Transcription
On on Iran. Mr. President, just to be clear, I mean, what what's next? Are you is the threat of um the bombing starting again? How realistic is that?
I don't want to say that. I mean, I'd like to tell you. I'd like to say uh on a certain hour, a certain day, the bombing is going to I don't want to say that. I can only say that Iran I could say this with very very strong conviction. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Not going to happen.
President, what would the use be?
No chance.
What would What would the use be of repeating the bombing? You You did it for 38 days.
No, we did. And you did not get the political changes in Iran.
I got I I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you write incorrectly. You're a fake guy and guys like you write about incorrectly. We had a total military victory. We knocked out in their entire navy. We knocked out their entire air force. We knocked out all of their anti-aircraft weaponry. We knocked out all of their radar. We knocked out all of their leaders, number one, and then we knocked out all of their leaders in the second division. And we knocked out numerous of their leaders in the third division, and they're very confused. Uh we've had a total victory except by people like you that don't write the truth. You know, you should write. I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write, but you and the New York Times and CNN, I would say, are the worst.
On another another, you know, you're better. Your editors tell you what to write and you're right. And you should be ashamed of another war.
I actually think it's treason when you write like they're doing well militarily and they have no navy, no air force, no anti- anything. By the way, we knocked out 85% of their manufacturing for the missiles. We knocked out everything. Uh we haven't knocked out other than one bridge and we did because they misbehaved, but we have bridges we could knock out. We could knock out their bridges and their electrical capacity within two days. We could knock out the whole thing. And then I read the New York Times and they they act like they're doing well. Everybody knows that. That's why your subscribers are way down. You know, the Times subscribers are way down because it's fake news.
Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome again to CIA analysis. I'm your host Kasian. Thank you very much for tuning in to the first. It is the first right. Today is Monday 18th of May 2026. Thank you so much for tuning in whether you're watching this on YouTube or on Rumble. I have to improvise in this new studio. It's not new. is the same place but uh as you can see I have innovated the the background and there are big changes are going to happen to me and uh for sana analysis. So while you're watching this guys if you like what I do if you appreciate the independent journalism investigative work and also geopolitical analysis I try in my humble capacity to present to you the kind thing to you from you guys is just simply hit the like button subscribe to Syrian analysis and share this video with your friends.
Today we're going to of course speak about the Iran case and the war of aggression against Iran and Trump's new allegations that they have obliterated basically Iran's military capabilities. They have destroyed their air defenses. They have destroyed their navy. They have destroyed their air force. They have destroyed their manufacturing capacity. All is left in Iran are just some bridges and electricity generators. However, if that was uh the case, then the question remains for Donald J. Trump to answer then how um Iran is still capable of firing ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones and blocking the straight of Humus. Had the Americans destroyed all these military capabilities and the manufacturing capacity, how is it Iran still standing? How is it the political system still standing if they killed the first, the second, the third, and the fourth all let's say classes of politicians and officials in Iran. And there is nothing to brag about when you are talking like a gangster. You don't go to another country and kill their let's say first, second, third, fourth class of officials and destroy their let's say manufacturing capacity and then brag it brag about it. um let's say in the U jet as he was probably returning from China. Unfortunately for Donald Trump of course all these allegations are untrue. They have not succeeded in let's say achieving a victory a total victory a total victory as he tries to all the time explain. And I'm sure um you have seen the face of the journalist from I think he is from the New York Times and you know we don't defend the New York Times or the Washington Post or any other mainstream media outlet on this show but journalists are have become more or less used to Donald Trump's bluffing and him calling everyone fake news except himself. Everyone is fake news. Everybody is telling lies but Donald Trump. Everybody is a liar except for the Zionist class. Everything is a liar except for the donors of Donald Trump. And everybody is a liar except for Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of uh Donald J. Trump.
In this episode guys, we're going to discuss many of these allegations and also we're going to discuss this uh let's say report of u the um the New York Times where they share US intelligence assessment showing that Iran retains substantial missile capabilities and then we will also discuss the broader strategy of Iran which I have written extensively especially on my Substack guys. on Substack. I'm publishing opinion articles. During the show, guys, it's it's not always, let's say, you you're not always structuring your opinions in the best way possible. You can deliver lots of messages. Sometimes you forget about something. Sometimes you um really use a word that doesn't really, let's say, describe the situation perfectly. But when you write an opinion article and you read it over and over again and you just try to close all the holes you know in the article it turns out to be um you know the explanation always turns out to be better than just speaking and improvising like I'm doing here on Syrian analysis. So if you're on Substack guys, this week I published an article on Substack called how is Iran dismantling the empire behind Israel and it has received a lot of good feedback and some people of course criticize and rightfully so because not always you can cover everything in one article and then according to the Substack's own statistics this week my account let's say on Substack is rising is in the of uh you know rising authors in this 71st uh position. So in in the global stage if they are like what they call rising stars between quotations you know in the international politics category then I am trending in the 71st let's say level that would be really nice guys if you run substack you can also read but I'm going to literally explain to you this article since we also have spoken with um our friend William Banagenan and I have disagreed with him I pushed back against his uh arguments but we didn't have much time that probably the eBay should have been 2 hours instead of 1 hour. So I went and I wrote an opinion article about it. We're going to discuss that as well.
