Transcription
Wow, Professor, can it be said? Or is there any definition that can tell us whether this is tearing up the MOU, a ceasefire, or not yet? Or is it close, or what kind of way is it? Please give me a definition first, Professor. >> It's likely to be a suspension, the ceasefire agreement that was agreed upon several weeks ago. And besides suspending it, perhaps special conditions will be added, such as the United States collecting a protection fee, called a protection fee, in English [inhales] 20% of the cost of military operations to protect ships in the Strait of Hormuz, based on the number of ships. It's still not certain how much it will be, but it's a strategy, a technique of the United States to negotiate and to send a signal [inhales] to its people, who are approaching the midterm elections. An important senator has just passed away in support, in a fierce election, to make Americans feel that they haven't lost much money, resources, or taxes. This is another matter, but before anything else, may I have permission to return to the basic points, 2-3 points, Mr. Patcharak? >> Please, Professor. >> Yes, so that we can understand more. First, I don't want everyone to be too stressed. Because talking and arguing is normal in many battlefields, especially in the Middle East. Tomorrow, the Department of Mental Health will invite me as a speaker to talk about how it affects the mental health of Thai people in war. So I don't want you to worry too much, but you must follow the situation closely. This is the first point. Right now, there are already many stressful things, such as people who died from the fire incident at an entertainment venue. This is worrying. We will send our condolences. Waking up to bad news, unpleasant news, news of renewed conflict is stressful. Stressful. So I don't want you to be too stressed, but just not wanting it isn't enough. We must understand it. We must see its mechanisms so that we know why we might have to live with it and understand it. The Middle East, Mr. Patchara, the first point, we must consider it a perpetual war. A perpetual war. But there may be ups and downs that give us a chance to breathe. Historians say that the war in the Middle East began before Christ, meaning before the birth of Jesus. We have seen in ancient times that there were confrontations, the use of force, the creation of empires, conflicts, and then collapses. And in the Christian era, there were long religious conflicts, and then colonialism became intense and violent because there were matters of establishing kingdoms and new states, seeking colonies, which was violent, and wars occurred. The era of independence was even more volatile, with the establishment of the state of Israel, which immediately quarreled with Palestine, which was already establishing its own state. And a long-standing problem has existed since 1948. >> And then in the era of the Iran-Iraq War, the war against terrorism, terrorism in the era of September 11th, up to the present era. Volatility is high due to the growth of China, the decline of the United States, the recovery of Russia, the rise of Saudi Arabia and Israel as middle powers in the region. Therefore, it can be summarized. The first point is that it is a perpetual war. It's quite clear that it's a continuous war, but there will be temporary ceasefires. >> Periodically, for many pairs and many cases, that still exist today, there are between Israel and almost all Arab nations, who have fought each other to the point that Egypt had to mediate, and those who made that agreement were almost all assassinated. Whether it was the Israeli side, the Egyptian side, Anwar Sadat, or Golda Meir of Israel, they were all targeted by extremist groups who were dissatisfied. We have seen this. It still stands. There are no more 6-day, 9-day, 10-day wars between Israel and the Arab states. Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There has been no attempt to retake Gaza and the West Bank. With Lebanon, they have never been able to negotiate. Now they are starting to negotiate between Israel and Lebanon. Since 1948, when the state was established, they have never negotiated, never found a resolution. It has started. The United States is mediating between the Houthis and Israel. Saudi Arabia is also standing. There is no news that the Houthis will attack the Red Sea because there is a ceasefire agreement, money, and the influence of Saudi Arabia is a deterrent. It stands. But other agreements may be volatile and fluctuating because it is a temporary truce. It is a temporary truce. The root of the problem has not been solved. The intervention of great powers has not changed. Natural resources are still abundant. Strategic areas are important. Geopolitics and geostrategy have not changed. Therefore, it is a temporary truce to accumulate strength, to seek allies, to