Transcription
[Music] [Music] [Music] Hello, Business Tomorrow Live with Trader KP. On the evening of July 8th, the whole world was shocked when President Trump announced that the peace MOU signed with Iran has now been canceled. He also stated that the ceasefire agreement has also ended. After negotiations with Iran seemed to be a waste of time, and talks with Iranian leaders were unproductive, Trump announced the termination of this MOU. This follows the US Central Command's launch of attacks on approximately 80 key locations in Iran earlier that morning. In response, Iran announced retaliation, targeting American military objectives, particularly the 5th Fleet zone, with attacks on 85 points. This situation stems from renewed conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, where the US reported that the reason for attacking Iran was Iran's attack on three cargo ships attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. From attacking ships to mutual attacks, this has now led to President Donald Trump announcing the tearing up of the peace MOU. Currently, what is seen in the world is market volatility in assets, especially oil prices, which have skyrocketed. London oil prices have risen to nearly $80, an increase of 6.58%, or about $4.88. West Texas Intermediate oil prices have risen from below $70 to nearly $75. This is accompanied by a decline in Asian stock markets, US futures markets, and gold prices, which have fallen by about $100. Global turmoil, geopolitical tensions, and the fear of war have returned. Today, we will analyze the situation with Dr. Rusam Wan Su, a lecturer at the Institute of Southern Studies, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai Campus. Professor Rusam, hello.
>> Hello, Khun Taa. Hello, viewers.
>> Hello, Professor. Today, the issue has developed rapidly, and the most surprising thing is that President Donald Trump said the MOU with Iran has ended, and the ceasefire agreement has also ended. President Trump said that negotiating is a waste of time. This is the latest development, but it is something that will cause the MOU to truly fail and the ceasefire to truly end, or is it merely a show of power by the US? What is your view, Professor?
>> Yes, these are words that have sent shockwaves around the world. When Trump said the MOU is over and that he will not negotiate with Iranian leaders, he used very strong language regarding the Iranian leaders. But overall, it means he doesn't want to negotiate anymore. However, whether the MOU will truly end and whether the ceasefire will truly end remains to be seen. For now, it is the responsibility of mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar, and other nations, to maintain contact with both conflicting parties, America and Iran, to keep negotiations ongoing and to keep the MOU moving forward, even though Trump is upset and has stated his opinion that the MOU has ended. We will have to wait and see if the mediators can help persuade and find a way out. However, it reflects the tension between the United States and Iran. I believe this MOU and ceasefire agreement are very fragile. For this MOU to exist, the US sought a way out of the conflict and war. The US likely saw that continuing the war would not bring about any change on the battlefield, and the Strait of Hormuz would not be opened. Therefore, the immediate necessity three weeks ago was to end the war first, so that oil could flow through the Strait of Hormuz, lowering global oil prices, which would be beneficial for the US economy and politics, as well as globally, in preparation for the upcoming midterm elections. Therefore, I believe the ceasefire and MOU were more of a short-term fix for Trump than an expectation that the objectives of the MOUs would be achieved.
>> However, Professor, do you think that after signing and attempting negotiations, including talks in Switzerland and another round in Qatar, will it truly end, or what will be the situation going forward?
>> Yes, we need to see who benefits and who loses from the existence of the MOU and the ceasefire. The US may benefit from lower oil prices and the ability to withdraw troops to focus on domestic politics and prepare for elections. Iran benefits from being able to sell oil and the prospect of sanctions being lifted. It's a win-win situation for both sides to some extent, but in the long run, this MOU is more detrimental to the US than to Iran. When the agreement was signed, Trump was in a hurry. It was originally agreed to sign on Friday in Switzerland, but he rushed and had it signed on Wednesday while he was in France. This shows that the US was in a hurry to end the conflict and war. However, upon examining the details of the MOU, we see that Iran is the party that gains the advantage in every clause. Considering this, it is an agreement where the US has almost no bargaining power, and in the long run, it is detrimental to the US itself, affecting its credibility and the trust of its allies.
