Transcription
Welcome back to Live Now from Fox. I'm Stephanie Quino. Continuing to follow the very latest developments as we take a live look at the marine traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. This comes as Iran is now responding to President Trump's order for a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. And Iran's Revolutionary Guards saying that any military vessels attempting to approach the Strait of Hormuz will be considered a violation of the two-week US ceasefire and be dealt with harshly and decisively. The Guards in a statement reported by Iranian state media saying that the strait is under the control and quote smart management of Iran's Navy, adding that it is quote open for the safe passage of nonmilitary vessels in accordance with specific regulations. To talk more on this, I'm going to bring in the president and CEO of Jinsa, Michael Makovsky, to talk more on this. And as always, Michael, we appreciate you joining us here on Live Now from Fox.
>> Thanks for having me. Happy Sunday.
>> Happy Sunday to you, too, as well. And I did want to start off with the new development, which is Iran responding to President Trump's announcement uh that he is directing Navy vessels to create a blockade at the Strait of Hormuz. Iran now saying that they're going to treat any military vessel as a threat. You know, what can you share with us about the latest statement put out by the IRGC and what this could potentially mean?
>> Yeah. Uh, this I think it's worth just uh reminding everybody that the the purpose that the the ceasefire was predicated on the idea that the Strait of Hormuz would be open. And of course, the Iranians immediately violated that and only allowed ships aligned with them or which apparently were paying them uh a toll of up to about $2 million a tanker to get through. So, they already violated the ceasefire. So, it's kind of uh amusing uh to say the least for them to say that if our military ships go through that it would violate the ceasefire when it's just the opposite. But I think President Trump is saying, "Okay, Iran, if you're not going to allow uh ships to go through that you don't approve of, we're not going to allow any of your your ships, your oil to get out and you'll be won't be getting any of your revenue." And that affects Iran, but we also should understand that it affects China because about 90% of Iranian oil exports are sold to China at a discounted rate. So, um, this could there could be a standoff. Uh, or the United States could choose to escalate and say, "Okay, we've been blocking them, but we might actually go after the Car Island, which is where their most of almost all their uh Iran's oil exports go through. Uh, or we could offer General Jack Keane if on Fox is raised, uh, you know, we'll we're going to take over. We're going to destroy Car Island if you don't give us access to your nuclear material."
We've often heard the phrase a point of inflection when it comes to what is happening right now, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz. As we see this now escalating, President Trump ordering uh the blockade there, Iran responding, saying it's going to treat any military vessel uh as a threat. Are we potentially at another tipping point?
>> Uh yeah, no question. I mean uh I think the President Trump made a a good faith effort. I mean we send our vice president to these talks. That's a pretty major thing uh development to happen and they obviously we should and I think the Iranians my sense is they're used to US presidents I'm not just talking and talking and uh well this will be the first round and they want to drag things out. uh they keep forgetting I think they're dealing with President Trump who's different than Biden or Obama and he says look I gave you a chance uh and okay come back to us if you agree to our terms and if you don't which I don't think they will uh and they I don't think the Iranians are planning to then there could just be a standoff at Hormuz or as President Trump suggested in his uh his true social post that uh we'll finish the up a bit more, meaning I think we'll hit more Iranian uh economic targets, uh maybe more military targets, but more economic targets to hurt the regime and strangle them economically and also therefore make it more likely that uh the people will eventually bring them down. And then the only last question will be what about the nuclear material?
And let's talk about that because you mentioned Vice President JD Vance traveled to Pakistan in good faith to sit down at the table um and try and come to some sort of agreement. They spoke for 21 hours and you know and I was sharing with our viewers what Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson shared regarding the red lines and you mentioned one of them uh you know all of this having to do really with the nuclear program and the enrichment facilities. That's the red line uh that either side is not willing to give up on. Is it even realistic to uh expect any other future negotiations as Iran is refusing to give this up?
>> I think it's unlikely. Uh, it's possible, of course. I mean, you could say the Iranians will say, "Okay, we'll let Excuse me. We'll let the uh ships go through the Hormuz." That would be uh you know, so let's have another conversation. I I can see that as a possibility. Uh, but if the fundamentally uh as president as vice president Van said they're not willing to give in on their nuclear facil uh program which means not only uh do they have to give up what they've enriched but they can't have any nuclear program uh and that means giving us access kind of like what we had with Libya where we're able to extract the nuclear material and destroy the nuclear facilities. It's just hard for me to see that this regime uh will ever concede on that point. So then the question is what do we do about it?