replenish supplies, to seek advantages, to reduce disadvantages, in order to enter a new war. This is normal. >> When it comes to this point, Mr. Patchara will ask me. >> Viewers and listeners will ask, what are the new advantages and disadvantages? How did the conflict between Iran and the United States happen? And where will it go? This is what we need to discuss today. To understand, perhaps to agree or disagree, which is not strange. The last point, I think, is about where we stand and, simply put, who we sympathize with. It's about feelings, as well as facts, partly. But for myself, for 40 years, I have been working academically for 40 years, teaching and researching for 30 years. For 20 years, I have worked with 5 governments. For 20 years. And for almost 10 years, I have been an elder, perhaps not very old, but close to 70, past 60. Mr. Patchara, you are young, and I am many decades older, but we are not working for anyone anymore. We are independent. Those who sympathize with Americans might say I am on the American side, in many ways. We rely on Americans, we rely on the market. I studied in the United States. Those who sympathize with China, sympathize with Iran, might say I am Chinese. Because in my analysis and criticism, you can see. My family came from China since the reign of King Rama V. There is still a shrine of the god in Pattani, my relatives' ancestral home, which is over 100 years old and has become a museum. You can say I am Chinese. Or you can say I am Thai, a Thai government official who was ordered to work for the government for 10 years. But in reality, I am independent. And I try to bring >> all-round opinions to you, viewers and listeners, to benefit from. So, no matter where you stand, who you choose to sympathize with, it's normal. But what we will discuss, we will synthesize from all sides. The most difficult is from the Middle East. We have to wait for them. For their announcements, for academics in the Middle East. We have few of them. So it will take some time. We probably can't talk about it daily. But now >> The first point is that we agree on many points. If we listen to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Europe at the Turkey meeting of NATO, that Iran is playing too aggressively. Too aggressively. From the European side, of course, Mr. Patchara knows, they are suffering. Too aggressively. They are attacking cargo ships, attacking gas ships that are sailing in the Strait of Hormuz, attacking civilian ships, commercial ships, so to speak. Playing too aggressively. >> Yes, yes. Even if Iran says that the Americans destroyed naval bases and ports first, which is still a detail that is not easy to find information about. But Iran gives the reason that they destroyed them. It is possible that the United States is trying to reduce the naval capability of the IRGC, because Iran later admitted that naval officers were killed. But the clear information now weighs on Iran's explanation of why they fired at those three ships first. Ships from Saudi Arabia, ships from Qatar. The crew is gone. Look at the reaction from Saudi Arabia. They are very angry. Very angry. It's not as clear as before. This is clear now. This is one part. That the Western side, Trump, therefore has NATO by implication. The head, the Secretary-General of NATO, praised President Trump and supported the pressure on Iran to open the strait because they are suffering from natural gas and oil. 2 >> This support, from before, Europe never supported this. Now NATO, again, supports it. >> Yes, yes. Mr. Patchara, you are speaking directly. You are speaking clearly. That the 32 NATO countries, on the first day, seemed to be arguing. Trump is the same old Trump, who curses and says they don't help. He curses, or rather, complains that they don't increase their military budget. But on the second day of the meeting, informally, they praised each other. Those who told me, reporters who expanded on it, said they praised Trump considerably for pushing NATO to increase its budget successfully. Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark have increased their budgets a lot. Even though Spain is still below 2%, we must thank them. And one thing to thank them for is pressuring Iran to stop the attacks, and for bombing Iran on the first night, the first night. They attacked 60-80 targets. The second and third nights, over 140 targets. >> Ah, 90 and 140. So they praised this. This makes it clearer that there is unity. Iran >> Is this it, Professor? Is this the news that makes it so? Meaning that the encouragement and support from NATO are coming, and now Iran's legitimacy is gradually decreasing. Now some people say that Iran's legitimacy is gone because it attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz, commercial ships. Is this the reason why >> Now America is emboldened. Now, in trying to open the