed in the Financial Times, there wasn't a mention of anything in particular that the US was asking of Iran as a way of avoiding the sanctions.

And I think this reflects something that is even more dangerous, which is there is no goal.

There is no red line.

There is nothing there.

There's just blind anger and frustration that they believe that the Iranians have screwed him over, that they started shooting at the Strait of Hormuz.

A lot of anger from both sides.

Of course, both of them believe that the other one is not serious, that the other one has been untrustworthy.

But this is lashing out without an objective.

I'm not saying lashing out without a strategy, but without even an objective.

And I find that to be very, very odd.

I can't recall other examples in which you have done something in which the US government have done something like this.

And it makes me quite worried about whether the reason for this is

that the administration actually can't come to an agreement on what its objectives should be.

And if you don't know what your objectives are gonna be, how are you gonna achieve them?

How are you gonna have a diplomatic engagement?

How are you gonna be able to tell your diplomats, okay, go and negotiate, here are your parameters.

This is the goals I want you to achieve.

If you can't formulate that, there's not gonna be any negotiations and there's not gonna be any way out of this.

It's crazy.

And obviously everyone is seeing the impact of this on the global economy and certainly our national economy as well.

And it couldn't come at a worse time given the fact that we're $40 trillion in debt.

We are still bankrolling these conflicts.

The 30-year bond yield is indicative of how little trust investors have in US treasuries.

They don't think the US government is good for it, good for the money, and probably won't be able to pay back its debts eventually

because of how unmanageable our national debt is.

And so you have market manipulation taking place with Secretary Bessette literally doing buybacks of US treasuries.

At the same time, you have the Federal Reserve now genuinely discussing raising interest rates

when previously there was talk of lowering interest rates, which means the cost of borrowing for American consumers will shoot up.

Not good news since we're dealing with record consumer debt in this country.

It's just a complete and utter disaster.

100

And that's just on the economic side of things.

101

Very little attention has been paid on the human cost of this situation.

102

So thousands killed in Iran, even though we were all led to believe, I didn't believe it, But a lot of people were under the assumption

103

that we started this war to free the Iranian people from an evil regime.

104

Now we're trying to starve them to death, okay?

105

The kinetic warfare that we carried out killed a ton of innocent civilians in Iran.

106

And then we're learning more and more about our own troops

107

and the actual casualties that have been kind of concealed by this administration.

108

The Intercept had a report today, and I want to read you a few excerpts from it.

109

They write that an additional 60 service members have been injured in the Iran war,

110

lifting the official toll to 776 troops wounded or killed.

111

Some 345 of these casualties have occurred since July 7th after a second ceasefire imploded.

112

There's a government official who's anonymous.

113

They accused the Pentagon of slow walking announcements of casualties, probably because they know this is an unpopular war.

114

And when Americans hear about more of their service members, either being wounded or killed as a result of this war, makes them furious.

115

They wanted the heat on them to slow down after the really devastating attacks that source told The Intercept,

116

referencing airstrikes on US bases last month that exposed the vulnerability of US troops to Iranian attacks.

117

And so Trina, I think what this war has done, one of the worst things that this war has done is, and excuse my language here.

118

I mean, we have shown our whole ass on the international stage.

119

We are showing everyone how vulnerable our country is.

120

Everyone knows about our depleted weaponry and interceptors.

121

Everyone knows that we can't get countries like China to abide by our demands.

122

I've never felt more vulnerable or weak on the the international stage that I do right now.

123

I can tell you that having just come from another country and spent a lot of time with foreign officials,

124

it is remarkable how clearly they are viewing this as a dramatic American defeat.

125

Not a single one of America's objective, strategic objectives have been achieved.

126

And if you take a look at the statistics that you just mentioned, and you keep in mind that the The first round of the war was 38 days.

127

The second round of the war was 13 days, one third of it.

128

Yet, roughly a half, if not a bit more than half of the casualties came in the second round

129

that was only one third in the length of that war.

130

It tells you how things have shifted militarily in the sense

131

that the Iranians with whatever success they had from their standpoint in afflicting damage, they had clearly far more success in the second round.

132

So it tells you what the trajectory of this is going.

133

I think was something else that was very important that you mentioned.

134

You mentioned that this is economic warfare.

135

That is actually the same language that Besant himself used, which is very fascinating.

136

Because for so long, actually frankly, for all of the history of the US imposing sanctions,

137

there's been a very clear desire to make sure that this is presented as some sort of a humanitarian measure.

138

This is an alternative to war and something that is only hitting the governments, not the population.

139

And a flat out denial that these sanctions actually have anything to do with the misery of the Iranian people, the Cuban people, the Venezuelan people,

140

or any people that have been under these type of sanctions.

141

But Besson just clearly just says this is economic warfare.

142

He's actually using the language of the critics of economic sanctions.

143

And I think it's quite telling in the manner in

144

which there is a desire to signal massive and maximal intent to destroy,

145

to destruct, to inflict damage on the other side without any discrimination as to whether this is hitting the government

146

or hitting the civilian population.

