Transcription
Hello everyone. This is Bot's Hand. Today, we will be delivering a program on the theme of the future of US-Iran relations. Our guest is Professor Mi Masashi from Meiji Gakuin University. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Professor Mi, first, I would like to ask about the news of an agreement that came in on the morning of June 15th, Japan time. President Trump has said multiple times in the past that an agreement was close, and there was also a two-week ceasefire agreement in April. So, frankly, how do you view this current agreement? Well, although the details are not yet fully understood, compared to last April, it seems that more concrete exchange conditions and points of compromise from both sides are emerging. For example, there are specific items such as the unfreezing of assets worth $250 billion and the handling of the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, in that sense, I think we can say that progress has been made compared to the April ceasefire. However, even so, this current matter also involves a 60-day ceasefire, and then, from there, discussions will be held on the most important issue of nuclear development and the handling of uranium enrichment. Since the situation is that we will have a ceasefire and then discuss, I believe that the situation where we cannot afford to be complacent has not changed at all. Hmm. For example, if a perfect agreement that we can celebrate without reservation is 100 points, how many points would you give to the April agreement and how many to this one? Well, if the April agreement was 20 points, then this one might be around 50 points. I see. So, the format of shelving important issues and discussing them later, and agreeing for the time being, remains unchanged, doesn't it? Yes, that's right. And, since the core issue has not been addressed at all, in this current matter, nothing has been decided regarding nuclear issues or the situation on the Lebanese front. Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, according to leaked information, it seems to be fully open, but it is still unclear how long this will last, or whether the religious leaders within Iran truly agree to this. Therefore, I believe the situation is still one where we cannot afford to be complacent. Hmm. However, it has moved from 20 points to 50 points, and an agreement has been reached. What do you think is the biggest factor that led to this agreement at this particular time? Well, I think the emergence of concrete issues is significant. But in a broader sense, there are the midterm elections, and if we enter the midterm elections as things stand, it will be a disaster. Also, their options are running out. President Trump also wants to withdraw from the war quickly. Furthermore, the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump has become very strained in the past week or so, according to news reports. Considering these backgrounds, it is likely that they were able to finalize relatively concrete terms, and thus reached an agreement this time. Hmm. Regarding the concrete information, you mentioned the lifting of asset freezes earlier. Could you please explain what asset freezes are for those who don't understand the background? Well, Iran became an Islamic Republic in 1979 through the Islamic Revolution. Since the establishment of the regime in '79, for nearly 50 years, economic sanctions have been imposed. Assets of Iran before the revolution, as well as assets held abroad, were all frozen due to economic sanctions, and this situation of asset freezes has continued to this day. The amount of $240 billion or $50 billion is a very large sum, so if it returns to Iran, it will be very important money for Iran's post-war reconstruction. Therefore, in that sense, asset freezes are indeed important. I understand. You mentioned frozen assets. Are there other things that both sides are exchanging as conditions, based on reports? Broadly speaking, what does this mean in the context of America's Middle East strategy so far? It's a broad question, but is it a gain for America, or have they gained something? Could you explain, taking into account the historical context? Yes, I understand. First, with this agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will reportedly be freely navigable. As I mentioned earlier, discussions on nuclear development and uranium enrichment will be held from now on. But on a larger scale, before the conflict began, before February 28th, the Strait of Hormuz was freely traversed by everyone. Regarding nuclear development, there was a nuclear agreement from the Obama administration, from which President Trump withdrew. The Obama-era nuclear agreement stipulated that the amount of enriched uranium could be held at 3.67% or less for 15 years, up to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium. President Trump will likely negotiate for stricter conditions for Iran, but it seems quite difficult to impose restrictions on Iran for over 15 years, limiting enrichment to below 3.67% and below 300 kg. For Iran, a more hardline leadership has emerged as a result of this attack, and they currently consider nuclear capability and nuclear development capability as central to their national security. Therefore, in that sense, considering that before February 28th, the Strait of Hormuz was normally passable by everyone, and furthermore, a more hardline leader than Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the attack, has now emerged in Iran, the overall situation is worse than before the war. In that sense, although America remains a global superpower in terms of military strength, they have ultimately engaged in military action and created a situation worse than before the war. Therefore, even if this war ends, it cannot be said to be a victory for America. I see. So, not only was there no gain, but the supreme leader, an 80-year-old supreme leader, was killed, and a more hardline regime has been established. It seems like a war where more has been lost than gained. If this war were to end, would the outcome effectively be a victory for Iran's persistence and a defeat for America? Yes. In the current situation, if there is a ceasefire and negotiations are to follow, I believe it would be appropriate to say it is a defeat for America. It is unlikely that Iran will accept stricter conditions than the Obama administration's nuclear agreement. Furthermore, if they lift the freeze on overseas assets and give money to Iran, America will be in an even more disadvantageous position. Therefore, I don't think it's easy to claim victory for America. Hmm. Looking ahead, the focus will naturally be on how the US-Iran negotiations regarding nuclear development will proceed, which will undoubtedly not be easy. Also, public support for the Trump administration is likely to face scrutiny. Yes, support for the Republican Party has undoubtedly decreased to some extent due to this matter. Furthermore, a sense of antipathy towards Israel has spread, particularly among young Americans. Therefore, if asked whether anything has improved for America compared to before the war, I feel that there is really nothing. In the lead-up to this agreement, there were talks last week about progress towards an agreement, and then Israel attacked Lebanon again. What is Israel's position, and how has it led to the conclusion of this agreement? Hmm. Well, Israel has consistently advocated for abandoning a ceasefire agreement and attacking Iran. Israel's consistent objective from the beginning, or rather, has always been to stop Iran's nuclear development capabilities, missile development capabilities, and its support for proxy forces in the region. And ultimately, were these three things attacked in this Iran war? No, they remain completely untouched. In that sense, Israel wants to impose restrictions on at least one of these, and ideally, neutralize its nuclear development capabilities. Therefore, if a compromise is reached at this point, they will have achieved nothing. Their true desire is to continue the war. And the situation in Lebanon is the biggest bottleneck in the current peace agreement. If Israel causes trouble in Lebanon, Iran will inevitably be forced to retaliate against Israel, which could lead to the agreement being overturned again. Therefore, I believe that how to contain Israel is the most important challenge for the Trump administration. And although there are three to four days until the signing, which is reportedly on the 19th, I have a feeling that Israel might do something in Lebanon before then. I see. It seems we need to keep an eye on Israel's movements. Yes, I think it's important. I learned a lot. Thank you very much. With the Pivot app, you can earn miles by watching videos and apply for luxury benefits. Benefits such as Amazon gift cards and book vouchers are updated monthly. Furthermore, with background playback and download functions, it supports long-term viewing and offline playback. All of this is available for free. Please take advantage of the Pivot app. Thank you.