Transcription
The United States has even more powerful weapons than this; it’s about exercising restraint. To be honest with you, the United States today, if it wanted to act, it has everything from tactical nuclear weapons. Today, they can be launched from submarines, right? That could make an entire city disappear. Iran also has another type [music] called weapons that are outright deadly, this kind, weapons of mass destruction, WMD. But both sides are restraining themselves. However, today the damage that the United States has started first is what has made the United States viewed negatively. Iran, or the decision-making of the United States itself, or even Iran itself, which has sovereignty today, is no less stubborn. Today, it can hold its ground. This is what the whole world is puzzled about—"Hey, it's still here?" Ever since the war started, wow, the countries that are allies allowing the United States to set up military bases—seven countries, right?—they all got hit by Iran. But when there is such military power, especially in the naval forces, with submarines waiting for operations, why can’t they decisively defeat or seize control of the Strait of Hormuz? Niphat? >> This is a question that people all over the world are trying to ask: why not make it decisive? Because I still believe, um, I’m not, I’m not saying this to please anyone or anything, but the United States has even more powerful weapons than this, right? But perhaps because of, uh, global criticism or maybe it’s beyond reason—this here is hesitation or what should I call it? It’s a matter of not being decisive; I’ll use that term. And I compliment them here, not criticize them—it’s about exercising restraint. >> Yes. >> This, I’m speaking honestly, right? That the United States itself, to be frank, today if it wanted to act, it has everything from tactical nuclear weapons—small-scale nuclear weapons that today can be launched from submarines, right? That could make an entire city disappear, or those communities, those various things. It’s a matter of, [clears throat] I think the United States has restraint. That becomes the issue, you see. At the same time, Iran still has another type, called weapons that are something like outright deadly, this kind, weapons of mass destruction, WMD—Weapon of Mass Destruction. >> I believe they still have them, but both sides are exercising restraint. Or perhaps some have already been destroyed in part. When waging war, right? I believe in today’s world, they always exist. We really see it. >> It’s something that both sides restrain themselves with. But today, the damage that the United States started first—this is what has made the United States viewed negatively, right here. >> And in your view, Niphat, is there a line or a red line for each side? If it gets crossed, will the situation escalate from proportional retaliation within a limited area to the point of escalation? >> I think there is. Alright, if we take a calendar, today it’s July, right? This month doesn’t count, that month doesn’t count—August, September, October. >> Today I can tell you that the ultimate goal, or the state, is Trump’s approval rating, which will materialize in November. If, um, Iran or the decision-making of the United States itself, or even Iran itself, which has sovereignty today, is no less stubborn. I’m saying this here; don’t think I’m pro-United States or anything. Today it can hold its ground. This is what the whole world is puzzled about: "Hey, it’s still here?" Let’s say if they were to act in a manner that’s both for domestic politics and to manage everything decisively, this is quite worrying, because it’s taken too long. Actually, the red line has already been crossed; in fact, many red lines have been drawn, and they keep shifting. If there is clear intelligence and the opportunity arises—good timing, with an escape route ready, as they say—and various things like that, I think there is a chance. But I pray, I pray that it doesn’t happen. And well, if they clash head-on within 72 hours, right? >> And then go back to a new MOU or something new? >> This is what we want to see, we want to see. And then— >> Yes. >> Um, um, Guitar probably mentioned at the beginning that, oh, Trump said, "Even if I say something like this, the negotiation team is still working, but I think they’re wasting their time." This is a playful statement. You can see that in international politics, even if you close the door, you don’t lock it. There’s still room for, um, for discussion. Alright, we hope that that small team that didn’t put a lock on the door will crack it open and talk. This is what the world wants most importantly—"Hey, open the Strait of Hormuz, please! Enough, enough! Oil is too expensive, and it’s causing chaos everywhere." Guitar, you covering this news probably know this well. >> Yes, oil prices have returned to near $80 for crude, up about 5-6% last night. Now, Niphat, regarding the countries that were attacked because they host US military bases—Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar—will they continue to be in the position of base-hosting countries, or do they have a chance to rise up and become warring parties and retaliate? Because they’ve been targeted throughout this period. >> Guitar, you asked a good question. Ever since the war started, within the first seven days—I’ve recorded this—wow, the allied countries that allowed the United States to set up bases—seven countries, right?—all got hit by Iran. Therefore, those seven countries, which have anti-missile weapons, or rather anti-aircraft weapons, all managed to survive to some extent. Let me outline the situation to show how the temperature rose. These countries were hit. And what I discussed with Guitar—alas, the most regrettable thing was the desalination plants; I don’t know how they’re doing. In my heart, I’ve seen them—I once traveled to Israel, and a friend invited me to see them—they produce fresh water until it’s drinkable. Those plants cost hundreds of billions. These countries were all attacked by Iran.
