Transcription
Well, everyone, we're very honored to welcome back into the studio again, Professor Mirandi, uh, from the University of Tan, and one of the best insiders into the situation in Iran. Professor, welcome back to the show.
>> Thank you very much for inviting me. It's, it's always a pleasure.
>> Well, professor, I think today we really need to discuss what is going on with the Strait of Hormuz. We obviously hear, um, a lot coming from the Trump administration. Yesterday here in the United States, uh, the message was that the United States has won. Trump has been victorious. The Strait is now open. Everything is going back to normal. We saw the oil prices start to crash. But I think there's a lot of uncertainty there because, as of the, the time of this recording on Saturday morning, uh, we start to see that the Strait is not, in fact, open. Uh, that Iran still has a lot of control. So I think there's a lot of confusion, certainly in the media, and I would like to get to talk to the expert and really understand what's going on with the Strait of Hormuz right now.
A quick note before we get started. Professor Morandi tuned in live from Iran. Unfortunately, his internet connection wasn't the most stable. Therefore, the video quality is going to be a little unstable in today's interview. However, the audio quality is perfect, and most importantly, his message is the one that we need to hear to understand the truth about Iran. Let's begin.
When the United States asked for a ceasefire, there were negotiations that took place, and ultimately, the United States accepted the Iranian 10-point plan for the framework, uh, of negotiations, and that's when the, the, we, we, the fighting ended, and the ceasefire that ultimately, uh, was agreed upon. The whole of the region was supposed to go quiet, and so the fighting in Lebanon, the Israeli onslaught, and the genocidal attacks were supposed to stop, and Iran was supposed to open the Strait of Hormuz for increased traffic, including ships that are from countries that are hostile towards Iran, like the Emiratis and Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which hosted US troops and still host US troops, and were, were complicit in the war.
What Netanyahu did was he tried to destroy the ceasefire. So the global economy is going downhill very fast, thanks to Netanyahu and Trump. After 40 days of aggression, the war stops. There's an opportunity to get energy flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz, and Netanyahu wrecks that possibility. So he waits, he starts carpet bombing cities in Lebanon, slaughtering women and children. Western media looks away, or they pretend that these are Hezbollah strongholds or whatever, and they use that sort of language to justify the genocide. But these were just buildings and homes and kids being slaughtered.
In fact, I spoke to a couple of, um, journalists in Beirut, Western journalists, and I, and I complained and I said, "Why are you saying in your reports, Hezbollah strongholds?" Or, you know, "Hezbollah targets." And both of them say that, you know, said that this is not our wording, it's, uh, my wording. Both of them said that, and let's say the editor, whatever, does this. And I said, "Doesn't make a difference. You're complicit. It's in your name."
Netanyahu destroyed the ceasefire, and so he prevented, so Iran had to block the, the ships from those hostile countries that were involved in the war, helping the United States, and it took 10 days till the, until the United States basically pushed and forced the Israeli regime to accept the ceasefire. Iran made some threats, but it kept the Strait of Hormuz closed. The global economic crisis is getting worse by the minute, and ultimately, the, the regime accepted a ceasefire. Still violates it, but in more or less, it's, it's, there's a, it's quiet in Lebanon.
So, uh, Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz, but a couple of days earlier, Trump imposed an embargo on Iranian ports because Iran, due to the violation of the Israeli regime of the ceasefire, did not open the Strait to new extra traffic. The Americans impose an embargo. So now that the Israeli regime has accepted this, Iran said, "We'll open the Strait." But Trump said that, "I'm going to keep the siege on Iranian ports in place."
>> Right?
>> And when he said that, the Iranians decided to reverse their decision. Said, "Okay, if you're going to violate the ceasefire, because this is a violation, you're now blockading our ports. We were not implementing the ceasefire because of Israel, because they were violating the deal. Now that they've stopped violating the deal, we are opening the Strait to new traffic, but you say you're not going to halt the siege. So we, we're not going to allow traffic to flow."
