Why Iran Has Already Won This War

Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome again to Syrian analysis. I'm your host Kalmasian. Thank you very much for tuning in to today's live stream. Whether you're watching this on YouTube or on Rumble, my apologies for being 4 minutes late for today's live stream.

The reason is that Donald Trump has made a controversial statement on his so-called Truth Social, and I was trying to bring his old comments and statements. As you may know, Donald Trump makes controversial statements all the time. He does contradictory statements, and he changes his mind every few hours, probably every few minutes, probably every few seconds. Nobody knows what he is thinking about, and they think this is 5D or 4D chess. It is not. This is, sorry to say, very irrational. It is childish. It is immature. It is not fit to be the president of the United States. This person has been elected twice, and I think there is no way back from this after what he said today.

I'm going to show you now what kind of horrendous statement he has made. But just before that, there is an account on X called The Hormuz Letter, and they have documented the heavy position Donald Trump has taken on the Strait of Hormuz. This is in order in the past 35 days when the Strait of Hormuz was closed. He said, "First, we will escort tankers as soon as possible." So they wanted to escort the tankers with military, those warships. And then he said, "It would be an honor to keep the strait open." Afterwards, he said, "I'm demanding these countries protect their own territory." Then he said, "This is the last time I will give Iran 48 hours." Afterwards, he said, "Iran is begging for peace. We will give them more time." Afterwards, "Open the Strait of Hormuz." I mean, sorry, "Open the Strait of Trump." I mean, Hormuz. And then he said, "Reopening Hormuz is not a core objective." Then he said, "We don't need the strait. Get it yourself." And then he said, "The strait will open up naturally." And then he said, "Open it immediately, or I will bomb your power plants." And then he said, "I will send you back to the Stone Ages." And then he said, "Take the oil and make a fortune." And then he said, "We have no role in Hormuz." And then he said, "If you don't open the Strait of Hormuz, bridges next, then electric power plants." And then he said, "48 hours before all hell rain down." And those were all in the past 40 days. And oil was $73 before the war. And this was last week. It closed at $111. So 15 positions.

And then we have the recent statement. I will show you what type of statement he made today, which is very horrifying. And we have to be horrified by this. This is what Donald Trump, the president of the United States, the leader of the superpower, the leader of the free world, has said. He said, "A whole civilization will die tonight to be brought back again." Listen to this carefully. He's not talking about the Iranian so-called regime. He's not talking about the IRGC. He's not talking about the government. He's not talking about the parliament. He's not talking about the electricity grids or power plants. He's not talking about the nuclear program. He's not talking about the ballistic missiles. He's not talking about the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He's not talking about Iran's regional role. He's not talking about any of this. He's talking about raising an entire civilization. Meaning he's threatening Iran with nuclear Armageddon. I don't see any way. I don't find any other way of seeing this thing except this. There is no way for the president of the so-called free world to come to his so-called social media platform and say, "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." And he says, "I don't want that to happen, but it probably will." However, now that we have complete and total regime change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionary, wonderful can happen. Who knows? We will find out tonight. One of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end. God. What he says is, "God bless the great people of Iran." I would say, don't bring the name of God into your mouth. Just don't say God. You don't believe in God. You don't believe in Jesus Christ. You don't believe in any moral ground. You don't believe in any morality. This person is a criminal psychopath. And I don't say these things just to make it sensational. We truly have to understand that this guy doesn't have any empathy or sympathy in him, and that this guy is ready and willing and capable of annihilating an entire civilization. He's talking about the Persian civilization. This is over 5,000-year-old civilization. This is a civilization that the shoelaces of the Persian civilization are worth a billion times more than the Epstein civilization that Donald Trump belongs to. And he's part of it. He's part of the club. He's part of the establishment. He's not against the deep state. He's not playing 4D chess. I'm very sorry, guys, if you're from the United States. I'm very sorry to say, but your leader, allegedly, is a criminal psychopath. There is no other way of seeing this.

And worse still, and this is what truly hurts me, to see a country like the United States wage a brutal, barbaric war of aggression against Iran, kill thousands of its civilians, destroy its infrastructure, and then threaten an entire civilization with annihilation. And then that's what hurts me the most. I don't see mass protests in front of the White House. And I don't mean just standing in front of the White House and saying, "Stop the war, peace now," all these things. No, no, no. I mean a true revolutionary movement forcing Donald Trump to end this war, meaning sit-ins, meaning boycotting, meaning that the country would be paralyzed and people would not go to their work, that the people would do everything possible to harm this government. What truly we need nowadays is a movement inside the United States that could take this policy of Donald Trump and reverse it. And this would only come from the people. And I know, and I know, and I know that there is a vast majority, probably in the United States, that says, "We cannot do anything about it." I know all these things, but this is also on you. If Donald Trump carries out this threat, which in my opinion, he will not do it. He's just a big mouth. However, the simple fact that he feels comfortable going online and writing these things and threatening other nations with complete annihilation and erasure, just like they did in Gaza, right? So what is the difference between what the Israeli government says about the Palestinians in Gaza and Donald Trump who threatens 90 million people basically with annihilation? What's the difference? It's the same school. It's the same school of thought.