Now, it turns out that there are many points of contention in the MOU, in each article. For example, Article 5, which is the cause of the recent clashes, states that Iran will be able to control the Strait of Hormuz. However, there is a caveat in Article 5 that it must be in accordance with international law. This opens up room for different interpretations. Iran interprets it as having complete control of the strait, even with exemptions for transit fees. However, within 60 days, Iran requires applications to be submitted. The result is that the US, according to news reports, has opened another route parallel to the one Iran controls. Three ships then sailed into this route, and Iran fired upon them, leading to the US retaliating. The US interprets Article 5 as needing to comply with international law, meaning that the use of force is not solely for Iran to control for safety, but not for Iran's power or benefit. This is a rather loose interpretation of the article, leading to the current conflict. Furthermore, before the war, the Persian Gulf was an area where everyone could enter and exit freely. But after the war, Iran controls who enters and exits the Persian Gulf. The US principle is to expand its maritime power. Before the war, the US could enter and exit any waters freely. But after the war, the US cannot enter and exit the Strait of Hormuz because Iran controls it. This means the US has lost credibility and influence with the Arab nations in the region, leading to a change in regional order that seems to disadvantage the US.
>> But is this done to give the US more bargaining power and regain benefits, or is it a case of returning to war or starting a new conflict? Professor?
>> Yes. The US must try not to let Iran completely control the Strait of Hormuz, even though it is mentioned in Article 5 of the MOU. However, from the US perspective, the control granted to Iran must be for safety, not for Iran to have economic power. Therefore, the US must do everything to assert its influence in this strait. So, if Iran fires on any ship, the US must at least have the capability to retaliate against Iran. Now, what will this lead to? Will it lead to a full-scale war again? That is the important question. I foresaw from the moment the MOU was signed that this permanent ceasefire agreement is fragile, and these MOUs are fragile because they stem from the haste and short-term problem-solving of both parties, not leading to a sustainable and genuine resolution. On the US side, they must do everything to maintain the balance of power or their own position in this region. But whether it will lead to a full-scale war again, I still assess it as difficult, Khun Guitar and viewers. Why is it difficult? Because the war that has occurred for almost four months has shown us that the use of military force cannot lead to a decisive victory, and the US cannot achieve its objectives in any war. In this war, even when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, even though the US was on the outer perimeter, it could not make Iran open the Strait of Hormuz. It's not that the US didn't try, Khun Guitar and viewers. The US tried to open it. If you recall, the operation to open the strait, called Project Freedom, if you remember.
>> Yes.
>> Ah, where Trump said, "You can go in, the US will protect you through the strait." But in the end, within just 48 hours, this operation had to be terminated when the US's Arab allies pleaded with the US to cease fire with Iran. This shows that military force cannot open the strait. If it could, the US would have opened it. And returning to a full-scale war, Khun Guitar, like on February 28th, I think it's difficult. Why? To wage war, you must win or lose. No one can do that. But the US knows that winning a war against Iran is extremely challenging. The most fundamental principle of waging war or overthrowing a regime is what? It is to use only air power, bombing from aircraft and missiles. This has never and cannot cause any regime to collapse. There is only one way: to send ground forces in, and then the regime will collapse. But the US has not sent ground forces in for three to four months, which means they cannot. The US expected that before the war, the masses would protest, and there would be suppression, and the masses would rise up. When leaders are assassinated, the masses will rise up to overthrow the government. But the outcome was not as expected. Therefore, returning to a full-scale war, I see it as difficult. Another thing is the most sensitive and fragile issue: energy prices. Trump himself does not want energy prices to skyrocket again. He does not want Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz again. Therefore, given the limitations and past experiences, I believe that this MOU, since it was signed, could face setbacks at any time. There will be exchanges of fire, but it is difficult to return to a full-scale war today, even though Trump said the MOU is over, the ceasefire is over. But we have to wait and see if the mediators will succeed in persuading both sides to return to the diplomatic path.
>> Yes. And what about Iran, Professor? Iran retaliated against the US attack by firing on strategic military points of the US, and this time Iran is in a period of mourning for its supreme leader. People seem to have a desire for revenge and a sentiment that Iran should not negotiate or be at a disadvantage with the US. How conducive is the current atmosphere in Iran for peace negotiations, or is it more conducive to attacks or fighting?