So basically, it's Trump who's preventing the Strait of Hormuz from being, being open. Until now, it was the Israelis. Now it's Trump. So this is where we are. And meanwhile, the, the, the global economy is heading towards catastrophe. I've read today that within a week or two, we're going to enter a new stage of crisis, and then within three to four weeks, it's going to, we're going to enter a catastrophic phase. I'm not an expert. I think you know more about these things than I. But, uh, right now, the Strait of Hormuz could be opened, but, uh, Trump is failing to do so.
And I, I have a feeling, and this is just my personal interpretation. I have no idea if it's right or wrong. I usually don't listen to Trump. I, when he speaks, sometimes I'm even invited on shows and they say they ask me to discuss Trump's latest statement. I, and I say, "I don't listen to Trump." I, I read the headlines, but I don't waste my time because Trump is always saying, you know, all sorts of different things. One day he'll say one thing, the next day he'll say something completely different. In one sentence, he'll say one thing, in the next sentence something else. I don't pay attention anymore. I really don't, at all. I'll just check the headlines at most.
But these tweets were interesting to me in the sense that there could be a logic behind them. There may not be a logic. It may just be Trump being Trump. Um, but there could be a logic, and that logic could be that, uh, Trump wants to justify another war. So he will, he may be saying that Iran did this, Iran agreed to that. Iran agreed to A, B, C, D, E, and F. Basically, the tweets, what the tweets were saying yesterday,
>> Right?
>> You know, absolute surrender. It was, you know, total capitulation from, uh, based on the Trump, uh, tweets. And then two, three days later, he can, he will say that, "Well, the Iranians promised to, to do all these things, but they're not doing it." All fake, all made up. But still, so I have to open the Strait of Hormuz. I have to bomb Iran. I have to bomb them into submission. And this is, of course, what the Israelis want. This is, uh, the whole war from the beginning was about the Israeli regime and the Zionist lobby, as Joe Kent pointed out in his resignation letter, as, as we all already knew anyway. But Joe Kent being a the highest-ranking, uh, anti- uh, or counter-terrorist or counter-intelligence officer in the United States, a Trump appointee, for him to say it, that makes our suspicions, uh, fact.
>> Right. So the Zionists want another war. And, uh, basically, uh, if there is another war, I think that, uh, then that would mean that global economic depression will be a certainty because Iran will, is Iran, as we speak, preparing for war. Iran, the Iranian armed forces has not been on vacation. They see the US reinforcing. They see the Israelis reinforcing. So the Iranians are doing the same. And meanwhile, the global economy is moving closer to catastrophe.
And if the United States strikes, I think the Iranians will allow them to take some territory and deal with them in a counter-offensive and, uh, strike them with missiles and drones, and they will start destroying tankers. And, and as the United States strikes Iranian targets, Iran will strike the Israeli regime and these Arab family dictatorships in the Persian Gulf who are totally complicit in this war. The only difference, though, is that we're already in crisis mode, and the destruction of these oil and gas installations will basically seal the fate of the global economy. On the one hand,
>> but also the Persian Gulf is entering the hot season, and you know what that means. Uh, the humidity and heat in these countries will become intolerable without electricity and without the infrastructure intact. If the United States starts striking Iran's critical infrastructure, Iran will retaliate because these countries are all complicit. In a month from now, in a month, and you know, roughly, it will start to become intolerable. I mean, I mean, people won't be able to tolerate, uh, the heat.
>> Right. And so you will literally see people overnight in the millions fleeing across the Arabian Peninsula in their cars, leaving the region. I think all the regions, all the regimes would collapse. And so when they collapse, that means that means that's the end. That means there's no more oil and gas from or fertilizer or petrochemicals or helium from this region for maybe years, who knows?
So, if my, if this interpretation of mine is correct, and I have no idea if it is, then we, I think we should expect an American assault at any time now. It could even be before, before the end of the ceasefire, because the United States does not have some, any moral compass. I mean, we are negotiating, and, and before the 12-day war, and the US was secretly conspiring to attack us with the Israeli regime. Before this war, we were negotiating, and the United States was, even though there was progress, it planned, it was planning, and, and ultimately, it carried out a war against Iran. So there's no reason to believe that as we're negotiating or as we're in the, in the, in the midst of, in the middle of a ceasefire, that the United States will not assault Iran.