>> Right. And I did want to share this. This is from Fox News correspondent Trey Ying saying no US negotiators remain in Pakistan following 21 hours of talks. Iran still unwilling to make key concessions on enriched uranium and the Strait of Hormuz. So Michael, as we look ahead, really we're kind of at a standstill here. Where does the United States go from here?
>> Yeah. So, there are few options. We can maintain a blockade of Iran of the Hormuz, which means eventually, you know, making sure that no Iranian oil gets out while clearing the Hormuz of any mines and so on. We could then move forward and say, we've cleared out the Strait of Hormuz uh you know, and now Saudi and Emirati oil could get out, but we're not allowing the Iranian oil to get out. may add that my organization, Ginsa, we recommended early January that we should blockade the Iranians and strangle the regime economically. So, I'm glad to see the administration is doing that. Now, uh we again, we could go further and say we'll either take over or destroy Car Island, which is where like 90% of Iranian oil exports go through, uh where they're the they're piped to and then unloaded from. Uh, we could do that and that would be a that would be real lasting damage on this regime because then they'll be completely undermined economically. Uh, they wouldn't be able to pay for almost anything after that. Uh, but it also could hobble any post-regime. So that's the risk. We could take out more as President Trump suggested more economic and energy uh facilities inside Iran again to strangle the regime. And then I think we could do more against the ballistic missiles which we didn't finish completely. Uh, and then I think the ultimate issue is the nuclear and that I I don't have obviously I don't have intelligence of that but it's certainly the most risky thing we would do which would be to go to where we think where we believe they have stored nuclear uh enrichment uh material uh maybe that's under rubble that we bombed in June and you know secure that perimeter and take that out. But it's certainly risky and if we and I sense that President Trump is obviously wary of doing something like that, but we could do that and there is a plan to do that. Uh, I just don't know whether that that would be something obviously we would do with the our Israeli partners. I just don't know if we don't do that. We could end the war and uh you know keep the blockade on and just say you know you do anything with on the nuclear front we're going to come in and and destroy you.
You know, we're talking about Iran, but Iran is also continuing to use its proxies as part of this ongoing war. Hamas, Hezbollah, even the Houthis. And I did want to share this uh live look right here of Beirut, Lebanon. This also comes as Israel and Lebanon are expected to sit down at the negotiating table in Washington on Tuesday uh to talk about peace and also scale back strikes against Hezbollah really looking towards cementing a lasting peace between the the two nations. You know, what can you share with us about these talks and what might be discussed?
>> Yeah, if I may add, so I think Hezbollah, which is um you know, which is um a proxy of the Iranians, they made a couple mistakes. Uh, they attacked Israel on October 8th uh of 2023 after Hamas did, which led eventually to uh their severe degradation and all the killing and uh of all their top leaders. And then they recently attacked again giving the Israelis um you know another reason to go in and really weaken Hezbollah. You have this interesting dynamic here where it's clear that the Lebanese government wants Hezbollah to go because they know there's only war, you know, the the main reason why their country has been engulfed in war now is because of this Iranian proxy that is starting this fight with Israel. So you could see where in a way that you have a an alignment of interest between Israel and the Lebanese government. They both want Hezbollah to be decimated and gone. So you know could be that this could be a great moment. There could be a moment here possibly uh for um you know some sort of normalization but uh with the Lebanese but ultimately that's going to depend on Israel really weakening Hezbollah even more.
>> Michael before we let you go I mean there are many different aspects that we're continuing to monitor and keep a very close eye on. Are there any particular details or events that you're looking ahead to that you would want to share with our viewers?
>> Yeah. No, thank you. I uh I think uh first of all, I think the Israelis, you know, keep watching Lebanon. Obviously, the ceasefire or the so-called ceasefire with Iran is giving the Israeli uh military a bit of a break so they can focus more on Lebanon. To me, the issue is is on Hormuz. Does things escalate as we talked about and does this then does the United States decide to take um to use this to resume the war because he only did a ceasefire and it's a pause and the Iranians haven't honored it. So maybe that if the US and Israel resume their um uh you know bombardment of Iranian conventional military uh facilities and then will we go after some of their more other economic facilities and then the big question to me to pay attention to is the nuclear. Do we try to uh extract the nuclear material and destroy something that doesn't get a lot of press attention which is Pickaxe Mountain which is a relatively new facility which is more which was not bombed in June because it's more deeply buried under a mountain than Ford uh and has not been inspected by international inspectors. Do we try to go after that or do we side and say, "Look, we're just going to watch it and if the Iranians do anything, we're going to go after them." I think that's the thing to focus on. Pickaxe Mountain and the nuclear material and then of course the Strait of Hormuz.
>> All right, Michael, as always, we appreciate you taking the time to join us here on Live Now from Fox.
>> Thank you. Have a good day.