147

And in some ways I have to say this is far more honest.

148

This is far more honest than when the Obama administration, for instance, talked about crippling sanctions.

149

We're gonna cripple their economy, but also at the same time said whatever economic misery is happening is

150

because of the incompetence and corruption of the Iranian government.

151

And the Iranian government has corruption and incompetence undoubtedly.

152

But to deny that these sanctions that

153

so blindly hit the entire economy is actually primarily affecting the civilian population is just fundamentally dishonest.

154

And the Trump administration bizarrely here is actually more honest about it.

155

And this economic warfare certainly seems to have a bit of a boomerang effect

156

that harms the global economy and the US economy.

157

Because while these crippling sanctions might create an environment that is far worse for the people of Iran, at the end of the day,

158

Iran still has quite a bit of leverage due to the control of the Strait of Hormuz.

159

the choke point that's limiting the supply of oil, liquefied natural gas, that's clearly already having an impact on our country's economy.

160

Inflation is up.

161

So it's just anyone who's under the impression that economic warfare that's being waged against Iran is by the way,

162

waged against Iran with no specific goal in mind.

163

If you think that it has no negative impact on the United States, you are very wrong.

164

It does have a boomerang effect.

165

But I do want to ask you one question about what I personally think might be a miscalculation by Iran.

166

Because lately, I think they've been feeling a lot more confident, given the fact that Trump is defeated.

167

They're now threatening European countries that carry US military bases.

168

And I'm curious what you think about that, because I do think that that would be a miscalculation.

169

I think on the international stage right now, save for the Zionists, Iran is not the country that looks like the bad guys right now.

170

We attacked them in an illegal war, they defeated us.

171

But I think attacking European countries might change the equation a little bit.

172

What do you think?

173

I certainly think that there is the risk of that.

174

Let me just first clarify what I think they are saying.

175

Okay.

176

They're saying that any base in Europe or anywhere else

177

that is used by the United States in order to attack

178

and kill Iranians is seen as a legitimate target by the Iranians.

179

And so far that has definitely been the case

180

when it comes to bases in Kuwait and the rest of the GCC states.

181

And they have attacked them and of course also Jordan.

182

They have now issued a threat against Bulgaria

183

because the Bulgarian parliament had voted in favor of allowing the United States to use bases in Bulgaria for the war.

184

Now I am not sure as to whether the US ended up using those bases, because we have not seen any attack by the Iranians.

185

Perhaps the Iranians were bluffing, we don't know.

186

But I had conversations with people on that side and try to better understand exactly how serious they were about this.

187

And the signal they were sending was essentially that they're dead serious.

188

And when I raised the fact that Bulgaria is a NATO country, such as the European countries in NATO, this would be seen as an attack on NATO.

189

The interesting response I got was very quick, they said, well, so is the United States.

190

So if they're already attacking the US, which is the main NATO country,

191

the idea that Bulgaria also being a NATO country would be some sort of expansion in their view is not the case.

192

And I think would reflect something that we have spoken about before.

193

The attack

194

and the assassination of many of the senior leaders of the

195

Iranian government have had them replaced with different people who by and large the generalized trend is a much more radical,

196

much more risk willing bunch of leaders and strategists who have now demonstrated

197

that extensively in the manner that they have conducted this attack.

198

As you remember in 2024, when the Israelis struck Iran, the Iranian struck back, but it was very limited.

199

They actually deliberately made sure that there were no casualties.

200

When the US struck Fordow, the Iranians had somewhat of what the Pentagon called a polite response.

201

Those days are clearly over.

202

The Iranians have been very aggressive in their retaliations.

203

And that's why I would actually take the threat against Bulgaria quite seriously.

204

And to the best of my knowledge, the US has not used those bases as a result.

205

Well, I hope they don't.

206

But I mean, honestly, I kind of agree with that assessment.

207

If the US is using military bases in European countries to carry out strikes against Iran,

208

then yeah, I mean, those are legitimate targets for the Iranians.

209

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that carrying out those strikes is a good idea or would result in a good outcome.

210

I don't want to encourage Iran to do that.

211

I think the point is to discourage European countries from getting involved in this war at all in the first place.

212

If we flip the equation and say, let's say that the Russians were using bases in Iran or in Turkey, which obviously they wouldn't.

213

But let's say just as an example, we're using bases there in order to attack Ukraine.

214

I don't think a single person or government in the West would question Ukraine's justification,

215

not necessarily wisdom, but justification for striking at those bases in those countries.

216

Again, I'm not, again, would you, I certainly wouldn't wanna encourage it.

217

But I do find it to be a credible threat and should be taken very seriously rather than thinking,

218

okay, this is just Iranians bluffing and there's nothing to worry about.

219

I think there's quite a lot to worry about.

220

Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings.

221

Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.