Everyone, I hope you're enjoying today's interview with Professor Mandi. He's one of the best sources of information on the Iran War, and it's an honor to bring conversations like this to the channel, but none of it would be possible without our sponsors. And today, I want to show you a tool I personally use every day in business that I know will transform the way you work, too. When I'm talking to guests, I can't sit there taking notes. I need to stay fully engaged in the conversation. But afterward, you're often left trying to piece together what was actually said, and it's easy to miss something important or get details wrong. So I use the Plaude Note Pro, and honestly, it's become one of the most important tools I use every single day. I've been using it for the past several months, and Plaude is my AI note-taking assistant, and it simply attaches to the back of my phone. With one click, it records, transcribes, and turns my conversations into clean, actionable notes, complete with summaries and key takeaways. It works in the background, even during phone calls, without draining my battery or forcing me to keep my screen on. In conversations like this, the details really matter. And the reality is memory isn't always reliable. So instead, I use Plaude to go back, see everything clearly, and actually search or ask questions when I need something. Plaude meets top global privacy standards, which really matters when you're dealing with sensitive conversations. For me, the moment I stopped worrying about who said what was when this became worth it. It's one of those rare AI tools that actually helps you stay more focused and present. If that sounds useful to you, check out the link in the description and use the code Cyrus for 10% off. There's a 30-day return policy, so you can try it without any risk. Thanks again to Applaud for sponsoring today's interview.
Yeah, thank you for that, uh, intro, professor. And I think what's interesting that we need to also see is, uh, we see Donald Trump, uh, usually every Friday evening, there's a lot of positive news for Donald Trump. Obviously, that's when the stock market ends. Um, you know, there was another, another trader that made, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars shorting oil right before this announcement. Uh, but then now it's the weekend, and we have clips of Donald Trump saying that, you know, there's a potential that we're going to bomb Iran again. So I think your, your actual prediction here is pretty accurate. I think that for many people, they realize that, you know, this war is not over, um, but that it probably is getting ready to shift into another gear, which ultimately could see another attack from the United States. Um, but I do want to ask one question. You mentioned Lebanon, and I think it's important to talk about because, um, I was listening to, uh, Robert Pape, who is a professor from the University of Chicago. He said a really interesting one about the ceasefire. He says, "The Israel-Lebanon truce isn't just a ceasefire. It's a signal for the future. For the first time in decades, the United States is actively constraining the Israeli military in the middle of a war." And that doesn't happen without a major shift in power. He's basically alluding to the fact that, you know, Iran has leverage in here because that was obviously one of Iran's demands, you know, that the attacks in Lebanon stop. Can you talk a little bit more about Iran's position now? Do, do the Iranians feel that they have gained some leverage in this, that they've been able to show the world that they, in fact, can have a critical choke point on the world economy, and that they are definitely going to have some say in to how things go in the future?
>> Yes, I think that, uh, Iran has shocked people across the world. Many did not expect Iran to perform so extraordinarily well, uh, in defending their country on the battlefield and people on the streets keeping the country stable and quiet and peaceful. Um, there was no rush to gasoline gas stations. There was no rush to buy bread or to supermarkets or anything like that, even during the first few days of the war after was martyred. So, uh, there's a lot, there's a lot of surprise. And even diplomats who've contacted me or, uh, you know, senior analysts, some of whom you, you would know, uh, they've spoken with me and and spoken of their surprise. Many people in Iran were not surprised, many were. But, um, many of us, I, I think believe that this, this was, this is how it was going to play out. I would say that Iran actually did better than I had expected, but I was confident that Iran would succeed.