And under such circumstances, we have people in the Israeli press. And this is coming from someone, by the way, his name is, let me check, Shlomo Levin. So Shlomo Levin, guys, wrote an article in The Times of Israel and he says, "Saying that Israel dragged the United States to war isn't just wrong. It is anti-Semitic." Be careful. If you say that Donald Trump went to this war for Israel, it is anti-Semitic. Okay? Be careful about that. And we have to ignore, according to this article, all the indications that Donald Trump has received hundreds of millions of dollars, firstly, from Miriam Adelson, who is an Israeli asset. Basically, we have to ignore the fact that AIPAC plays an instrumental role in buying the politicians in the United States and financing the politicians in both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. And we have to ignore the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu basically has established a vast network of assets and collaborators among the Americans and among the Israelis in the United States. And those are the Zionists. And we have to ignore the fact that the so-called Christian evangelicals and the churches in the United States who have been hijacked by people like Paula White and the crazy messianic people who are basically telling us that we have to build the Third Temple and Jesus will come back and there is going to be an Armageddon and all these crazy ideas that they are normalizing among the people. We have to ignore all these things. We have to ignore the role of religion. We have to ignore the role of ideology. We have to ignore the role of the lobbyists. We have to ignore the role of the military-industrial complex. We have to ignore the role of the bankers. We have to ignore the role of the donors to Donald J. Trump. We have to ignore the fact that his daughter is married to Jared Kushner. We have to ignore the fact that there is an Epstein class in the United States. And we have thousands and thousands and thousands of documents, emails, tapes, videos, pictures, basically of American politicians and people in positions of power, not only in the political scene, but also in the journalistic scene, and also in the public life scene, and also in the banking scene, in the financial scene, in everywhere. And these people have enormous influence over the United States. We have to ignore all these things. We have to ignore that Benjamin Netanyahu came to the United States seven times in one year. We have to ignore the fact that it was Netanyahu who wanted to initiate this war against Iran, and he has been planning for it for 30 years, and he has been coming to the United States in the past 30 years and trying to build a case for it. We have to ignore the fact that he planned and initiated this war, and the Americans had to start it, basically, in order. And this is according to the Secretary of State of the United States, that he said that we had to bomb Iran because Israelis were going to do it anyways, which means the Israelis have dragged the United States into this war. We have to ignore all these indications and all these factors. And if you don't do that, guys, you are an anti-Semite. I'm telling you, this is according to Shlomo, something. Let me, let me show you this article. So this is Shlomo Levine saying that Israel dragged the United States to war isn't just wrong, it is anti-Semitic. Just for you to know, just for you to know where we are standing nowadays in the conversation about this.

So we cannot criticize this war and say that this has been planned and executed and persuaded and blackmailed and all the attempts have been done in shadowy and black rooms beyond the democratic structures. Basically, the United States hasn't even declared war against Iran up until this moment. And we started from regime change, behavioral change. We will bring the Shah to power. We will do this and that. We will eradicate their missile program. We will eradicate their nuclear program. We'll eradicate their drone program too. Now the goal of this war has become to open the Strait of Hormuz. And opening the Strait of Hormuz is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. And I'm going to explain to you guys with some fantastic articles I found. Of course, they are from the mainstream press. So we will definitely analyze them and argue with or against them. It depends on the article and on the argument. So we moved from all these phases into a day. So tonight, basically at, I think he said at 8 p.m. or something or 10 p.m. American time. This is his deadline. So let's see what he's going to do. If Iran doesn't open the Strait of Hormuz, then he says he will annihilate an entire civilization. Okay, just keep this in mind to understand the mentality behind this policy. That these people are vicious, vile, monstrous, psychopathic, sociopathic criminals, and you have to expect anything from them. I expect, I would expect anything from these people. If they abuse children on an island and they cover it up, you expect anything from these people. Killing children, 180 children in an Iranian school and then accuse the Iranians of doing it. Expect anything and everything. These people are capable. These people are vile. These people are vicious. And these people, most importantly, they find always the justification for doing all these horrendous, inhumane acts, and they would justify it. And make no mistake, the people who have committed these crimes against the Syrian people, against the Iraqi people, against the Palestinian people, against the Lebanese people, and against the Libyan people, against the Somali people, against the Sudanese people, and against the Afghan people, and against now the Iranian people, the Vietnamese people, the Korean people, the Ukrainian people, name it. All these millions and millions and millions of people who have perished, they will not hesitate to do the same thing to you. If you, as an American citizen, now effectively do not protest, effectively challenge the power of these people, the weapons that they drop and the bombs they drop on our heads in the Middle East, and they have over our heads, and they destroyed my country. Basically, they will use these same weapons and more against you, the American people, if you challenge them seriously.