>> Yes. One thing we have observed from this Iran conflict is that Iran can withstand great losses or has great resilience in war. Regardless of the damage, another thing is that Trump has succeeded, as in many other matters, Khun Guitar. He succeeded in making the Iranian people, who were previously protesting against the leaders before the war, unite. When Trump started the war, it made the Iranian people more unified. He was even surprised by the number of people who came out to mourn the supreme leader. This indicates that Iran still has unity. As for whether this will translate into political power, I think it already has its own power. Therefore, for Iran itself, no one wants to return to a state of war, but if necessary, I believe they are prepared to return. This means they will have to endure fighting or economic pressure. Suppose sanctions are lifted. What is the ultimate outcome, Khun Guitar? It is a return to the pre-war situation. This means Iran can at least enter and exit the Strait of Hormuz and trade oil with its friends, even if the US reimposes sanctions. But it is merely a return to the pre-war situation. What has changed is the control over the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, Iran had no power. After the war, Iran has power.
>> Yes. A scholar from the Institute said that Iran is trying to establish a status in the Strait of Hormuz, similar to during wartime, where anyone passing through must seek permission from Iran. However, the MOU does not seem to reflect this. Professor, what do you see as Iran's goal regarding the Strait of Hormuz going forward?
>> Yes. Iran wants to change its status from a stakeholder to the ruler of the Strait of Hormuz. If we look at the map, the map from Iran's agency, called PGSA, the Persian Gulf supervisory agency of Iran, which is an agency that did not exist before the war but was established after the war. This map shows that Iran has colored a large control zone that extends through the Strait of Hormuz, not just in Iranian waters, but stretching westward from the Iranian city of Kuweib to Fujairah in the UAE. To the east, and to the west, from Qes Island in Iran to Umm Al Quwain in the UAE. This is Iran drawing a line of control, declaring sovereignty over the sea in this region. With this declaration, Iran expects to be able to collect transit fees from various countries. Although currently there are exemptions according to the MOU, within the mentioned 60 days. In the map, we see that the area is vast. Iran says anyone entering or exiting this purple area must submit documents to the aforementioned PGSA agency to enter and exit safely. Therefore, if any ship enters without prior notification, Iran will use its control or fire upon those ships. Looking at this map, the UAE is likely the most affected country because the UAE has an alternative exit in the Strait of Hormuz, which is to go east to Fujairah instead of going north. But ultimately, Iran has extended its territory to the port in Fujairah, meaning that even within its own territorial waters, the UAE cannot enter and exit freely. An interesting piece of information, Khun Guitar and viewers, is that in June, the past month, 300 shipping companies submitted applications to enter and exit this area. The country that submitted the most applications was the UAE. In one sense, the UAE is a victim of Iran's claims, but in another sense, it is also a major customer of Iran.
>> The largest customer, because they have no choice. Many may ask about international law. This is a classic problem of international law, Khun Guitar and viewers.
>> The enforcement mechanism is different from domestic law, isn't it? In domestic law, we have a sovereign, we have a government, security agencies to enforce the law, and judicial bodies to enforce the law. But with international law, the question is, who enforces these laws? This is the weakness, and it has become something that allows Iran to claim rights in this sea area. The question is, if Iran violates the rules, which country will punish it? Historically, the United States has been the superpower that has maintained order in the Persian Gulf and the wider region. This means that the existing order in the region was that the US guaranteed security for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. But when the US, in my opinion, was weakened in this war, the power the US had before and after the war is clearly different. Iran, which had no power before the war, gained power after the war. When such a change occurs, it means that the US, which used to be the guarantor of security for ships entering and exiting, can no longer be in that position. Instead, Iran has become the controller of the Strait and energy in this region. This is a great loss for the US. Therefore, it is not surprising, Khun Guitar, that...
>> Why?
>> ...the US cannot accept this situation. Why must there be attacks on Iran? Why is Trump so agitated and announces the cancellation of the ceasefire, the MOU, and even sanctions? Because the US has been weakened and has lost, most importantly, its status and power over the Persian Gulf region, which the US previously dominated before the war.
>> But with President Trump's latest stance, including saying the MOU is canceled, the ceasefire is canceled, and the recent attacks, is it enough to increase bargaining power and give the US more advantage in the Persian Gulf region?