But what has happened is that the Strait of Hormuz, Iran never intended to take the Strait of Hormuz under, to take control of the Strait of Hormuz. And it was only because of what the Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf and the United States did to Iran that Iran took this decision, and that changes the balance of power in the region. Uh, it gives Iran and its allies, um, much extra power. It enhances their capabilities and it weakens Iran's adversaries, whether it's, uh, Trump or Netanyahu or the Israeli regime or their proxies. So my belief is that the United States, the world is turning against Israel, the Israeli regime across the world. That's been going on for two and a half years, and it is despised now more or less, even like in places where initially they, it was different, uh, like in exceptions to the rule, like in India. From what I'm hearing from India, it, the Israeli regime is losing ground, you know, in a, in a significant way. So people have come to despise it. And then people be, see the Israeli regime names more aggression against Iran is causing them problems. It's, it's leading their countries towards again, go the example of India. The Indian government under Modi has been very friendly to this regime, and, uh, yet the war that they impose on Iran is having a very negative impact on India, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Uh, we're not seeing what's going to happen. What's happening is much worse than what's already visible to us.
>> So, in, so Netanyahu and the Israelis don't care about India or the Indian people. And so as the situation gets worse, people are going to get more angry with Trump and Netanyahu and and Zionism. So, um, in the United States, people are turning against the Israeli regime, according to polls.
>> Right?
>> But also, and this is where this is the point I want to get to. But also what I think what I believe that the Iranians are doing is that by putting economic pressure on the United States, it is raising a question in, in the United States that how far does the United States go and continue to be Israeli first and America last? And how bad does it have to get before the elites in the United States, whether they're captured, whether they're compromised, whether they're bribed, whatever it is, or combination, Epstein, and so on, whatever, where they have to start saying, "No, no, no. Here we have to take care of America. Things are going to get bad. If we don't, uh, do something, this is going to end badly for the United States." This is what Iran wants. Iran wants to see the United States take America first decisions. And so this ceasefire, and I may be wrong, but I think, and I, I'm not saying there's this sea change in US-Israeli relations. I think that there, I think that the chances of war are are high, and I think the United States may attack Iran soon, and they will do it with the Israeli regime, and it would be for the sake of the Israeli regime. But I think that the cease, the pressure that the United States put on the Israeli regime for a ceasefire had to do with the looming, uh, economic crisis.
>> Right?
>> And so the interests of the United States diverged from the interests of the Israeli regime. Now, of course, they always were separate. I, I personally consider Israel to be the enemy of the United States and the American people. But I mean, elites in the United States were saying, "Well, here we have to pursue our own interests, and we have to push the Israelis to accept the ceasefire." That's what I mean. So, um, I think that that has something to do with it. And, uh, since Israel is no longer popular, and people in the United States don't like it, it is, and the pressure is building, the economic pressure is building, that forced, and, you know, there was also the threat of Iran striking the Israelis with missiles. But I think that was basically, and of course, it was the resistance of Lebanon. Hezbollah has done an extraordinary job over the past few weeks, which again shows how Western analysts always get things wrong because they said Hezbollah has fallen apart. Hezbollah is no longer a force, uh, in, in the region, and they, they really hit the Israelis hard during the last. So the Hezbollah, the resistance, their supporters, all that true. But I think that, uh, the economic pressure that is building made the, the Trump regime, uh, push Netanyahu towards accepting a ceasefire. I, I would, that's what I think, probably.
>> Yeah, I would, I would totally agree.
>> And that, I think, is in line with what you were saying about the professor at Chicago.
>> Yeah.
>> University.
>> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that there's a lot of sentiment here in the United States that our politicians are certainly putting Israeli interests above our own. And, but at the end of the day, once the global economy is about to collapse, and, uh, you know, we can see the gas prices are surging here in the United States, um, there's, you know, a lot of pessimism for the future. At some point, you're going to have to revert back to getting the world economy back on track. And I think, I think you've hit that point very well, that that's what forced Trump to go to Israel and say, "Look, you're going to have to stop this in Lebanon so that we can get an actual deal."
But I want to go back to an interesting tweet that you sent, um, that really talked about the, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. And I think this is important for our viewers because again, the message from Trump is, uh, you know, everything's open, everything's great, it's back to normal. You know, there's these very vague statements. And I thought you put a really good clarity to this. You said there's three conditions with that opening up. The first is that only commercial ships are allowed to pass. Military vessels or shipments from belligerent parties are not permitted. The management and determination of which ships may pass also lies with Iran, and the transit occurs only via the route designated by Iran. So we can see that right now, it looks like Iran remains to be in control of the Strait. Do you see this continuing for the future? I mean, you know, is this going to be, have we now entered a phase where Iran is always going to be in charge of what's going in and out of the Strait and, and really having a tremendous amount of leverage in this world economy for the future?