So guys, just before I started this uh conversation with you today, Trump went to his true social and he threatened Iran again of course for the thousand times. He said for Iran the clock is ticking and they better get moving fast or there won't be anything left of them. Time is of the essence. Of course, um when you when you threaten the first time and you don't really follow suit with your threats and the second time and the third time and the fourth time and then the 50th time and the 100 times, it's quite clear that you are bluffing. If you want to destroy, if you are capable of destroying, which you are, all the infrastructure of Iran basically um and tolerating and managing the crisis in the Middle East. Had if you were able to do that, they would have done it for a long time. And this is goes against the theory that says Donald Trump is playing for the chess and goes against the theory that says Iran is playing also balls with the Americans in the region in order to restructure the um energy trade routes and also somehow Iran is also according to this theory um let's say an undercover agent for the Americans and the Israelis and they playing balls with them and the question is against who if the monarch is in the Persian Gulf are all subordinates to the American interests and American military. Then against who they are playing this chess basically in the region. Who is the one player in the region that the Americans and the Iranians need to cooperate against? If the Saudis already revolving under the umbrella of the Americans the same goes to Qatar, Bahin, Kuwait, UAE is almost what they call nowadays East Israel. Israel for example in the region. I don't see any potential player in the region that the Iranians and the Americans would or could cooperate against. So I don't find any premise to this theory. I don't believe in it and I reject it and I will push against it again and again and again today. People can have different opinions guys. We have to respect people having other opinions. I have I'm receiving some comments from people say respect to you for having people who disagree with you. And this is the reason why Sriiana analysis exists. We don't want to create an eco chamber and just host you know the same people who are just repeating the same talking points. It's nice to have an other side of the story and then push back against their opinions as well.
But this week since the Americans are all have already achieved the total victory as Donald Trump claimed despite that they have sent the Iranians their conditions and this is the conditions that they have set for the Iranians and those are five conditions basically the United States they say will never pay any compensation on war damages to Iran. Iran should and would transfer 400 kg of uranium to the United States. And remember, they have already obliterated this in the past, but somehow there is still 400 kg of uranium underneath under the surface in in Iran. And they say only one Iranian nuclear facility would remain operational. So probably the level of enrichment would be one or 2%. And then the United States would not release even 25% of Iran's frozen assets according to the American conditions. And finally they say any hold to the war on all funds would be conting contingent on negotiations. So it's like inshallah in the future we negotiate about ending other wars. Basically those are four four conditions and the last one is just like let's talk about it on the long run. But the Iranians came back and they said no we're not accepting these conditions. In fact, we want an end to the war on all fronts, especially in Lebanon. They want lifting of all anti-Iranian sanctions, all of them. Not 1%, not 2%, and not 25%, all of them. They want the release of Iran's frozen funds. Basically, they want compensation for damages caused by the war. And they want recognition of Iran's sovereign rights over the straight of this case. In my opinion, if you ask my opinion what the Iranians could achieve from these five points, I would say that the Iranians would definitely achieve the recognition of Iran sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. They would definitely uh achieve an end to the war on all fronts, especially in Lebanon. I'm not sure about lifting the anti-Iranian sanctions by the Americans or the Europeans. These countries would never accept Iran becoming a rich country in the region because guys this is not only about a military conflict. This will decide the future of the west west Asia over in the Middle East for decades to come. Imagine the situ a situation where Iran as a nation state as a sovereign nation state emerges victorious against a superpower by surviving. second having its leverage and control over the strait of Hummus and having all its frozen funds back and plus the end of the sanctions. Then we are no longer speaking about Iran as um as a regional power but about an above regional player and when you become an above regional player then you will exert and project your basically leverage and influence over the region. And this is basically the cycle of history. And Persia as um a former Persian let's say empire they have expanded. They have expanded into other regions militarily, intellectually, culturally, language wise and so many other ways. And in this case, I truly rule out the possibility of a military conflict in the region through which Iranians would expand in the region. But the Iranians would definitely have stronger leverage in the region plus influence over the Gulf monarchies in the in the Persian Gulf. And this is something terrifying of course for the Persian Gulf monarchies plus Israel which they are basically in a struggle of power against Iran itself. And Israel has its own agenda what people call the Pax Juda Empire agenda and this cannot be materialized by Israel unless they destroy Iran. And it seems that this is not possible to to achieve. Therefore, the more plausible, let's say, explanation or more plausible consequence and outcome of this war would be that there would be um a phase an era of stalemate that Iran survives. Iran emboldens its political system, especially the what they call the principalists or the hardliners. This is what they call in the press. these people would have more control and more leverage over the Iranian economy, its decision- making, especially on the strategic level. Therefore, they would be a delayed conflict in the future. It doesn't seem that this is going to be resolved anytime soon. This is going to take for years, probably a decade or more. So under such circumstances, I expect for Iran to embolden its position in the region after this war and prepare for another strategic conflict in the future because neither Iran can destroy Israel nor Israel can destroy Iran until the circumstances change in the future until the international system change in the future. But rest assured that time is not playing in favor of Israel. And time is basically I'm not saying it's playing in favor of Iran, but it's definitely not playing in favor of uh Israel in this case because there are multiple factors that we have to take into consideration and that is the American the most important factor for Israel to be a dominant player in the region is the strength and power of the American empire. Israel derives its its um its strength basically by how much America um has strength in in in the United States itself. And how much America can project its strength in the Middle East means Israel is projecting its strength in in the Middle East. Therefore, the Israelis have invested so much in the American political class and in the military class and in intelligence class in order not only to compromise them but you know to uh to converge and and bring the interests on a mutual ground between the Israelis and the Americans through different means right and in the future it looks like the Americans are not going to be on the peak of their strength like they used to be in the '9s or in 2003 or in 2006 or in 200 2011 and even in 2020. Nowadays, America looks like it's an empire in decay. And also, most importantly within the United States itself, these rift that happened in the America first movement and the rise of more anti-Israeli voices among the nationalist, America first and conservatives. This is the place where they where the Israelis see the existential threat for them. And that's why they they see a very narrow window of opportunity now to achieve this regime change in Iran which failed. And therefore the future doesn't look like they would or could be capable of repeating a similar scenario in Iran. That's why I say time is not playing in favor of the Israelis. And I will expand on that. Please stay with me because I will expand on that my friends.