>> Yes. The most important bargaining power for Iran is control of the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, as long as Iran continues to control the strait, and as long as the US cannot operate freely in this strait, the party holding the bargaining power is Iran. The question is, how will the US deal with this? Will the US cancel the MOU, cancel the ceasefire, and return to war again? Or will the US close the outer strait again? But if they do that, who will be affected? The US itself will be affected. Therefore, it is called the sensitivity of this industry. It's a no-win situation for the United States.
>> And the Arab world, Professor? This attack, it is reported that Iran attacked several US military bases, including in Bahrain and Kuwait. And in the past, many Arab countries have tried to mediate. Qatar has been working to coordinate. Professor, do you think they will play a role in reducing the severity of the current conflict?
>> Yes. Arab nations do not want war to return. No one wants war to return. Therefore, they must do everything to ensure that this ceasefire and MOU continue, even if it is bumpy. At the very least, let's not return to war.
>> Yes.
>> But now, if we look at the targets of Iran's recent attacks, they were aimed at countries that did not pay respects to the leader's funeral: the UAE, Bahrain. And these three countries were the most heavily attacked in the past war. Let's say they are the usual targets, the usual objectives.
>> What about other countries? Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, Oman, perhaps some ships were hit, but not fired upon within their territories. This shows that after the war, the Arab nations in the Persian Gulf are divided into two groups. Group 1 is the group that has moved closer to and relies on America and Israel, which is the group of the UAE and Bahrain. Another group has accepted the post-war status quo, recognizing that Iran has risen to become a regional power. Therefore, there is no reason to quarrel; instead, they must seek benefits from opportunities or try to coordinate to gain benefits. We see Saudi Arabia and Arab countries in the region traveling to pay respects to Iran's leader. This clearly shows the division among these Arab nations. Therefore, I believe that these Arab nations, besides not wanting war, also want to discuss with Iran how to manage the Persian Gulf region, given that the reality is that Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz at this time. Okay, Arab nations have two choices, really: unite to attack Iran, or stay still. Why don't Arab nations unite to attack? Because they know that their military capabilities are not enough to defeat Iran. Or, to put it another way, America and Israel, the world's military superpowers, these two countries cannot even defeat Iran in this war. So, what will these Arab nations use to defeat Iran? Therefore, they must adapt to the winner.
>> And Iran's allies, the superpowers? Professor, what are the roles of China and Russia during the signing of the peace agreement and when the MOU faltered? How do you see these two countries playing a role?
>> These two countries are the ones that benefit from the situation when the war ends, meaning Iran is in an advantageous position. This will promote what might be a new world order, called the Western Order, the post-Western world order, meaning the new world order will be one where Eastern countries will come to control the rules and regulations. Therefore, the status of the war ending previously benefited China and Russia in promoting a multipolar world system and a world order in which they will have a role in governance, unlike the old world order where the US or Western countries were the ones who set these rules. Now, when this falters, we have to see how China and Russia will react. However, we have seen in the past, before the signing, that China and Russia did not come to the forefront. Instead, countries like Pakistan, Qatar, and Arab nations were at the forefront of finding solutions, while China and Russia provided support from behind, especially in discussions with the US, without coming to the forefront. Therefore, we have to wait and see what happens next with both of them. But overall, the US is in a bad situation in the region. First, its power is declining in the Middle East. Second, the war between Russia and Ukraine. Third, the competition with China in the Asia-Pacific. In the war between Russia and Ukraine, even though Ukraine has made progress in using drones to attack deep into Russian territory, the problem is that it has not been able to change the balance of the war or make Russia retreat from the front lines. Meanwhile, Russia can still advance slowly and capture cities.
And the challenge of NATO at this meeting was very heated. NATO was very upset, saying that when asked to go to war in Iran, they didn't help. Now, when asked to help the US with Ukraine, they are upset. Especially Spain, do you remember Spain?
>> Yes.
>> Spain did not allow the use of its military bases or airspace to attack Iran. Trump announced he would cut trade with Spain, creating further conflict with European nations. That is, Trump always keeps himself in conflict to maintain the interests and power of the United States.
