Transcription
Hello, this is Pivot's Otomori. There have been developments regarding the situation between the United States and Iran. We will be joined by Professor Masashi Mizoguchi, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs. Thank you for having me.
Before we actually discuss the details, I'd like to organize the situation. We are recording this on the day before the public release, and July 8th, Japan time, has seen a great deal of activity since the morning. This is from the US Central Command's X account. Around 8 AM, there was an announcement that a large-scale attack would be carried out against Iran. About four hours later, an announcement was made that the operation had been completed. Looking at the content, it's clear that it was a very large-scale operation. It states that military targets such as Iran's air defense systems and command and control networks were struck. It also explains the reason for the attack: it was retaliation for Iran's recent attack on three commercial vessels. There are also videos uploaded about this. This was in the morning. In the afternoon, in the evening, President Trump's remarks came in. When asked about the current status of the ceasefire agreement with Iran, he made an ambiguous statement, saying, "I think it's over." The oil price also rose by about 6% in response to this, and the market reacted. It's difficult, but frankly, how serious should we take the current situation? Please start with that.
Yes, as a basic premise, both the US, the Trump administration, and Iran want to avoid a situation where a full-scale war breaks out again. After all, the Trump administration has the midterm elections looming, and they absolutely want to avoid a situation where gasoline prices soar domestically and lead to inflation. Iran also, rather than fighting the US further, wants to export oil, earn foreign currency, and rebuild its economy. That is their true intention, so both sides want to avoid a full-scale war. On the other hand, the memorandum from June was very fragile. Within that memorandum, there were discrepancies between the two sides regarding how the Strait of Hormuz would be managed. Iran's interpretation was that free navigation would be permitted under Iran's control, and that free navigation meant navigating freely after coordinating with Iran. On the other hand, the US envisioned a situation where anyone could pass freely, as it was before the war on February 28th. There was a discrepancy in their perceptions, which led to attacks, and then counterattacks. That is the current situation. The ambiguous expression "free navigation" had different specific images for both sides, which is the fragility or structural flaw of this ceasefire agreement in the first place.
What about going forward? It's truly unpredictable, but frankly, what do you think will happen? President Trump's statements also change, don't they? Is this a complete collapse of the ceasefire, and will things completely revert, or will negotiations continue to some extent? What do you think about this?
Yes, as you mentioned earlier, President Trump stated that the memorandum is now over, and that Iranians are scum, and so on. Iran, on the other hand, is also saying that this ceasefire, this memorandum, is now over. So, while both sides say the memorandum is over, President Trump also said that it's fine for diplomatic negotiations to continue. In that sense, rather than immediately returning to full-scale war, it is more likely that there will be sporadic attacks or disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, but negotiations will continue. That is probably the most likely scenario at present.
I think we will be confused by President Trump's various statements going forward. How do we distinguish between "this is just temporary, he's just talking tough" and "this is a structural, irreversible change"?
Yes, as I mentioned at the beginning, both sides do not want a full-scale war, so both sides have a strong incentive to resolve the situation through negotiations. That is certain. They both want to resolve it somehow. However, President Trump is currently at the NATO summit in Turkey. He has long been resentful of NATO, and at the same time, he is saying things like he will withdraw NATO troops from Spain. While he is certainly angry at Iran, he also harbors resentment towards NATO member states. It's possible that he became so angry that he just said something. Looking at the videos, it feels like that. In that sense, the statement that the Iranian memorandum is over might have been said in the heat of anger. So, it's possible that by the weekend, Iran will start saying that they are eager for negotiations, and we might return to a ceasefire. It's difficult to say what will happen in the future, but that's the situation.
I see. So, one way to judge this is the timing and context of these remarks, right? It's possible that this was a statement made in a situation where anger towards NATO was escalating. And the overall structure, where neither side wants to plunge into full-scale war, has not changed. That's something we should keep in mind.
Yes. Looking at the timeline, Iran attacked three commercial vessels, and in response, the US said they would stop Iran from exporting oil and resume large-scale attacks. But why did Iran attack commercial vessels in the first place? This ceasefire agreement was quite favorable to Iran, giving them various economic benefits, while the US gained nothing. Why did they deliberately break it?
Yes, as you said, the agreement was concluded with a very one-sided concession to Iran. To summarize, both sides would temporarily cease all military attacks and actions. Then, Iran would ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and the US would lift the maritime blockade. Iran would gradually increase its oil exports. That was the promise. In that sense, it was very advantageous for Iran. If the status quo were maintained, Iran could export more oil, so there was a strong economic rationale for maintaining the status quo.
On the other hand, the commercial vessels that were attacked, whether three or four, were reportedly using a route closer to Oman, not the northern route designated by Iran. Iran was very wary of the route near Oman becoming the established route, more so than the immediate economic benefits of exporting oil. Recently, the number of ships using that route near Oman has been increasing. So, Iran thought, "That route is not allowed. We don't want that to become the established route. We want to create a situation where they use Iran's route in the long run." That desire was strong. Furthermore, Iran likely expected that the US would not launch a particularly strong attack, or perhaps they were testing the waters. They probably did not expect such an attack. Also, it can be said that the hardliners within the regime, who advocate for a tougher stance against the US, have gained strength. However, it is also said that there is not much difference between hardliners and moderates within Iran regarding their attitude towards the US. The regime itself is leaning towards a harder line, so the desire to take a tougher stance against the US is probably growing within Iran's leadership.
Regarding the route you mentioned, the Strait of Hormuz is bordered by Iran to the north and Oman to the south. So, Iran wants ships to pass through here, right?
Yes, they want to establish the current situation where ships use the route designated by Iran on the north side. By doing so, they want to secure the greatest leverage they gained from this series of conflicts: control over the strait and influence over the strait. That desire was strong.
Ah, I see. So, it's not about taking this area and charging tolls, but rather about making it the norm for everyone to pass through here, so that they can continue to hold this leverage in the future?
Yes, that's part of it. And although they haven't explicitly mentioned tolls, Iran has been saying that they will charge money in the future. But even then, if the Omani route becomes established, it's a problem. So, they want to maintain the northern route as the current situation. In addition to that, they probably thought that the US wouldn't come out too strongly, or perhaps they were testing the waters. And there was the issue of the domestic regime.
Going forward, what should we be looking at? Should we be paying attention to the statements from both sides? Are there any other points we can check?
Yes, many things are being said. President Trump is said to be most concerned about stock prices, or insider trading, and it's hard to know the real situation. However, Iran wants to maintain its influence over the Strait of Hormuz and keep it as a bargaining chip. In that sense, they strongly do not want the Omani route to become established. Therefore, it is important to pay close attention to how many ships are passing through the Strait of Hormuz and by which routes.
Thank you. If there are any further developments, we would be grateful to hear your insights. Thank you very much. Thank you.
With the PIVOT app, you can earn miles by watching videos and apply for special rewards. Rewards are updated monthly, including Amazon gift certificates and book vouchers. Furthermore, background playback and download functions allow for multitasking viewing and offline playback. All features are available for free. Please take advantage of the PIVOT app.
[Music]