So, just to be, this introduction was necessary. When I read this post of Donald Trump, I was like, "This guy lost his mind completely. He has to be impeached. He has to be isolated. There is no other way to end this war." And we will start today's conversation, guys, with this article. By the way, this is published in The Atlantic. And as you may know, The Atlantic belongs to NATO. They are very critical here to Donald Trump. Just for you to know why they're criticizing Donald Trump. Had this war started by Biden or any other Democratic party, probably they wouldn't have published this article. But there are some serious arguments in this. It's worthy of sharing. "The Real Intelligence Failure in Iran: A Costly Quagmire Was Predictable. Trump Went to War Anyway." So, Trump's excursion, as he calls it, the biggest U.S. military operation of his second term, has unleashed a parade of horrors. Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz, where it plans to charge vessels at all, and can govern global flows of oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and chemicals that are crucial for manufacturing. Iran, that Trump claims to have replaced, still, or the so-called regime that Trump claims to have replaced, still remains in the hands of hardliners whose repression of the Iranian people will be strengthened for having survived a decapitation strike by the world's only superpower. Of course, this is The Atlantic. They have to make it like this was about saving the Iranian people from the dictatorship, right? And as you may see, guys, from the footage coming from Iran, millions and millions of people go every night to the street to show support for the military. And all these things written in The Atlantic, in The Economist, in the Financial Times, those are all bollocks. When they say that the people are collectively, or let's say the vast majority of them, are against their government, that is not the case. And neighboring countries in the Gulf, whose livelihoods depend on exporting energy and creating safe places for people to visit, live, and work, will amass new weapons and reconsider their strategic partnerships with the United States. That is a correct argument. Two decades ago, a president embraced information that turned out to be wrong, and disaster followed. Today, a president disregards assessments that prove to be right, and the predictable comes to pass. There is a failure of intelligence there, too, just not the kind we are used to seeing. So, what he's basically arguing is that in the past, the intelligence community shared false information or wrong information or assessment with the president, and for example, George Bush went to war because of wrong information he received, which I don't buy it at all. The intelligence community and the Bush administration, they have collided to go to war against Iraq, and they have used this false assessment as an excuse to go to war against Iraq. And this was a lie from the beginning. Everybody knew. George Bush knew it was a lie. Even his Secretary of Defense back in the day, Colin Powell, knew that this was a lie, and they all went with this lie in order to justify this war, right? So, this is not true what the author is saying here. The spies called it right, but the president went another direction. The failures of the intelligence community on Iraq's WMDs produced systematic changes meant to keep botched calls like that one from recurring. In many respects, those reforms have worked, but they couldn't account for a decision-maker who had been seduced by previous military successes into thinking that the U.S. armed forces under his inspired and perhaps divinely endowed command could never stumble. Some of Trump's allies have criticized him for not making a public case for war, as the Bush administration did. But if he had, if he had accurately presented the intelligence, the facts would have argued against attacking Iran. The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America. This is what Donald Trump claimed before a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House on March 2nd. But the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded, this is the American Defense Intelligence Agency, had concluded that building a missile that could hit the United States would take Iran until 2035, and only then if it was determined to do so, which analysts concluded it was not. That timetable is crucial, my friends, because to understand, because to hit the United States with the ultimate weapon, or this intercontinental ballistic missile, Iran would have to place a nuclear warhead on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, right? So that threat was not years away. Trump insisted Iran was going to take over the Middle East. They were going to knock out Israel with their nuclear weapons. He claimed Trump believes Iran wants to use a nuclear weapon, but desire or even intention doesn't equal capability. It is true that Iran possesses uranium that could eventually be used to build a nuclear weapon where it to be further enraged. But in late June, U.S. bombers struck nuclear-related facilities in Iran, which had made no effort since then to try to rebuild their enragement capability. This is according to Tulsi Gabbard, who has sent a written letter to Congress. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shattered with cement, she said. And that's not a picture of a country on the brink of using a nuclear weapon. Trump not only has misstated intelligence about Iran's military potential, he has expressed surprise at the regime's response to American and Israeli bombing, particularly Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the heavy drone and missile attacks it had launched on its neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf. But the president's advisors had told him this was likely to happen. They knew that restricting a shipping artery would give Iran a chokehold on the world's economy. It is such a no-brainer maneuver that the Pentagon has built it into its war planning. When Trump's military advisors apprised him of this possibility, he appeared to have shrugged them off. "Iran would probably capitulate before trying to close the strait," this is what he believed. Trump has also said that no one told him that Iran was likely to attack Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and other Gulf nations that are close allies for the United States. In 2025, the U.S. intelligence community publicly reported that Iran's large conventional forces are capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes, and disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. One of the United States' closest intelligence-sharing partners in Europe, probably this is Great Britain, determined that a major American attack would compel Iran to hit countries in the Gulf and try to close the strait. The Americans were aware of these conclusions, who are in any ways. Trump claimed to be surprised by this attack. The U.S. intelligence community is neither designed nor equipped to restrain a president who is moved by impulse, emotion, and his own feelings. It can only provide him with information. When the president disregards what he is told or distorts it, that failure is his lot. It looks like to me here that he's also the author trying to give some, you know, an off-ramp and an exit for the intelligence community there and just to try to blame Donald Trump on this disastrous war, basically against Iran. However, this paragraph, in my opinion, is very important here, the one with blue. And I will show you some, talk about this now, some analysis. "Neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf, whose livelihoods depend on exporting energy and creating safe places for people to visit, live, and work, will amass new weapons and reconsider their strategic partnerships with the United States." Now, some people say that the United States failed in protecting the Persian Gulf monarchies, right? There is a different theory or a different argument about this, and I want to share this with you because I think it's worthy of considering, to say the least.