Now, of course, the um Donald Trump also claimed that 80% of the um missile launchers are gone, which means um Iran enjoys now only 20% of its missile capabilities. Of course, this is something um unbelievable from the Trump side and we don't expect from Trump to be truthful to be honest with you. However, uh let's little bit dig in into what the New York Times has said basically in this case. This is an article published only 5 days ago and they say US intelligence shows Iran retains substantial missile capabilities. And we have to really understand how important this article is especially when it comes to the munitions and what is left of munitions of uh the Americans how how much and how many missiles and rockets and munitions they can produce and compare it to Iran. Right? So, the Trump administration's public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what the US intelligence agencies are telling policy makers behind closed doors. And this is according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers, and underground facilities. Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the straight of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway. People with knowledge of the assessment said they show that the Iranians can use mobile launchers that are inside the sites to move missiles to other locations. Iran still Iran still feels about 70% of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70% of its pre-war missile stockpile. According to the assessments, that stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and the smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter range targets on land or at sea. Military intelligence agencies have also reported based on information from multiple collection streams, including satellite imagery and other surveillance technologies, that Iran has regained access to roughly 90% of its underground missile storage and launch facilities nationwide, which are now assessed to be partially or fully operational. The people with knowledge of the assessment said the findings undercut months of public assurances from Trump and Hexes who have told Americans that the Iranian military was quote unquote decimated and no longer a threat. The new intelligence assessment suggests that Mr. Trump and his military advisers overestimated the damage that the US military could inflict on Iranian missile sides and underestimated Iran's resilience and ability to bounce back. The findings underscore the dilemma Mr. Trump would face if the fragile month old ceasefire in the conflict collapses and fullscale fighting resumes. The US military has already listen this is the most important in my opinion. The US military has already depleted its stocks of many critical munitions including tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptor missiles and precision strike and attackams groundbased missiles. And yet the intelligence suggests that Iran retains considerable military capability including around the vital strait of Humus. If Mr. Trump ordered commanders to launch more strikes to take out or diminish those Iranian capabilities, then the US military would have to dig even deeper into stocks of critical munitions. Doing so would further undercut US stockpiles at a time when the Pentagon and the major arms makers are already struggling to find the industrial capacity to replenish American reserves. Mr. Trump and his advisers have repeatedly denied that the US munition munitions stocks have been drained and to dangerously low levels. In private, Pentagon officials have offered similar assurances to anxious European allies. Those allies have purchased billions of dollars of munitions from the US on behalf of Ukraine and they are concerned that those munitions will not be delivered because the US military will need them to replenish its own stocks. A worry that would only intensify if the president orders a return to hostilities with Iran.
Now, Iran's apparent ability to retain substantial military capacity has exacerbated concerns among US allies about the wisdom of the war and generated criticisms among Mr. Trump's anti-interventionist supporters who opposed getting into the conflict in the first place. As the New York Times previously reported, the US expended roughly this is very very crucial guys. Let's let's focus on this just a little bit because it will show us how uh limited is the American military manufacturing capacity. The US expanded roughly 1100 long range stealth cruise missiles in the war. This is close to the total supply that remains in the American stockpile. Secondly, the US military also fired more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles. And this is roughly 10 times the number of the Pentagon procures in a year. This is 10 times more what they can basically procure in one year. And they have fired thousands of them. and it used more than 1300 Patriot interceptor missiles during the war which accounts for more than two years of production at 2025 rates. So replenishing those stockpiles will take years not months. Loit Martin currently produces around 650 Patriot interceptors a year and they have fired 1,300 Patriot missiles in just 2 months. The company has announced plans to ramp up production of the crucial air defense weapons to 2,000 a year. But doing so will not be easy, and the industry's ability to produce rocket motors cannot be scaled up as quickly as Mr. Trump has demanded. the officials have claimed.
Now, some people may come and say, why do you think this is accurate? Well, it can be anything, right? It can be accurate and it can be not. There is a difference between an intelligence assessment basically pushing for war and this has happened many times through the mouse pieces of the intelligence community in the New York Times in the Washington Post and other media outlets for example the CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the rest of the charade. Right? It is very possible. They have done it over and over again and they have fed the press with false information but to push for war. But when it comes to trying to pull the brakes from the war, this is not some in my opinion a normal behavior from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the rest. When they start quoting officials in the intelligence community who are suspicious of the the the premise and they are suspicious of the question why there has to be a third phase of a conflict in Iran. They're suspicious of the outcome of this war. They're suspicious of um the wisdom behind this war and they're suspicious of the capability of the United States to continue this war efficiently in order to reach its point its its strategic objectives. Rest assured at the Trump administration succeeded and managed from the first few weeks to achieve the strategic goals of the United States. All these sources of the Washington Post and New York Times were feeding them now with this information. They would have cheered and applauded and celebrated the American victory against Iran. Now that this war has reached into deadlock into a place where the Americans are between two bitter options. One is to withdraw and allow for Iran to emerge as a above regional player in the region or continue the war which is even worse for the American interest in the region and as we have seen the American manufacturing capacity is limited and they cannot really continue for another month or two or three in the same pace that they have started the work. So in all cases all I'm saying is when the intelligence community start having assessments and start doubting and questioning the wisdom of a war I personally would tend to believe that this is more believable than when they try to push for war. And in this case, I think what goes also against the so-called theory that basically Americans and the Israelis and the Iranians are in the same camp and trying to, you know, somehow play um a 4D chess in the region and they're manipulating everyone. They're destroying their own countries. They're destroying their own manufacturing capacity. They're killing their own people and basically they are wasting billions and billions of dollars to play some game that we don't know um plot a conspiracy against us. Right? This is basically the secretary of um the defense secretary of the United States, the former um secretary of um defense of the United States. He was on um I think this is the the face the nation and uh he he basically revealed the fact that Natano told him in 2009 that the Iranian regime was fragile and would crumble at the first attack first attack and he told him um that he was dead wrong and this is on American press. Take a look.