>> Yes, I think that's how it's going to be for now. And the United States will try to probably assault Iran soon to dislodge Iran, but it's not going to work. And it's only going to make things worse for the world and for, for the United States and for everyone, but it's not going to work. Iran, uh, does not want to control the world economy. Uh, it doesn't want to take anything hostage. Uh, Iran wants to make sure that in future, the United States does not rebuild bases in, in the Persian Gulf so that it can wage a future war again. And it wants reparations from those Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf that, uh, that have helped the United States carry out this war against Iran. And if there is a new war, that is going to increase their costs because the war can only take place through their territory. If the United States was not able to use the territory of these regimes in the Persian Gulf, they would not be able to wage this war. Both the 40-day war and the continuation of the war of the Ramadan, the Ramadan war, whether it's a new war or the same war, phase two, doesn't matter. Without these regimes, the United States can't do it. So Iran wants to make sure that these regimes no longer become a, a, a, a foothold for the US military to launch operations against Iran.
Professor, I want to ask you about, um, the future for Iran because a lot of people here in the United States, and certainly our media, the message here is is that the Iranians are desperate for a deal. Uh, their local economy cannot, is on the verge of collapsing. You know, for example, if they're not able to export this oil, then they're, you know, the refineries are going to be at over capacity. Uh, basically, Iran is as desperate for as the United States is for a deal. I'd like to get your perspective on that. Um, is this something that Iran is looking for a short-term solution, or are they prepared to really go the distance and be able to continue to, you know, continue this fight as long as needed?
>> Oh, Iran will go the distance. No, no doubt about it. Iran actually, Iran would actually prefer, and I've said this elsewhere, I may have said this to you before, Iran would prefer this war to last long. And the Americans after 10 days were sending messages to have a ceasefire, and the Iranians were not interested, and only, you know, when the Americans accepted the Iranian 10-point plan, which is a very realistic plan, but the American, you know, the, the empire doesn't accept justice. So, but Iran wants this to end once and for all for the United States to, for Trump to hit a brick wall so that in future, no American president will think about attacking Iran again. So for, so right now, the Iranians are prepared for another war, and they've been preparing day and night for the last 10 days since the ceasefire, and, um, they're prepared for a land war, and they'll probably allow the Americans to, to take some territory and then they'll start pounding them for weeks and months until they are forced to leave.
But Iran, you have to keep in mind that Iran has, there were years where Iran was not exporting any oil under maximum pressure sanctions. And so the Iranian economy is to a large degree, you know, it, it can, it has survived in the past without oil. And we are in a state of war, and people are going to, you know, accept this. I, I don't expect the war to last terribly long, but I think it'll probably take at least a few weeks, if not a few months. And, uh, the Iranians have made a lot of money in the last few months because ever since the United States military began to build up, prices of oil have gone up. Iran's production has increased. And Iran had, uh, 200 million barrels of oil on, in tankers on the high seas. Half of that apparently has been sold. The rest will probably be sold in the next few weeks. And until two, three days ago, they were exporting a lot of oil. I don't know if the ships are getting through the siege or not right now. Some say they are, some say they aren't. I don't know about that. I can, we'll probably know in a day or two. But the point is that Iran has the money to sustain its war. And Iran's infrastructure is, has been prepared for this war with underground missile bases, drone bases. So yeah, I think that, uh, the United States is much more vulnerable, and I think that time is not on the side of Trump because the shortage of LNG, the shortage of oil, the shortage of helium, the shortage of fertilizers, petrochemicals, they are, they are growing by the minute, literally. And, uh, the, the timeline that I've read is, uh, is there's not much time left before catastrophe. It's already getting bad, but it's destined to be very bad. So I think it'll be a failure. I think Trump is a gambler. Maybe, you know, he's hoping for some miracle, but, um, I don't see, I, I see all this as getting only worse and leading to the complete destruction of these proxies on the other side of the Persian Gulf. Israel will be hit. I don't see any scenario where the United States succeeds. But, you know, I'm not a decision maker in Washington, so I, my expectation is that there will be war. Maybe I'm wrong, and, uh, maybe Trump will see the light and recognize that this is a, a stupid idea. U, but, u, I think the way things are moving forward, and through the language that he's been using, saying Iran has capitulated, and I think soon he'll be saying that, "Oh, they've broken all their promises," and that's possibly how things will play out.