So this is a channel here, we discuss ideas, we bring arguments, counterarguments, different theories for us to get a wider perspective about the state of affairs in the Middle East or in West Asia, specifically in this war of aggression against Iran. So, one of the theories that is circulated nowadays is about the idea that the United States has failed to protect its allies in the Persian Gulf monarchies. And this is coming from Mark Owen Jones. Mark Owen Jones is a professor at Northwestern Qatar, it's a campus in Qatar. So he has brought, he's coming from, it seems, a background being as a teacher and instructor, professor in Qatar, and he says, "I have come across a lot of analysis that promote the idea that the United States has failed to protect the Gulf as a security governor, but I think this misunderstands what US protection actually was in the region. Yes, it has failed, but not because of raw military might. The US presence was more a deterrence than a complete shield." This is a very interesting idea, actually. It makes sense a little bit to me too. So the US presence in the Persian Gulf countries was to deter any attack from Iran against these countries. It wasn't a shield, but it was a deterrence. It was a deterrence against instigation and escalation, and crucially, a means of protecting energy flow through Hormuz, economic protection, US dollar protection, deterrence, and US dollar protection. So deterrence collapses the moment that the guarantor becomes the instigator. So, in his mind, okay, the United States was present there to deter any possible attack from the Iranian side against these Persian Gulf monarchies, or at least to protect the economic, the flow of the energy through the Strait of Hormuz. So it was an economic protection, and also it was a US dollar protection because the US dollar there is a petrodollar system that these Persian Gulf monarchies sell their fuel in exchange for a dollar, and the United States makes enormous profits out of it, right? But this deterrence that the Americans, basically, have allegedly established in the region collapsed because the guarantor of this equation has become the instigator of an aggression against the neighboring country, and that is Iran. And he says, "Because deterrence is no longer the key strategy here, war is not deterrence, and war then avoids or avoids deterrence." So the moment you initiate a war against a neighboring country like Iran, you cease to exist in the region as the guarantor of this deterrence, as this balance of power which existed in the region. And the moment you initiate war, then war voids, war then voids deterrence. So you empty it from its deterrent capacity. So Trump did literally rush into a war, ignoring his allies' needs and concerns. That meant that Gulf states and the US military were not able to prepare what they needed to protect against missiles and drones. The military potential was there, however costly. But this is Trump's America. So there was no consultation, no preparation, no regard for alliances. On another note, the US protection narrative works because it also forms part of a legitimizing discourse of permitting a potentially unpopular US presence in the region. For example, you are here to protect a difficult neighborhood. It's a necessary evil, etc., etc. Once the US becomes the proximate cause of war, this legitimacy crumbles. This is definitely a problem driven by Trump and Netanyahu, and not necessarily a broader US strategy problem. But I suppose if US strategy is so fragile, it can be altered by a main character in the Epstein files. I don't know who he means in this. Then it was always a brittle umbrella. Who is this personality in the Epstein files who can alter this discourse of the war in your opinion? So, we have a, don't engage, guys, with the Zionist troll. Let him troll. Anyways, just want to thank you guys for joining this stream. If you're liking what I do on this show, which is independent news analysis and geopolitical talk here on this YouTube channel, I would kindly ask you just hit the like button, thumbs up as you're watching this stream, and also subscribe to Syrian Analysis. It would be an amazing help for this work. And I would like to give a heads up to our friend, the Iranian Putin. He said he has become a member for 24 months. So for two years. Thanks for all your time and updates. It's my pleasure. I truly do it with a great pleasure here. I love what I do here. Thank you so much for your great support, dear friend, and also for gifting five Syrian Analysis memberships to other friends and colleagues on Syrian Analysis. Lucas says, "Thank you for your live stream, Kev. Best content on the web." Thank you so much, Lucas. I truly appreciate it. I try to do my research daily and come and try to filter the best articles and analysis I can find on the internet and then present them to you, read some of them and analyze the other. One of our friends says, "I'm an American Lebanese who has been watching you for almost a year now. I love your work. Thank you for always showing the truth." Habibi. I, and by the way, I studied also in Lebanon. I have lived among the Shia for three years. Amazing people. I have had endless and endless of conversations over a cup of tea. I have become also addicted to the Shai Kameer when I was in Lebanon. All these things, guys, the Strait of Hormuz, emptying the American presence in the region from its deterrence capacity, the failure of the United States in regime change, the hysterical reactions, the threats against Iran of annihilation, civilizational erasure, and all the repercussions on the global economy. Lots of factors and indicators show that the United States is in a difficult situation, and it also shows that Iran is in a really good situation in this case. And this is a brilliant article, in my opinion, being published today in The New York Times. And The New York Times goes a few steps further and it says, "The war is turning Iran into a major world power." They're comparing them, by the way, to Russia and China. This is a very good article, in my opinion. I will zoom in a little bit more for a better view. I think this is great. Yeah. So, in recent years, the conventional geopolitical wisdom has been that the world order was moving toward three centers of power, and those were the United States, China, and Russia. That view assumed that power derived primarily from economic scale and military capability. That assumption no longer holds. A fourth center of global power is quickly emerging, and that is Iran. That doesn't rival those three nations economically or militarily. Instead, its newfound power derives from its control over the most important energy choke point in the global economy, the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly one-fifth of the world's supply of oil and liquefied natural gas moves through the strait. There are no real alternatives to these supply routes in the near term. If Iranian control over the strait persists for months or years, as I believe it may, it will drastically reshape the global order to the detriment of the United States. Most or many analysts believe that Iran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz is only temporary. That expectation is flawed. It assumes that to continue to control the strait, Iran must physically close it off. But as we have already seen, you can control the strait without closing it. Today, the strait remains open to tankers. Traffic has dropped by over 90% since the war began, though not because Iran has been sinking every vessel that entered the strait, but because, given the credible threat of an attack, intruders withdrew or repriced war coverage. Hitting a cargo ship every few days was more than enough to make the risk unacceptable. The problem for the U.S. is one of asymmetry. Protecting each and every