Is he now?
Let's increase the volume.
And is he now? He told me all those things in July of 2009. And I told him then he was dead wrong. That he was underestimating the resilience of the Iranians. That I thought he had been lulled into an unrealistic position by the absence of an Iraqi reaction when the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq. paid. He'd been lulled by the Syrian lack of reaction when we destroyed their when the Israel destroyed their reactor that was um during the second Bush administration.
But this is what he's been trying to sell for years.
And I told him then that this notion that that the he was saying then the regime is frag this is 2009. The regime is fragile. It'll crumble at the first attack and they won't have time to do anything else. I told him then he was wrong.
And is he now?
So this is the former secretary of defense of the United States basically telling us that BB Netanyahu told him that the so-called Iranian regime what they call a regime is fragile and they could crumble in a matter of a few days when there is let's say extensive attacks and strikes against the government positions IGC nuclear program infrastructure bridges etc. But he warned him, he warned Netanyahu that he was delusional and this is not going to happen because he cannot build a case on the on the previous cases. For example, the lack of response from the Iraqis when they destroyed one of their nuclear sites and then also the lack of response from the Syrian side because there has been also an interesting case in Syria in 2007. And I think this was in August 2007 when the Israeli fight when the Israeli intelligence detected basically a secret nuclear site in Derzor in eastern Syria and they claimed that this was um basically in cooperation with North Koreans and they have destroyed these sites right and this is mentioned also I think in the biography of uh Bulmer uh where he said that he had a phone call with uh President George Bush the son in 2007 and he shared with him this intelligence uh information and the Americans couldn't believe their eyes. They couldn't believe that something like this was existing or had existed in Syria and they wanted assurances. They wanted some data and when um back in the day the prime minister of Israel, this was uh Ol when he shared the concrete information he he received the green light from the Americans and the from the Americans. And remember this is very important guys. The Israeli fighter jets, they flew over the Mediterranean and they went over the Turkish skies and from the Turkish skies they went into eastern Syria and they bombed this nuclear reactor potential, possible, alleged, whatever. I personally believe it was the case. Maybe in the future we may receive different uh let's say information but for now my information also confirms that there has been a reactor. We don't know how advanced that was. We don't know if the Koreans were involved but there was a reactive and this was destroyed. But remember this was back in the day in 2007. The Israelis flew over the skies of Turkey, which means they have coordinated with the Turkey side and Erdogan allowed Israel to fly its fighter jets, its F-16s over the Turkish sky to bomb inside their destroy this because they couldn't they wouldn't dare to basically penetrate the Syrian skies all the way from eastern Syria to sorry, Western Syria to eastern Syria without being detected, without the air defenses repelling, detecting, intercepting, destroying any of the fighter jets of the Israelis. So they flew from in the regional waters. They went into Turkey under Erdogan remember and flew to east and then they destroyed this reactor and this was in 2007. So the question is also for the former president of Syria Bash Assad like he has seen the cooperation of Erdogan with the Israelis back in the day. It is it is really it raises lots of questions this nature of the relationship with Erdogan the trust that we had in Erdogan. We accepted Erdogan like he is one of us in Syria. We opened our market for the Turkish products. We allowed Erdogan to come for the opening of a football stadium in Aleppo as if he is some sort of a like who is Erdogan? Why would Erdogan come for the opening of the Aleppo International Stadium for example? And why not one of the allies of Syria back in the day? Why Erdogan? Erdogan is a Muslim border figure. His party is an extension for the Muslim border. He is um a leader of a country which has one of the largest armies in NATO. and he has proven over and over again to be a loyal servant for the American interests in the region especially um a geography through which NATO can project its military and political might on West Asia, the Middle East and all the way to the Caucuses and Central Asia. And nowadays we also see how Erdogan is allowing basically NATO to project on on land or overland geopolitical influence to Caucasus and Central Asia through the corridor that they're going to open between Turkey and Azerban on Armenian territories. I mean it's already too late to ask all these questions but now that I remember how was it possible that Syrians trusted Erdogan and opened their homes and their houses and uh it's like our manufacturing uh zones industrial zones in Aleppo and we allow Turkish investors to come and invest like now by the way Aleppo is literally occupied by Turkey. Turkey controls the electricity. Turkey controls the money because Turkish L is being distributed. Tur um the infrastructure is being rebuilt by by Turkish engineers and by Turkish experts. Turkey has taken over Aleppo completely. The security in Aleppo, the airport in Aleppo, everything in Aleppo is imagine if you want to issue a document like a passport or national ID it is being printed in Turkey. This is the Syrian basically um the new Syria, the unfortunate situation.