App herunterladen

Alles, was du zum fließenden Sprechen brauchst

KI-AussprachebewertungJeder Satz bewertet

IPA-TrainingJeden Laut meistern

WortschatzBaue deinen Wortschatz auf

VokabelspielSpielend lernen

QR scannen

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

Gleicher Kanal

Trump’s UN Speech Gets ZERO Applause

Daily ConversationWorking Adults

Houthis CARVE Through Saudi Arabia

Daily ConversationWorking Adults

FOR YOU

Empfohlenes Video

658 Sätze

Does Rent Control ACTUALLY Work? Obama’s Chief Economist Breaks it Down | The Brief

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

Über diese Lektion

In dieser Lektion übst du das Englisch sprechen, indem du dir ein Video zu Trump's Iran-Strategie ansiehst. Du wirst lernen, komplexe politische Diskussionen zu verstehen und zu replizieren, sowie die Rhythmen und Intonationen natürlicher Gespräche zu erkennen. Besonders nützlich ist dies für die Praxis von "shadow speak", da das Gespräch flüssig und analytisch ist – ideal, um dein Hören und Sprechen parallel zu trainieren.

Wichtige Vokabeln & Sätze

Economic war – Wirtschaftskrieg (Beispiel: "Trump doubling down on an economic war")
Secondary sanctions – Sekundäre Sanktionen (Beispiel: "Implementing secondary sanctions against countries")
Regime change – Regimewechsel (Beispiel: "Angling for regime change in Iran")
Double down – Verstärken (Beispiel: "Trump is doubling down on economic pressure")
Calibrate – Kalibrieren (Beispiel: "Calibrate the pressure to avoid escalation")

Übungstipps

Um "shadowing" effektiv mit diesem Video zu üben, beachte folgende Tipps: Das Gespräch hat eine moderate Geschwindigkeit mit vielen komplexen Sätzen – passe deine Stimme an die Intonation der Gesprächspartner an, besonders bei Emotionen wie Skepsis ("I think he's bluffing") oder Analyse ("There's a high likelihood"). Wiederhole Abschnitte von 10–15 Sekunden, bis du die Wörter flüssig replizieren kannst. Nutze die Pause zwischen den Sätzen, um deine Antworten zu üben – das hilft, die natürliche Flüssigkeit des Englisch sprechen zu entwickeln. Ein guter "shadowing site" oder eine einfache Wiedergabefunktion reicht, um Schritt für Schritt voranzukommen. Mit solchen Videos lernst du nicht nur Vokabeln, sondern auch, wie politische Themen in der Praxis diskutiert werden – ein unverzichtbarer Schritt, um dein Englisch wirklich anzuwenden.

Grammatik in diesem Video

Die Strukturen, die der Sprecher am häufigsten verwendet, mit den genauen Worten aus dem Video:

Struktur	Im Video
Present Perfect have/has + Partizip Perfekt – eine vergangene Handlung, die jetzt noch wichtig ist	there's been · We've depleted · have you seen
Passiv be + Partizip Perfekt – wichtig ist, was geschieht, nicht wer es tut	was combined · has been paid · have been injured
Relativsätze who / which + Satz – eine Zusatzinformation über eine Person oder Sache	critical, which is · dangerous, which is · rates, which means

Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?

Shadowing ist eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Sprachlerntechnik, die ursprünglich für die professionelle Dolmetscherausbildung entwickelt und durch den Polyglotten Dr. Alexander Arguelles populär gemacht wurde. Die Methode ist einfach aber wirkungsvoll: Du hörst englisches Audio von Muttersprachlern und wiederholst es sofort laut — wie ein Schatten, der dem Sprecher mit nur 1–2 Sekunden Verzögerung folgt. Anders als passives Hören oder Grammatikübungen zwingt Shadowing dein Gehirn und deine Mundmuskulatur, gleichzeitig echte Sprachmuster zu verarbeiten und zu reproduzieren. Studien zeigen, dass es Aussprachegenauigkeit, Intonation, Rhythmus, verbundene Sprache, Hörverständnis und Sprechflüssigkeit signifikant verbessert — was es zu einer der effektivsten Methoden für die IELTS Speaking-Vorbereitung und reale englische Kommunikation macht.

Shadowing-Technik: die vollständige Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitung lesen →

Shadowing-Übung: Trita Parsi: Trump’s Iran Strategy Is A CATASTROPHE - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Übungsmodus wählen

App herunterladen

Trump’s UN Speech Gets ZERO Applause

Houthis CARVE Through Saudi Arabia

Mearsheimer & Parsi | Will Trump & Israel strike Iran again?

Watch CNBC's full interview with former Secretary of State Antony Blinken

War Expert Reveals BRUTAL Truth About Iran’s Power Grab

Abdulah

Trump’s Canada Tariffs Are Backfiring in Red States | The Week

Munk Debate on Ukraine – John Mearsheimer Closing Statement

Why Hasn’t Iran’s Economy Collapsed?

Donald Trump calls out Hasan Piker by name and Abdul El-Sayed

'VIRTUALLY ALL' US Missiles USED In Iran War

NATO Chief on How Europe Is Answering Trump's Demands | WSJ

Untangling Signals of Market Stress