oil shipment that passes through the Strait of Hormuz against potential attacks like mines, drones, missile strikes is a full-time operation. It requires continuous military presence. Iran needs only to hit an oil tanker once in a while to cast doubt on the reliability of the world's oil shipments. For decades, the Persian Gulf had a simple arrangement. Oil producers exported, markets priced, and the United States secured the route. That system allowed rivalry without instability. Now it is falling apart. If uncertainty persists, the Gulf arrangement will inevitably change, giving way to a different regional order, one in which the Gulf states increasingly accommodate the actor that can most directly influence the reliability of their exports. That actor is now. I'm not sure if they're going to be that rational. By the way, I'm going to show you some articles now about that. The U.S. faces a difficult choice: either commit to a long-term effort to reassert control over the Strait of Hormuz, or accept a new global energy arrangement in which U.S. control is no longer assured. If it chooses acceptance, the outcome is clear. The international system will reorganize with Iran as a fourth center of global power. Yet, if the United States chooses to reassert military control, it is in for a long battle, one it could well lose. I mean, if Iran establishes itself as a fourth center of global power, probably they should also bring Iran to the UN Security Council and give it the permanent Security Council membership. The Iran war is not a military conflict from which the United States can simply back out with things reverting to how they were before. Iran would surely demand a heavy price in a new accommodation with the United States. But this price will surely be less costly than that of the alternative future. This is a transformational war. And if these changes continue for even a few years, the global order will change irrevocably. I think we have to get this perspective of Iran emerging as a fourth pole of power in a multipolar world. Seriously. And to be honest with you, it makes me sad. It makes me very proud of the Iranian people, but it makes me a little bit sad, actually, that this has happened after the regime change in Syria. It makes me a little bit sad because Syria has been the war that preceded the war against Iran, and were it not for this war against, the war against Syria was partly because Syria has been a strategic ally of Iran. So all I'm saying is I feel a little bit sad that Syria has fallen into the hands of these savages, these barbarian Al-Qaeda hordes in the country, and they have turned the country into basically an outdated zoo. Zoo is even better. There are lots of better rules and regulations even in a zoo. Better, even better, there are better rules and regulations in the jungle. This week, for example, there have been reports coming from Syria. I just want to show you one of them. And those are, for example, in the cradle. They have also made in the American press, there is systematic oppression against women in Syria to the extent that people are being targeted to horrendous sexual assaults. So this is, for example, one of the reports which I wanted to show you. Imagine this is happening now in the 21st century by a regime installed by Donald Trump. "And the United States drugged, raped, and impregnated Alawite women, recount kidnappings in the new Syria." And this is done. There are several. Let me see. So, yeah, so this is the article is initially published by The New York Times. Let me show you the article, guys, the original one. So, let me, let me show you this article. So this is the investigation. The title is somewhere here. Yeah. So, "In Syria, Kidnappings of Women and Girls Fuel a Minority Group's Fear." They interview people in the article who have been targeted for sexual assault, raping, forced impregnation by the Jolani regime. And many, some of them were even killed, right? And this is all happening because of the U.S.-led war against Syria, which was for them a necessary war to wage this war of aggression against Iran. All I'm saying is I'm a little bit sad that had Syria withstood and the regime change wouldn't have happened, Syria has gained two-thirds of the country in 2024, right? I think had this war happened in Iran and Syria was still in the hands of the former government, then after the war against Iran and Iran emerging victorious, this would have had enormous positive repercussions on Syria. They, it would have been impossible for the United States to continue occupying one-third of Syria. Hopefully that when Iran emerges victorious from this war, which it did, this would still have some reflections and vibrations inside Syria itself, as Syria is part of this important region. And Iran's attempt to restructure the region, basically. And in this case, since Donald Trump is basically threatening Iran with civilizational erasure, bombing them to the Stone Ages, killing millions of people, basically, Iran has delivered its own 10-point response to the U.S. 15-point so-called peace plan. So those are the Iranian response to the mediators. One, guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again. Two, permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire. Three, end to Israeli strikes in Lebanon, which is great. Four, lifting of all U.S. sanctions on Iran. Five, end to all regional fighting against Iranian allies. This includes Yemen and Gaza. Six, in return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz. Seven, Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship. Eight, Iran would split these fees with Rome. Nine, Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz. Ten, Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations. I think if this is very logical, by the way. Those are logical demands. Those are realistic and reasonable for a country that has suffered enormous damage to its infrastructure and also emerged as a de facto controller of the Strait of Hormuz. And if you have control of the Strait of Hormuz, you are permanently, permanently having leverage over the global economy. And in the future, if the Americans or the Europeans go back to the sanctions regime against the Iranian economy, they can close the Strait of Hormuz in the face of their ships again. Therefore, the stakes are very high for the Americans to let the Iranians have any leverage, any blackmail card in their hands that they could use against them in the future. And if Iran manages, or when Iran manages to emerge victorious and control the Strait of Hormuz permanently, unless they nuke Iran, drop all the nukes they have, which is, in my opinion, not going to happen yet, then the entire security architecture in the region will be changed. The allies of Iran will be emboldened. Threats will increase against Israel. The situation in Syria will be restructured again. The situation in Lebanon will be restructured again. The situation in Yemen will be restructured again. The situation in Iraq will be restructured again. And the Persian Gulf monarchies, they have one of two paths. Unfortunately, they put themselves in this hard position. They either double down on their relationship with the United States and continue being enemies with Iran, which holds the Strait of Hormuz through which they need to send their energy to the outside world, makes no sense. Or they will live in a new era. They have to accept a new era in a region where Iran is the dominant player. Well, if Iran is a dominant player, means eventually Israel lost. Means eventually Israel lost. The moment Iran emerges victorious and controls the Strait of Hormuz permanently means the defeat of Israel and the defeat of the Israeli project in the region and the defeat of the greater Israel project and the defeat of a region where Israel planned and executed for 40 years