Guys, as you're watching this stream, if you like what I do, if you like the research I do, the independent journalistic work I'm doing here, whether you agree or disagree with me, if you like independent journalism in general, it would be very kind of you if you simply just hit the like button, subscribe to Syrian Analysis, and share this video with your friends. I believe this stream deserves to reach to a wider audience and with your help we can of course bring more views to this stream. I would really appreciate it if you do that guys.
Now I'm going to um shed light on my article guys on how Iran is dismantling the empire behind Israel. And this has uh I have published this on my Substack account after my conversation with William Banbagen because I kept thinking about this question um um this one question um which sits at the center of the regional war now right unfolding. Why does Iran appear more focused on targeting American bases and infrastructure in the Persian Gulf than on directly attempting to destroy Israel? Right? This is a question that many people are asking, including our friend William asked this question. In my opinion, many people for many people watching events emotionally rather than strategically, this immediately produces suspicion, right? They start asking the question, if Iran truly considers Israel its primary enemy, then why not strike Israel with overwhelming force directly? Why target the Gulf monarchies, American bases, radar systems, and regional infrastructure instead? Why pressure the wider architecture surrounding Israel rather than Israel alone? Now I believe this question is of great significance because it conceals a misunderstanding regarding the true nature of power in contemporary Middle East. Now the first thing we have to understand is that Israel doesn't operate in isolation. Israel's military superiority is not merely Israeli. It is part of a much larger Americanled regional system stretching across the Gulf monarchies, intelligence sharing networks, radar systems, surveillian infrastructure, air defense coordination, military bases, satellite systems, and financial dependencies. Now, the Persian Gulf today is not simply an NFG region. It is the real operational zone of American power in West Asia. And once we understand that, Iran's strategy begins to make more sense. If Iranian planners believe they cannot realistically destroy Israel directly without triggering total regional analiation, including nuclear escalation, then the more rational strategy becomes degrading the infrastructure that allows Israeli dominance to function in the first place. In other words, Iran appeals less interested in dramatic symbolism and more interested in weakening the ecosystem sustaining Israeli supremacy in the region. This is why Gulf monarchies become central targets of Iran because these monarchies host the American military infrastructure protecting Israel. The radar systems positioned across the Gulf are not passive defensive tools. These basically radar systems provide detection capabilities, tracking coordination and intelligence sharing that help Israeli and American systems intercept incoming Iranian missiles. Now, American bases in the Gulf are not neutral observers either. They are operational assets inside the wider confrontation. So when Iran targets these systems, it is not avoiding Israel. It is in fact targeting the regional nervous system behind Israeli military protection. But there is another layer here that I believe is even more important. The Gulf monarchies built their entire modern identity around the idea of stability. Countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia transformed themselves into investment hubs by convincing the world that they represented insulated islands of safety inside a chaotic region. They legitimously increasingly depended less on military capability and more on investor confidence, financial flaws, luxury development projects, tourism and global integration. The UAE in particular perfected this model. Dubai became for many it's like a brand, right? It's a geopolitical, it's economic brand. The message here was uh simple. Bring your money, bring your corporations, bring your wealth, bring your technology, bring your banking networks and bring your investments here because American power guarantees permanent security. Of course, Ian understands this perfectly and understands that this image itself is the real strategic center of gravity in the region. Now once missiles begin flying over basically Gulf airspace, once investors start questioning whether the American military presence actually increases rather than reduces danger. Once the perception of stability begins to collapse, the entire regional economic model becomes vulnerable. At that point, Iran doesn't need to conquer these states militarily. It only needs to shatter the illusion that they are untouchable. And that is exactly what we are watching nowadays or we have watched in the past weeks in the region because the deeper Ian message to the Gulf monarchies is psychological. They're basically telling them American protection has become a liability. This is also why I think many analysts misunderstand Iran's apparent restraint toward Israel itself. Because people online casually speak about, you know, destroying Israel as though this were simply a matter of willingness. But serious states do not think in this way. Do not think in slogans. They think in consequences. What would happen if I massively strike Israel and pose an existential threat against Israel? Iran understands that and understands that any truly existential military threat against Israel risks nuclear escalation. Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Everybody in the region knows this. A scenario in which Israel genuinely believes state survival is at stake would almost certainly push the conflict into catastrophic territory far beyond conventional war. And this is why I think Iran's strategy is built less around immediate destruction and more around long-term attrition. Not attrition against Israel alone, but against the American regional order sustaining it. Right? Because my friends, Israel without overwhelming American military, financial, technological, and diplomatic backing cannot function as the dominant regional force it currently is. Israeli power structurally depends on American power and Iran appears increasingly focused on degrading that structure indirectly rather than attempting impossible fantasies of immediate military anal. At the same time, something else is beginning to shift that I think may proven may prove even more dangerous for Israel in the long term. And this is what I spoke in at the beginning of the show that time is in favor of Iran and not in favor of Israel. And this is the point that I would like to um explain and and expand on and describe and why um this shift is dangerous for the Israelis. And this shift is basically a shift in the political climate inside the United States itself. For decades, support of Israel functioned almost as a sacred consensus in American politics. Of course, criticism existed, but mostly at the margins. What has changed after the Gaza genocide and now after the war of aggression with Iran is not