>> Right. Um, professor, I want to ask you about one of the most important topics, you know, when we're talking about Iran is enriched uranium. Uh, and there's, and I think this is something that the Trump administration has been very clear on, you know, they said that, um, again, the messaging is so confusing. And I think that's why there's, there's the fog of war, right? Many people in America, they just go to Twitter, you know, they just, they just kind of believe the headlines. They don't really know what's going on. I mean, we've heard Trump say that Iran has agreed to give up all of its enriched uranium. We've heard other reports say it, you know, it's deep in the ground. Um, what do you think about the future of uranium, and is this something that that Iran will in fact give up, or is this something that they will indeed keep for the future with the aspirations of potentially developing a nuclear weapon to safeguard themselves in the future? What is your thoughts on the uranium question?
>> No, Iran has no interest and has shown no interest in a nuclear weapon. And if I wanted a nuclear weapon, it could have had it decades ago. I mean, I think by now everyone sees how technologically advanced Iran is. We've had a 40-day war with the United States and its proxies and the Israeli regime. All of them combined together under maximum pressure imposed by the entire collective West, and Iran won the war.
So, this is no, you know, ordinary country. This is a, a powerful country with very sophisticated, uh, political structures and, and an advanced society with a highly educated population. Iran's nuclear program has been peaceful. And again, going back to Joe Kent, he said very clearly that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon. So what Trump is basically demanding from Iran is for it to give up its sovereignty. That's not going to happen. That's the revolution in Iran. The Islamic revolution 47 years ago was about sovereignty. It was about independence. It was about dignity and honor. And Trump is not going to be able to take that away from Iran, especially when he lost the war. So no, I mean, Iran is more than willing to find a solution. You know, we saw what happened in the JCPOA. Iran won't accept that anymore, but it would be willing to accept a, a scenario where, if the United States was sincere about having concerns about Iran's nuclear program, to tease those concerns. But again, going back to what Joe Kent said, what, uh, what US intelligence has been saying, what the International Atomic Energy Agency has been saying, they've been saying that there's never been any, uh, proof that Iran has ever been pursuing a nuclear weapon. And, um, Tulsi Gabbard has said the same thing under oath. So Iran is willing to find solutions to problems, but Iran is not going to give up its sovereignty. That's not going to happen.
>> Uh, professor, what, what is the biggest misconception that most Americans have about Iran? Um, you know, the majority of the people that listen to this podcast are in fact from the United States and Canada, so we have a very large North American following. What, what's one message you'd like to pass to them so that they could better understand the situation?
>> Well, there's little time to go over key issues, and I've said this elsewhere. There's a good book written by two former White House officials. There are very few good books on Iran in the West, but there's a good book, not that I agree with everything in it, but there's a good book written by two former White House officials called Going to Teheran. And the, the authors are Flint and Hillary Leverett. And they worked in the White House under George W. Bush. And Flint Leverett resigned over the Iraq war. And, uh, both are academics, highly educated. Clint, Catholic, Hillary, Pan Leverett, Jewish. And they wrote, I think, a very good book dealing with many of the myths about Iran, but also giving a road map to, to the future, saying that the United States has to come to terms with Iran. And they were hammered for the book, left, you know, whether the Democrats and Republicans, think tanks, policymakers, they all attacked them. The United States, instead of choosing their path, the path of reason, they chose the Zionist path. And now we're where we are. We're at war and with a global economic crisis. If they had listened to them, we would probably have diplomatic relations.