or more, and this has accelerated after October 7th to not only dominate the region but to change the borders, to expand to its neighboring countries, to install puppet governments in the region, and control at least either financially or politically or militarily between the Nile to the Euphrates and even beyond that. Imagine if Iran lost this war and the Israelis brought the Shah to power in Iran, and the Iranians, then the Strait of Hormuz will be in the hands of the Israelis. Do you imagine at the moment Israel doesn't have all this power and financial power or military power? It relies on the United States, and it has been committing these war crimes, crimes against humanity, massacres, genocides, ethnic cleansings for 80 years. Imagine if Israel puts its hands over the Strait of Hormuz and controls the Persian Gulf region eventually. And then what happens? They would expand to Syria completely. They would expand to Lebanon completely. They would create the Greater Israelite Kingdom, basically. That would be the outcome of a war if Iran had, if Iran lost the war. So people who come and say that, "Oh, we are against Israel, but I hate Iran so much because they have killed Syrian people, Iraqi people," those people are completely brainwashed. If you truly don't want for Israel to be, for Netanyahu to be stepping over your neck and subjugating you and treating you like a Goyim, as they say, and treat you like a subhuman, like they say about Alex, then you shouldn't really cheer for the United States and for Iran in this war. If they emerge victorious from this, the entire Middle East will be dominated by Israel, by Netanyahu, and including the Persian Gulf monarchies. By the way, the post-Persian Gulf monarchies, sorry, but geopolitically, this is the worst strategy and thinking you could ever imagine. It doesn't, if you don't like Iran, it doesn't mean you should be embedded with Israelis and the Americans. They think so binary that if you are not with me, then you're my enemy. That's not how politics work. And unfortunately, or fortunately, but they're doomed in any way. They either going to be under the umbrella of Iran, or they will be subjugated by Israel. So it's their choice. And in this case, so the Strait of Hormuz, basically, I'm just going to show you one example. This is in The Washington Times. They call the Strait of Hormuz "No Thank You." They say, "Strait of Hormuz: Iran's New Nuclear Bomb." So this is, by the way, on April 5th. So two days ago, they published this. They say, "Strait of Hormuz: Iran's New Nuclear Bomb." I mean, I want to show you my article. This is on the 12th of March. So three, over three, four weeks ago, I published this article on my Substack, by the way. "Iran's Samson Option." I literally argued similarly, like Iran doesn't need a nuclear weapon. They have this Samson option, and this is the Strait of Hormuz. I will drop this article for you guys in the live chat. If you have time to read or just support the work, we stack it, share it with your friends. I would really appreciate that. Read it here. I will drop it now in the live chat. I also published today an article, guys, on my Substack called "The F-35: Iran Kills the Myth." And I would also be just, if you're on Substack, all I'm saying is if you're on Substack and you would like to read and support my work there, you can just type my name, Kwork Almasan, and you could read my new article, "The F-35: Iran Kills the Myths," and you could share it also there. I'm doing, I'm trying to publish one article per week. I don't have more time, unfortunately. And like, really, reading an article, writing an article takes lots of time. Just in case if you like reading, my Substack is there. I would really appreciate that. So, how do you think the war in Iran will be over? Now, I agree with this assessment. Najam Ali, he published this assessment. I want to show you. Yeah. So he's a professor at the University of Michigan. He has been graduated from Harvard, former. And he says, "My read on the Iran war endgame: The final settlement will formalize what the battlefield already decided. Iran gets permanent leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iranian enrichment stops, missiles capped at the current 2,000 km range, which Iranians do not want more than that, and sanctions lifted immediately." I don't think that uranium enrichment will stop. So this is the point that I disagree with. I think they will agree to put a cap on their missile program for 2,000 kilometers. They do need more than that. They are a regional power in this case, and they would be happy to see the sanctions lifted, and they will have permanent leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, 100%. The non-aggression pact gets guaranteed by China or the UN, and not Washington. I don't think the UN is a good guarantor in this case, anyways, at all. Don't trust the UN. Don't trust the UN in this case. China would be a much better guarantor. There is no other realistic outcome. Every escalation from here further weakens the U.S. position, not Iran's. Iran has already won the strategic war, even as it loses the military one. I don't think they have lost the military one. I think they have diversified their military response to the United States, and it is, at the end of the day, you are sitting in your own country, and another country is coming and bombing you from its warships and from its fighter jets, and it has aerial superiority. It is normal for your military to be degraded, and in some places, for your equipment and hardware to be destroyed. The main leverage of Iran is not this. People continuously tell you, "Oh, look at this footage, they have destroyed an air defense, they have destroyed a fighter." That's not the point. That's not the element of the strength of Iran. The element of strength of Iran is one: its capability to continuously hit its neighboring countries and Israel and the American bases basically through conventional weapons, and those are ballistic missiles and medium-range missiles, the hypersonic missiles. It's its capability of disrupting the Strait of Hormuz. Its capability to hit the warships in the international waters. Its capability to send tens of thousands of drones in the region and disrupt the airspaces of these countries. Its ability to disrupt the so-called safety in Saudi Arabia and the UAE and other countries. Those are the elements of strength, and they have built basically cities on cities where they don't need these launchers to be on the surface, over the surface, to launch the ballistic or the hypersonic missiles. It looks like things are coming underground, and it is very difficult to detect accurately and hit them on time. Plus, they have lost many of their technological infrastructure in the region. The Americans have lost that, and those represented their basically spying capabilities, the early detectors, basically, they have their eyes have been blown up, right? So even if Iran is receiving severe damages to its infrastructure, but its capability to continue the fight is the measurement here, how long they can fight. And in this case, it looks like Iranians are better prepared than the Americans because on one hand, they are receiving blows, but on the other hand, they are chalking the global economy, which hurts the Americans the most. That's the chalk point, basically. That's the Samson option that the Iranians have not discovered. They have been talking about it for a long time that we are going to do that. And when they had the opportunity to take over the management of the Strait of Hormuz, they have done that. And until this moment, Americans cannot do anything against that, not militarily, not politically, not diplomatically. The only way to do that is to come to terms with Iran and accept that Iran is a regional power. It has to have its own.