Later, for a while, they deteriorated a lot. Those facilities, all the infrastructure, were badly damaged. They began to push back, trying to tell Iran, "Hey, hey, no more," and then they distanced themselves, trying to survive Iran’s attacks. Iran tried not to increase its enemies but rather turn enemies into friends. It began to selectively attack. From seven, right? Now there are three left. See? Guitar mentioned them—Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. These three nations still have, simply put, still have activity, still have US operations, which Iran attacks. So, according to the news, all three countries use US-made anti-aircraft weapons they purchased to shoot down those, uh, anti-space weapons and such. So these three nations have had some leaks where Iranian weapons got through and fell, but they are in a state of war. For these three, we can see that the countries that disappeared—Bahrain, sorry, Saudi Arabia—see? They gradually faded away. Simply put, from once rallying together with the United States, today they are asking to step back. So there are still countries being attacked. Iran is clever enough not to meddle with other nations that have already backed off. This is my personal opinion. They’re left with those that still use anti-aircraft weapons to deter somewhat, but there are leaks. Therefore, warring parties change all the time according to the situation. >> Yes, and on another note, war or conflict is full of losses. No one should benefit from war. But looking at game theory, with prolonged conflicts that erupt intermittently like this, do you see anyone benefiting from this crisis? >> Regarding this, as I said, there are three factors: first, the political factor in America—that’s the main one; second, regional stability, where Israel is a nation that, uh, these conflicts—Israel does not want them, or if they occur, it doesn’t want any trade or threats of that sort; third, there is an economic aspect—oil prices [clears throat], geopolitics, [clears throat] grouping and regrouping, the emergence of interest groups. What’s certain is oil prices—going up and down, sometimes going up and not coming down, or not looking at where the oil comes from, how long it’s been stored, but prices keep rising. Yes, there are people who benefit. It’s not that everything is all bad. Billionaires are born in every war. I believe that, and there are people sitting and smiling—oil companies, including the creditworthiness of certain individuals. See? If war happens, it goes up this high, and to bring it down, some important figure will emerge. These things are a game, a game between the worlds in this world that truly happens, where human lives are held hostage. Yes, that exists.
>> Lastly, the impact on our country, Niphat. We experienced the effects when the war broke out—oil prices soared, and we had to bear the burden of higher energy costs and the cost of living. We thought it should have ended with the MOU. But today, oil prices have shot up again. The fighting hasn’t ended. How do you view the preparedness of Thailand and Thai people?
Since the war started from day one, I don’t have any knowledge, but following Guitar’s program, I’ve listened all along and seen that oil keeps rising, and everything affects every sector. Prices of goods are all trying to increase. The government side is working on adjusting prices, but it goes up and down each day—it can’t keep up. Sometimes they say, "Don’t fill up yet; it’ll drop tomorrow." Things are such that we can’t—okay, on an individual level, it’s not called—they are suffering. Let’s put it this way. We want to go back to how it was. I think regarding stability, trade and economy, I humbly—let me state upfront—I don’t know much, I’m not very knowledgeable. But from watching programs and clips, I see shops closing down, restaurants complaining, everything. I believe, and Guitar can explain, that it comes from oil prices, right? Transport costs, etc. So I ask: today we have no choice. And I want to ask in this program: Have we managed to find energy sources from other countries outside the Middle East that don’t go through Hormuz? You said we went searching a lot—negotiating for gas and oil—has that materialized or not? Or are we still dependent on this? Meanwhile, I follow news about other matters: China got away; it has its own sources with special purchase channels. Japan, right? And Taiwan, right? Okay, Taiwan is part of China. They have channels. I leave this question: that energy source we went to find elsewhere—can we do it today? If so, please tell us. Because our lives are hanging on the Strait of Hormuz, which we—ordinary people have no choice but to just follow along.
>> Because you, Niphat, see that we need to build energy security, correct?
>> Yes, I would like to inform you that regarding these matters, I follow foreign news. Today, what’s happening in Myanmar—Myanmar has signed agreements with oil and gas companies, with Russian companies, to build seven nuclear power plants in Myanmar. In Vietnam, there are also agreements. I think they come from China. What I’m saying—I don’t know if nuclear energy today has developed enough, whether it’s safe or not. This is me looking at what others are doing to survive. And looking at nuclear plants—maybe another 7-8 years before they can be used, right? And considering today, do we have other alternatives? I don’t have the wisdom to say, but look at our neighbor Malaysia today—very interesting. Why can they cope with their oil prices? What do they have? And what do we have? Do we have nothing, or do we do nothing? These are questions that the people, I believe, have. But those responsible are trying to find answers, looking far ahead, thinking long-term. Otherwise, we will remain in a state of surrender to problems, always, and I don’t want that to continue forever.