merely liberal criticism like that liberal criticism already existed to some degree in the past decades. The more significant transformation is the fracture emerging on the American right itself on the American right. The spectrum is on the right here. Right. So increasingly figures inside conservative nationalist and American first circles are openly asking why Israeli priorities appear to supersede American interests. Why endless wars continue draining American resources and why criticism of Israel remains politically dangerous in ways criticism of almost any other foreign state is not. Polling, by the way, this is by Pure Research Center shows declining support for Isra among younger Republicans and growing negative perceptions across across the American population overall. This, my friends, doesn't mean Israel is suddenly abandoned by Washington. Far from it. The military and in in this institutional relationship remains extraordinarily deep. But politically, something important has started moving beneath the surface and we all can notice that. And I suspect Israeli strategists understand this danger very clearly because from their perspective the current period may represent a narrowing historical window. If American public opinion continues shifting, if future political coalitions become less willing to subordinate American interests to Israeli regional ambitions, then Israel's freedom of action could eventually become constrained in ways it has not experienced for decades. And this is where the regional dimension becomes actually important because I increasingly believe Israel's long-term ambition is not merely survival. Survival is already guaranteed through American backing and nuclear deterrence. The larger ambition appears to be transforming Israel into a fully autonomous regional imperial center. Think about the wider picture emerging now. Israel seeks dominance over eastern Mediterranean gas fields. Israel seeks integration into Gulf economic systems. Israel seeks normalization across the Arab world. Israel seeks influence over energy corridors linking Asia to Europe. Israel seeks indirect leverage over Syrian reconstruction and regional trade routes. And if Iran were ever transformed into a friendly postregime change state aligned with Western and Israeli interests, then the geopolitical implications would be staggering. At that point, Israel would no longer merely be an American client state protected from outside threats. It could evolve into the dominant geopolitical and energy hub of the entire region. Israel would become under this scenario a state positioned between Europe, the Gulf, and Asia. A state capable of leveraging trade routes, energy flows, intelligence systems, and military supremacy simultaneously. A state increasingly acting not merely as an extension of American power, but as a regional imperial actor on its own. And I think Ian understands this possibility very well. Which is why the current war is about whether the future of the Middle East or whether the future Middle East basically will be organized around an Israeli centered regional order backed by American power or enough resistance still exists across the region to prevent that transformation from becoming permanent. That is a real strategic struggle now unfolding beneath the headlines in my opinion and that is why Iran is not simply targeting Israel. Iran therefore is targeting the system that makes Israeli supremacy possible in the first place.
Now after our last conversation with William I was positively surprised by the way that the people were divided. I'm not saying how what's the percentage but many people said that they agree with the assessment of William. Now that I have expanded on my opinion and explained how is Iran dismantling the empire behind Israel, do you see that my arguments are more plausible and do you agree with me or do you agree with the other theory and that is Iran and Israel and the United are all cooperating and plotting against the region? Let me know guys in in in the comments. I I'm truly interested in your thoughts as well.
Now, um I think I think it is worthy of mentioning since we also uh titled today's episode with this Bitcoin war. Um there is a news nowadays and this is published by the cradle and the cradle is a credible news outlet. I trust them. So according to the cradle, let me bring this a little bit larger. So according to a website called Hermosafe, Iranian digital insurance. This is the website they to speak about secure digital insurance for maritime cargo. Hermosafe provides Iranian shipping companies and cargo owners with fast verifiable digital insurance paid via Bitcoin. and settled at the speed of blockchain. So, Iran has launched a new insurance platform called Hormosafe to provide coverage of for maritime cargo passing through the straight of Hormos. The platform offers marine insurance policies and financial liability certificates for shipments moving through the Persian Gulf, the straight of Hormos and surrounding waterways, effectively creating an Iranian mechanism to guarantee safe passage through one of the world's most strategically important shipping routes. Wana reported that documents reviewed by journalists show Iran's Ministry of Economy has been developing the initiative since early April, seeking to establish a framework in which parts of the straits maritime management would be handled through insurance related services. Officials involved in the project estimate that the platform could eventually generate more than $10 billion in revenue for IAN. Under regulations published on the platform's website, insurance policies are issued rapidly and include encrypted verification features. Premiums are paid in Bitcoin and cargo is covered immediately upon payment confirmation with a digitally signed receipt provided to the owner. Now the lunch comes as a straightup formos remains a critical archery for global energy shipments and maritime trade. Let's assume this is correct. Let's assume this move has been done and everything in this report is factually correct. If this is correct, then what Iran is doing with Homoafe may end up being far more important than many people currently realize because this is not simply a technical insurance platform or a cryptoreated exper experiment, right? What we are potentially looking at is part of a much broader geopolitical transformation in which sanctioned states are attempting to build parallel systems outside the direct control of the United States and the western financial orders. Now to understand why this matters, we first need to understand the strategic importance of the strait of Hummus itself. Hormuz of course is arguably the single most important energy choke point in the world. Roughly 1/5ifth of global oil trade passes through this narrow maritime corridor. The economies of China, India, Japan, South Korea, Europe and even indirectly the US all depend on stability in Hormuz. So whoever influences Homos influences the global economy. For decades, the United States has effectively treated maritime security in the Gulf as part of the American international order. But American control was never purely militarily military. It was also financial, legal and institutional. Maritime insurance, trade