influence in the region. It has to have its own allies in the region. And of course, this goes against the interest of Israel. And we come back at the beginning of this stream when I showed you the article in the Times of Israel when there's Schlommo something who says it's anti-semitic. It is not anti-semitic. It goes Iranian dominance or Iranian hegemonic status in the region goes against the interests of Israel. There is nothing wrong in that. Therefore, Israelis were more enthusiastic to go to war against uh Iran but because they cannot do it by themselves they had to bring the Americans with them. There is not no anti-semitic argument in this. This is just a factual geopolitical argument. But nowadays we're not allowed to say that.

I want to thank one of our friends Justin, Justin Houston. Thanks Gw. You're doing a great work. Thank you Habibi. I truly appreciate your generous support. It really means a lot to me to uh hear many people like uh the the work I'm trying to do. It's an independent work, guys. There is no sponsor. There's nothing. This week I received a sponsorship. I'm being very honest with you. I received a sponsorship uh offer. I don't know if I should take it because I myself when I'm watching any YouTube channel, even if I like this person and I know this guy is an independent and I know that he's legit and his analysis are correct, I still find it weird. I don't know. Let me know in the comments. I'm not sure about it. I feel it. I feel weird people promoting for hard metals, gold, silver. I feel weird uh like selling stuff, you know, like I'm not here to sell. I'm not a seller, but I also um need how to say like I'm also human. I also have a family. I also need the income. So, it's it's a conflict of interest. I don't know how to manage that. If you have an idea about it, if there is um any service that you would say okay this service would fit your channel and it would not compromise you in your eyes because what matters for me is the most the most that how you see me and this channel and even on the surface level I don't like to be uh looked like I'm a compromise or somebody is influencing my work.