But for your younger generation, I would say, or to all your viewers, that I would say that the 47 years of of antagonizing Iran, "Iran supports terrorism. It violates human rights. It, I don't know, wants to build a nuclear weapon. It's an evil country." All that. Let's look at the last two and a half years. The only country that opposes the genocide in Gaza actively is Iran. Is Gaza Iranian? Are they like, uh, do they speak, uh, I mean, they're Arabs, they're not even our neighbors. And, uh, yet the Iranians make sacrifices for them. The entire, entire axis of resistance does. And the West, which they're the good guys who support human rights, who hate terrorism, from what we hear. And they're the ones who are supporting the genocide. So when you look at that, I would say people should start to rethink everything that they've heard about.
The second thing I would say is for older Americans, and that is that, uh, many older Americans believe because of the textbooks or because of what they were told on in the news is that the problems between Iran and the United States began with the embassy takeover. And I would argue that the embassy takeover was the result of US policy.
>> Right. The United States carried out a coup in Iran in 1953, imposed a Shah, a brutal Shah who created a brutal secret police, ruled for 25 years. People, there was a revolution, probably the only true revolution in history because across the country, people were on the streets for months in huge numbers everywhere. And the Shah was gunning them down on a regular basis, his his soldiers. And on one particularly dark day called Black Friday, large numbers of Iranians were killed in Tehran in what was then called Jeal Square, or now Shah Square, Martyr Square, because of the, the, the massacre. And, uh, the next day, Jimmy Carter called the Shah, gave him his full support. So after the revolution, the US embassy began to do what it did in 1953, start to undermine Iran. And the US gave refuge to the Shah, who was a mass murderer. And the students, in protest, and so the students were fearful that we were going to see a repeat of 1950. So they took the embassy and demanded that the United States return the Shah, this mass murderer. And when they took the embassy, they saw, they started seeing finding documents showing what the United States was doing against Iran from the embassy. So they kept these people. They released the women and the minorities, African-Americans, and, uh, they kept 53 people. Now, regardless of whether you think they should have kept them for 440 days or not, that's a different issue. But the point is that this was the result of US policy. The students were fearful. And I personally think that if the students did not take, had not taken over the embassy, probably at some point the revolution would have fallen. But I'm not saying that for it to have lasted 444 days was the, you know, the correct policy. But these were students, and, you know, they were fearful of, of the future of the country. But the point is that in this whole story, whether they like it or not, Iran is the victim. And I think people have to rethink again. I think if people read that Going to Teheran book, it would be a bit of an eye-opener. And, uh, I think, uh, if the United States was not so, um, I mean, if the elites in Washington were not so, uh, well controlled by the Epstein class or by, um, by the Zionist lobby for whatever reason, you know, whether it's they have dirt on them or they're corrupted or they have whatever influence they may have. Uh, they're Washington is captured. If it was not captured, I think right now we would have political relations, we'd be doing business and trade, and we would not be having this conversation.
>> Right. Right. But professor, I want to say thank you so much for the work that you're doing, and also this amazing history lesson, the insights, because I think in times of war, there's always a huge fog, and this is why it's so important to get these on-the-ground interviews. I mean, you're live from Tehran. So, uh, there. So, just wish you continued safety to you and your family, and, and again, thank you so much for your time today. It's an honor to speak with you.
>> It's an honor being on your show. Thank you very much. And hopefully, we'll all see better days.
Everyone, I want to thank you for making it to this point of the video, and I want to give a huge thank you to Professor Morandi for his tireless efforts in educating the Western world the truth about the Iran conflict. All of us hope for more peace and certainly a solution to this very complex problem. I also want to give a huge thank you to today's video sponsor, Plaude. They make an incredible AI tool that helps you with note-taking and honestly optimizing your entire workflow. I honestly couldn't do podcasts like this without our amazing sponsors. So, if you're in the market for an AI tool that is actually going to help improve your workflow, make sure that you check out Plaude. I want to thank them for their sponsorship, and I want to thank you for your amazing support here on YouTube. All of this could not be possible without our amazing fans, our sponsors, our guests. Thank you all, and I look forward to seeing you all in our next video.