settlement systems, sanctions, enforcement, shipping certification and dollar dominated transactions all formed part of a wider architecture dominated by American institutions. And this is where Iran's move becomes extremely interesting in my opinion because what Thran appears to be attempting is not merely the protection of shipping routes. It is the creation of an alternative maritime financial infrastructure connected directly to one of the most strategic waterways on Earth. In other words, Iran is no longer speaking only the language of disruption. Traditionally, analysts have discussed Iranian leverage over humus in military terms like missiles, naval mines, anti-ship capabilities, drones, and the threat of closure. But whom safe basically suggests something much more sophisticated. Iran is attempting to insert itself into the administrative and financial management of Gulf trade itself. That is a major conceptual shift in my opinion. Instead of threatening the system from outside, Iran may now be attempting to build parallel mechanisms within the system itself. So the Bitcoin component is also uh being widely in my opinion misunderstood. This is not primarily about crypto enthusiasm or ideological fascination with decentralized currencies. Iran is under severe sanctions. Large sections of its banking system remain disconnected from western financial infrastructure. Dollar transactions are monitored. Access to global banking networks can be restricted at any moment. Iranian assets remain frozen abroad. Under those circumstances, alternative payment mechanisms become strategically valuable for the Iranians. Bitcoin in this context functions less as um actually it functions as sanctions resistant mechanism. This is how they call it in Iran. It allows rapid cross ber settlement without relying directly on American banks, dollar clearing systems or western approval. That is the real significance here. Right? The the key question is whether Bitcoin is about to replace the dollar. We don't know really. This is something many many theories exist. Some people say Bitcoin is a scam. Bitcoin is a S or Bitcoin this and that. But some people will say the key question is not whether Bitcoin is about to replace the dollar because it will not. This is the theory. The question for them, the real geopolitical question is whether enough parallel systems can emerge simultaneously to weaken Washington's
The ability to weaponize finance against rival states. Because American power doesn't rest only on aircraft carriers and military bases, 800 of them all around the world. It also rests on financial architecture. The United States exerts extraordinary influence through sanctions systems, banking networks, insurance institutions, reserve currency dominance, and legal jurisdiction over global trade mechanisms. So maritime insurance is actually an essential part of that structure. Many people underestimate how critical insurance certification is to international shipping. If insurers refuse coverage, shipping becomes dramatically more expensive and risky. An entire trade route can become economically unviable.
So what Iran is signaling with Hormos Safe is they're basically saying, "If Western institutions attempt to isolate us from the global maritime commerce, we will attempt to construct our own parallel mechanisms." Now, even if this project remains limited in scale initially, I think the symbolism is geopolitically important because it reflects a larger transformation already underway across the international system. Over the past several years, states under pressure from Washington have increasingly shifted from resistance to adaptation. Like Russia developed alternative financial alternatives after sanctions and after the war in Ukraine. China expanded parallel payment systems. BRICS countries intensified discussions about non-dollar trade. Gulf states diversified partnerships. Local currency settlements increased, especially in the Persian Gulf. Alternative logistics corridors emerged across Eurasia. Iran now appears to be experimenting with parallel maritime financial systems linked directly to Hormos itself.
And the timing of course is especially revealing. Right at the same moment, Washington is reportedly presenting maximalist demands to Tehran, like refusing compensation, demanding uranium transfers, limiting nuclear infrastructure, maintaining frozen assets, and linking de-escalation to negotiations. Iran is responding not by signaling surrender, as Trump expects, but by exploiting or exploring mechanisms of long-term economic resilience. And this is where the geoeconomic implications become extremely important because the future of international order may not be shaped primarily through one gigantic military confrontation between superpowers. It may emerge gradually through competing systems of trade, payments, logistics, insurance, currencies, energy routes, and financial infrastructure. What we are, what we may be witnessing here is not the sudden collapse of the American-led order, but the slow, you know, the fragmentation of this system. I think this distinction, this distinction really matters. And this doesn't mean the dollar disappears tomorrow. It doesn't mean American power suddenly evaporates. But it does suggest that more states are preparing for a world in which dependence on American control systems is increasingly viewed as a strategic vulnerability. And ironically, sanctions themselves may be accelerating this process because when states conclude that access to global finance can be restricted at any moment for geopolitical reasons, they begin investing in alternatives. So that is, in my opinion, the deeper significance of Hormos Safe because it's, it's not just, as some people nowadays on online communities try to say, it's just an insurance platform. I think it is part of a much larger struggle over sovereignty, financial control, trade infrastructure, and the future architecture of the global order.
But how safe is Bitcoin? That is the question many people are asking, many people are speculating, many people are analyzing. And if you go into this analysis, you would go crazy because everybody is, is basically debunking and refuting other people's opinions on Bitcoin. What is your opinion on Bitcoin? Have you invested in Bitcoin? Do you have any factions of Bitcoin? Do you see that Bitcoin can be an alternative to the dollar? Is it safe? I don't know. I don't know. I would like to hear from you. Let's see if you have invested in Bitcoin and if you're using cryptocurrencies. By the way, what is called this, Buy Me Coffee? So if you guys go to the description below, there are different means that say you can support this independent work. Right, only if you can and only if you want. We always, that's always my slogan, only if you can and only if you want. But through Buy Me Coffee nowadays, they say that you can also support these channels through cryptocurrencies. That's just something that you could also consider. If you don't want to use PayPal, credit card, Visa card, or any bank system, you can also support Syrian Analysis through that. I have had other topics to cover, but it looks like I have to stick to one more topic, and that is very important in my opinion.