Yeah. So some people say sponsorship comes with the price of surrendering your neutrality. I I I agree with you. I don't know if it will really compromise or surrender my neutrality in this case. Uh some people say just sell um a VPN or something like that. I don't know. I just don't want to be seen like I'm doing this because I want to just make money, you know. I'm doing this because this is first my passion. This is my education and I'm truly I have worked for 5 years on YouTube for zero income. Zero zero. There was nothing. My channel was not even monetized. It was rejected by YouTube. So I continued working that way uh back in the day for 5 years. Only in the past 3 years or so this channel has been monetized. True. Three three and a half years. So I will think about it. Let's see.

Um, I will show you one last uh video today. I think this video is hilarious and uh this this stay unsponsored as long as you can make a living. Neutrality independence is too important. I agree. No, I will never sell crypto meme coins. Uh these people are I don't know. Some people do it but I feel like there's a lot of scam and I don't even understand them anyways.

So this woman basically who has been appearing on every mainstream media outlets and they promote her like she's some sort of an Iranian opposition dissident. Her name is Elisa Leon. Uh she was on a podcast the uh I just show you this video because it's funny.

>> 50,000 uh people within the ranks that are looking to defect.

>> So we have not uh let's check from from the beginning.

>> Well, yeah, of course. Those are two completely different things. There's obviously, you know, a well-meaning um sort of skepticism about what are the objectives of this war and when do we know if those objectives have been achieved. I think one of the main issues that's sort of and it's something that I can't even get my head around is that I don't think that there's ever been a time where war by itself would affectuate regime change. There are other things that need to sort of unite like for example uprisings, um defections within the ranks.

So she's talking about the regime change in Iran and she says war by itself is not enough. There has to be other things for example mass uprisings and also defections in the government.

>> The person that has mostly largely been responsible for that is the crown prince Reslavi. So when he called people out into the streets in January they went out in their millions when the internet got shut down his view.

>> She claims that there were millions of people demonstrating for visa pala in Iran. Guys, if you know any footage of it, please show me because I haven't seen any of that.

>> Went down in the millions. So, there was a a strong evidence that there was a strong connection there. And so, I think where this war has gone sort of been negligent is in not pulling in the other actors that would affectuate regime change. Right. Also, Resa Pavi, I think there's.

>> This is this is the point that she she looks like a she sounds like a clown here. Please guys, listen to what she says here. I can't I can't say the numbers for sure, but I think there's like 150,000 uh people within the ranks that are looking to defect to him. And so.

>> What what are you.

>> So 150,000 in the Iranian military are ready to defect to visual according to this woman.

>> You're basing that on.

>> And he says where do you how do you base that argument.

>> And so.

>> Where what are you basing that on. How do we know that.

>> His team says that.

>> His team says that. Look at his face here. Seriously.

>> And so.

>> What what are you basing that on. How do we know that.

>> His team says that.

>> His team says that.

>> How do we know.

>> I mean.

>> Uh this uh so-called diaspora Iranians who are so Zionist, I think, um it's a bad look. It's a very bad look. uh when you see uh any con any protest nowadays uh for Iran or any other thing carrying Israeli flags, it's just you're not going to gain the sympathy of the people. And then she also claims during this podcast that uh basically um visa pave is not imposed from outside and uh this war in in uh in Iran will just bring a transitional government like they bring in Syria, right? like a transitional government probably for another 10 years by Golani and then he will lead uh Iran to democracy. I truly don't know if these people believe in this crap or they're so dis completely delusional. They live in a bubble. They they just talk to each other. They don't know anything outside this bubble. Probably that is the case because there's a serious issue about uh people's head thinking like Vizabal will come and establish a democracy in Iran. Plus thinking like 90% of the Iranian people are against their current government. Plus thinking that the Americans and the Israelis have the goodwill at heart, goodwill of the Iranian people at heart. It's really strange, you know. Do these are these people delusional in your opinion? Are they propagandized? What is it about? Are they mercenaries? It's really hard. Like they they are the same versions of them by the way in Syria like Selen Kasim for example and others. uh completely um they're not there's people like Selen Kasim she's not delusional she has been working for several NOS's and um some of them were USAD funded so those are CIA cutouts basically and they know what they're doing they're working as a mercenary they're working as a prostitute they're working as a whitewasher of Jolani and others probably these people are the same they are being very well paid unfortunately this is the case in uh in many countries it happens similar things but uh in our region it's happening a lot and we have to find a way to come to terms with how to uh differentiate between who is an oppositionist and who is uh basically a mercenary you know.

Um, of course opposition is like a very healthy thing and there has to be stronger opposition uh presence in these countries but these countries are being constantly attacked and being destabilized by the bigger dictator of this world and that is the United States. So the question is if the United States holds it has a military might it has the economic means it has the media in it its own hands they have the NOS's they have the PR they have capable of destabilizing any country which means if you open your country to this American style democracy this will lead into America intervening in your country and sending NOS's money and buying um politicians basically and your entire political class will be compromised. Therefore, you see some of these countries go more into let's say centralized authority type of governance, right? Because they want to protect themselves against this foreign interference. And I think the American intervention is one of the factors and the triggers why some of these countries would prefer to um adhere to more centralized authorities instead of liberalizing their political system. Because wherever you liberalize your economy or open your economy to the outside world, America will come and invest in the political and financial environment and buy the political class to the extent that you can see in in different countries around the world also outside of America where you have liberal democracies. You see the political class in these countries it feels like they have compromised. It feels like they have um financial or political interest with the transatlantic movement. You feel like they are not serving their people. And why is that? What the question is why is that? Is it money? Is it allegiance? Is it opportunism? What is it? There are different factors for sure. But what I'm saying is the moment you set complete like let's say this free environment um where America has interest they will have always the means to jump inside your country and um hijack your society hijack your civilization your culture your language and also eventually your economy and also your political system it's a big dilemma guys.

Thank you so much. Really, I appreciate you all for tuning in today and staying all this way with me to the end of today's Lashim. I have spoken to Safarad today. He's doing well. I'm very happy to hear that he is great. Yesterday I also told you this story already this news and I want him to come back to the show but the internet is unstable. So the moment he has a good stable connection in Iran, we will have him on this show and probably we will have like a one and a half two hour conversation with him. So stay tuned for that guys. Thank you so much. Before leaving, kindly hit the like, subscribe to Saviana Analysis and I will see you tomorrow. Peace be upon you and upon your families. And let's see what this crazy nut job madman is going to do tonight called Donald J. Trump. Salam.