front wider and larger, or what is the meaning? This means they have attacked for 3 consecutive days, 3 consecutive days, and the latest one. >> It sounds like, for example, even yesterday, they targeted and bombed water pumps, freshwater pumps. I'm not sure how this will expand or not, but this is the reason why America is now reconsidering its stance from a ceasefire to tearing up the ceasefire agreement or something like that. Is that possible, Professor? >> It should be called suspended, rather. Because at the meeting in Turkey, the President did not speak clearly. What was clear was that, in his opinion, if asked, the ceasefire agreement is truly over. He used the word "over." >> Over. >> Yes, over. But >> Whoever wants to talk, let them talk. This was said on the plane. He said "is over" in the capital of Turkey. But after the meeting, on the plane, this makes us have to follow every detail hour by hour. Some people even get stressed because they have to follow so much. But on the plane, he said, "But whoever wants to talk, let them talk." And there was confirmation from the negotiation teams for 60 days that they are still talking. They are still talking. This means the agreement is suspended, and they are talking technically. And today it is clear that in the talks, America asked for an increase in the protection fee, 20%. Iran talked to Oman last Friday. The details have not come out yet. We will have to see, because it is in accordance with Article 5 of the MOU that Iran must talk to Oman. And the matter of Oman is a big issue. It is the first point. And those who sympathize with Iran can use this point, that Iran sees that during the 60 days, before talking to the Sultan of Oman, why are there almost 140 ships sailing along the coast, going towards Oman and then leaving? Why didn't they slow down, talk to Iran, talk to the IRGC, or in parentheses, why didn't they pay the protection fee to Iran? Why did they go that way? That's why they attacked the route through Oman. This is what made Oman and Saudi Arabia very unhappy. But Iran sees that if that's the case, they won't have any leverage or bargaining chips in negotiations with the United States in 60 days if everyone can come and go freely. But the United States sees that, well, it was agreed. But Iran says they still have to talk to Oman. They just talked to Oman last Friday. During this time, they must slow down, or whoever wants to leave must ask for Iran's permission. In parentheses, they must pay them. One million to two million dollars per ship. This is not used for calculating expenses or multiplying. This ship, Iran, unofficially, no one confirms it, shipping companies don't confirm it. But these expenses, for Mr. Patchara, for me, for the listeners, that one million to two million dollars per ship, if paid to Iran, they will lose income. Therefore, from Iran's point of view, attacking the strait is a last resort, something the West says is "hard to let go." If they let it go freely, Iran will be at a disadvantage at the negotiating table. There are two big issues to negotiate, not just the strait. The issue of returning seized assets, lifting sanctions, which have not been lifted, but have been reimposed. And the issue of nuclear weapons, which will be very complicated. And now Iran is proceeding to repair the site of the nuclear laboratory, according to aerial photographs from several major news agencies that have just been released. Mr. Patcharak has probably seen it. How true it is, we have to wait for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect it. But [inhales] >> This is the point. The first reason to explain why it erupted is that Iran hoped to gain an advantage. The United States saw it as an opportunity to quickly export oil to gain an advantage, so people would be comfortable, people would be satisfied, volatility would decrease. It conflicts here. Europe wants it to come out. Saudi Arabia wants to sell. Oman, Thai ships want to come out. Therefore, it is contradictory, and Iran has fewer allies this time. And this makes America emboldened, and they attack heavily, about 3 waves. But the second point is that America also has limitations. Right now, they can attack military bases and maritime infrastructure. But Iran knows where the weak points are. They are in Bahrain, in Jordan, in Qatar. Where are they? They are where Iran can fire missiles at these countries to exert pressure. And most importantly, Mr. Patchara has seen the numbers from the Brookings Institution, from CSIS, which is a research unit of the US Congress. It concludes that the Patriot anti-missile missiles have depleted about half of their stock. >> Oh. >> And the THAAD missiles, high-altitude, fastest, and most accurate, have depleted 30%. Therefore, we must be careful about the stock. They cannot defend allies much, and production is not fast enough.