Iran reportedly elevated its partnership with China, and this has come only a week after the foreign minister of Iran, Arai, visited Beijing. Reportedly, Muhammad Bergalibav has been appointed as the country's special representative for China affairs, and according to Iranian reports, the appointment was made at the suggestion of the president's position and approved by the supreme leader, Mushtavi. The exact procedure is less important than the appointment itself because Kalibav is widely regarded as more influential than the president and is considered part of the Islamic Republic's core decision-making circle. This appointment also clearly reflects Iran's strategic orientation in the post-war era and its determination to deepen ties with non-Western powers, particularly China. For many years, there has been criticism within Iran's strategic community that Tehran has failed to fully capitalize on the potential of its relationship with Beijing. One argument frequently advanced by analysts is that China has been prepared to elevate cooperation with Iran, but that it required a clearly empowered interlocutor capable of managing the relationship at the highest level. In this view, the foreign ministry has not been successful in extracting the full strategic potential of ties with China. Now, Iran has previously appointed special representatives for China affairs. Ali Lavani, for example, who was assassinated, played a central role in negotiating and finalizing the 25-year strategic partnership agreement between Tehran and Beijing. However, given Kalibav's standing within Iran's post-war political structure, this latest appointment carries much greater significance. In fact, a figure from the very top tier of the system is now directly overseeing relations with China. Of course, the timing is very interesting as well, as the appointment comes shortly after Trump's visit to China, which appears not to have produced any concrete results in terms of convincing Beijing to pressure Iran into altering its broader strategic course in the region. On the Iranian side, China's criticism of the US-backed draft resolution at the UN Security Council was viewed as a particularly positive development. So, overall, there is a growing sense in Tehran that conditions are now favorable for a further expansion of ties with China. At the same time, this development points to the continued, continued marginalization of Iran's formal diplomatic apparatus, especially the foreign ministry, in the management of key strategic relationships.
The other day I was in, what do they say, a vault in the wilderness. But what is the English word? Vault. Forest. Yeah. Forest. Right. Wild forest. Yeah. So I was in a forest somewhere here. And I have made a video in the forest and I posted this on my X account that this is about Marco's basically statement on China, that they don't want to contain China, and they don't want to constrain China, but they don't want China to rise on the expense of the United States, and not on the expense of, you know, in the demise of the American empire. I wanted to make this video really, and I did it in the forest. It was fun. I would like to show you this video, guys, and after that, I will just end this stream with you. But before I end this stream, I would kindly ask you guys to simply hit the like button, subscribe to Syrian Analysis, share this video with your friends, encourage others to join Syrian Analysis, and follow the streams. We're going to have guests this week for sure. Pavic is on Friday. I'm already speaking with two other guests to schedule for this week. Let's see how they will go. But we will have all the time interesting guests to have conversations. Sometimes agree with them, sometimes disagree. That's the promise of Syrian Analysis to you, that we don't want to create an echo chamber and repeat ourselves. We always want to have interesting guests on this show. So if you appreciate this work, guys, kindly support Syrian Analysis in the ways you seem enough for you and is effective, whether just digitally by liking and sharing these videos, or only if you can and only if you want. There are means in the description below. You can check how to support this independent work, which is a one-man show. But until then, I will see you tomorrow, guys. Now I will play to you this important, I mean, not that important. I mean, you know, I made it, it can be important, but I wanted to share this video because I find what Marco Rubio said is very absurd. Take a look.
"I followed with great interest the visit of President Donald J. Trump to China and his meeting with President Xi Jinping. And what struck me the most is the statement of the Secretary of State of the United States, Marco Rubio, basically saying that we are not against the rise of China. We don't want to constrain China. We don't want to contain China, but we don't accept the rise of China at our expense, at our fall." And I find that a little bit interesting, actually, because it's the United States at the current moment spending $1 billion per day in its war of aggression in Iran, and trillions of dollars more were wasted in the past few decades in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, and in other regions, basically because the United States has to sustain 800 military bases. Some of them were completely obliterated, destroyed in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf monarchies. I wanted to do a basic calculation. Actually, $1 billion per day in Iran. If you're an American citizen and you make $100,000 per year, you will need actually hundreds of years. You have to work for hundreds of years in order to make $1 billion. And your government is wasting that money in a war of aggression in a sovereign country for the sake and for the purpose of establishing an empire in West Asia, the Middle East, led by Israel. I want to stress this because this is a very important point. It is Israel using the American taxpayer money and the American military to weaken and destroy Iran in order to install a puppet government there. And by doing so, they want to take over the energy market of Iran, basically, and also the Strait of Hormuz. So imagine if Israel wins this war, they will have their grip over the Strait of Hormuz. So they could have a strong leverage in the region and they could have a choke point, basically, and blackmail the world through it, and also the huge liquefied natural gas and fuel market in Iran. That makes Israel a basically independent economic power in the region, sovereign from the United States, because Israel is thinking ahead and they see that in the future they want to become a dominant player and empire in the region and independent from American support. So if they take over the oil and gas fields in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, in a decade or two, when the US empire becomes, let's say, a secondary power, or other powers rise, competitors for the United States, then Israel would not need American taxpayer money. And that's how the Israelis are sucking the American taxpayer money dry. And your government is basically spending $1 billion per day. So you could work for hundreds of years to make that money, and they are wasting it in the Middle East for the sake of Israel. Meanwhile, China is building its infrastructure, is building its manufacturing powerhouse, and is exporting to the outside world. And it has found a new formula, basically, that they can become not only relevant but also a dominant player, influential player in Africa, in Southeast Asia, through manufacturing, through business deals. A new model that the Americans could learn from. Unfortunately, they haven't yet, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. As you can see, you guys still have 800 military bases around the world plus this war of aggression in Iran. So ask yourself a question, why is China rising much faster than the United States? And instead of trying to stop China's rise, you should encourage the American, basically politicians, and urge them to spend this money in the United States for the sake of the American people. I don't think that is a very complicated question, and we don't have to make much analysis and philosophy about it.