>> And is this the method Professor Rusam believes is correct? Maintaining conflict when, as the Professor mentioned, there are already many battlefields, such as Russia-Ukraine and the US's own war with Iran? Is opening multiple fronts during this time a correct strategy? If it were correct, Trump would have succeeded in the war in Iran. But his back-and-forth behavior, creating enemies instead of friends, ultimately leads to no success in the war or in Iran. And what is lost? Credibility. The credibility of a superpower. Credibility is very important. His words, his actions, his actions are more important than his words. But both his actions and his words have reduced America's credibility among its allies. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, always fluctuating. Allies cannot rely on him. And this leads to a tendency to rely on themselves more. Most recently, four to five years ago, America was in a leading role in the group to contain China, the Quad group, which includes America, Australia, China, Japan, and India. But Trump's recent behavior towards the Japanese Prime Minister, towards India, and others has caused dissatisfaction. Credibility has been lost, leading to Japan and India having to join hands to create a balance of power against China in the region, especially since America is unreliable or inconsistent. This creates insecurity for them, so they have to try to rely on each other more than before.
>> And finally, what are the impacts on the world, Professor? Conflicts erupt in a single day, oil prices surge by about 6%. It seems the situation remains fragile, and oil prices are ready to rise further. We trusted that the war was over and the oil crisis would also be over. Today, the situation seems unstable. How do you assess the impact on energy trends and the global economy?
>> We will continue to be in a state of uncertainty. In international politics, the events that occur daily are in a period of transition for the international system, from a unipolar to a multipolar system. From an order led by America and the West to an order where the East participates in governance. But until we reach a point of balance, the path will be filled with thorns, rough roads, and conflicts. This is what theoretical concepts in international politics have stated. Regarding energy prices and oil prices, they will remain uncertain. The Iran war is not truly over; it is merely a temporary way out, but it cannot truly end the war. It is the government's responsibility to monitor and look at the long term, monitor current events, and look at the long term to prepare for the changes that will occur. But I see it this way: no matter what changes Trump makes, the limit he has is that returning to a full-scale war, which would impact the American economy, is very difficult to happen. The upcoming midterm elections are what Trump must focus on. It is a situation of being caught between a rock and a hard place for America. If they concede everything to Iran, they lose influence and power. But if they pressure Iran, they forget that the impact will be on themselves, especially economically. That is the situation Trump and America are in. Not to mention domestic politics in America. Khun Guitar, it is clear that domestic politics in America views this war in a way that they are not satisfied. Many, even those on the right, see this war as not being for America's benefit but for Israel's benefit. So, it is being questioned a lot. I think the situation is difficult for Trump at this time, both domestically and internationally.
>> Thank you very much, Professor. There have been significant and unexpected developments in the situation. We will certainly invite you to share your knowledge with us again. Thank you very much, Professor Rusam. Thank you. Goodbye.
>> Goodbye.
>> Goodbye. Professor Rusam Wan Su's perspective. The Professor analyzes that this is a no-win situation for America. The root cause of the conflict is fragility, with many conditions being difficult to comply with. If the MOU is followed 100%, especially in the Strait of Hormuz area, giving Iran control of the area would mean a loss of power for the US. Therefore, America is unlikely to accept this, leading to the allocation of shipping routes, and ultimately, Iran's dissatisfaction, resulting in attacks on the US, and the US retaliating against Iran. Today, it has reached the point where the US leader says the MOU is torn up. But ultimately, Professor Rusam says America definitely wants to increase its bargaining power but does not want to return to war, because war has costs in terms of fighting, military costs, and importantly, economic costs, which are oil prices. That is the limit for America, as Trump cannot make oil expensive, cause inflation, and make Americans suffer. Therefore, the chance of returning to a large-scale war like in February-March is unlikely, according to the Professor. However, conflicts, flare-ups, and periodic clashes will occur. This creates a situation of being caught between a rock and a hard place, and a lack of breathing room for the global economy and energy sector, which must remain in a state of vigilance. Today, our live broadcast has ended. We will meet again shortly on TF Station. For now, Guitar, Professor Rusam, and our team say goodbye. Goodbye. [Music]