วิเคราะห์สด ! ทรัมป์เดิมพันศึกใหญ่ ส่งกองทหารบุกอิหร่าน ? (พิศาล มาณวพัฒน์)

[Music] [Music] Hello, Business Tomorrow Live with Tader KP. At 10:00 AM on July 17th, we continue to follow the situation in the Middle East, where attacks have been ongoing for the 6th day. The United States has attacked multiple locations in Iran, with the focus remaining on strategic targets near the Strait of Hormuz. However, this round of attacks appears to be getting closer to critical infrastructure related to the civilian sector. The attacks on the 6th day have significantly escalated the US operation. The attacks targeted several infrastructure points, including the city of Sirik, a strategically important city and a surveillance point for the Strait of Hormuz, which was also subjected to airstrikes. Meanwhile, the city of Bushehr reported similar attacks, including strikes on two bridges near the port, resulting in both injuries and fatalities. The current development seems to focus on infrastructure, such as bridges and train stations, or areas related to the civilian sector. However, the Iranian military has confirmed its intention to retaliate and continues to retaliate against US military bases. Another issue that has emerged is Iran's announcement that it is preparing to coordinate with the Houthi group to blockade the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the Red Sea, a crucial global oil transport route. This route accounts for approximately 12% of global oil transport and is currently heavily utilized after the Strait of Hormuz was blocked. Therefore, if this route is also blocked, it would effectively seal off another vital global transport route. Meanwhile, the world is also watching to see if the US operation will escalate beyond airstrikes. Reports from the Wall Street Journal and interviews with President Donald Trump on Fox News suggest that the possibility of sending ground forces to seize important areas of Iran is being considered. Although it is not yet a decision, it appears to be a trend. Today, we will analyze this with an expert who has deeply understood American politics, history, and geopolitics. We are honored to have with us once again, His Excellency Pisamarn Wattanaphol, former Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador, hello. >> Hello, Khun Guitar. >> Hello, Ambassador. Thank you for your time. Regarding the recent attacks this year, questions are arising about how far they might escalate, and there's talk of sending ground forces. President Trump has stated he does not rule out the possibility of sending ground forces. Ambassador, analyzing the political context of America, its military readiness, and foreign policy strategy, is it possible for the US to send ground forces to invade Iran? >> This has been a topic for five months now. Listening to everything you've said, Khun Guitar, it all sounds familiar. The US and Israel have conducted more bombings than this before, and then they tried to find a way out. Pakistan, Qatar, and other countries acted as mediators until a way was found to climb out of the hole that Trump himself dug. On February 28th, Trump tried to get out of the hole, thinking the MOU was a beautiful opportunity to escape. Less than a month later, as I've said before, it was fragile, and it fell apart. Trump said the MOU is no more. Trump acts in a way that if we follow him, we can predict it. He must be disappointed because, frankly, the MOU gave Iran quite a lot, enough that conservatives in the US and Israel were dissatisfied. But what happened shows that Iran is now controlled by a more conservative group than before. Simply put, Trump wanted to change the regime from the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to an Iran governed by a more radical group. Even with a good outcome from Trump in the MOU, they were still not satisfied because the key card they gained from all the past wars, which no one thought would be so important, is control of the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, the radical conservatives controlling Iran now believe that if the MOU is implemented as Trump interprets it, Iran would not have the right to control it. However, Iran interprets the MOU as allowing Iran to make arrangements for cargo ships to pass through without any charges. Iran interprets this as having the right to make arrangements. This difference in interpretation shows that Iran wants to hold onto this card. So, Trump decided to copy it. On Monday, he wrote on his social media that he would collect 20% from ships entering and leaving Iran. Within 24 hours, he backed down because he couldn't do it. But Iran can do it because it's a card they want to play. >> Yes, Ambassador, but is the issue of differing interpretations of the MOU so severe that it necessitates escalating operations to the level of military force? >> Iran has endured many bombings and other attacks. They believe they are resilient and can survive. They think that if Trump continues like this, time is not on Trump's side; it's on Iran's side. Especially if Iran, at this point, changes its tactics slightly in 6-7 days, you'll notice Trump, as you mentioned, Khun Guitar, is starting to talk about attacking infrastructure, hitting hospitals, bridges, and so on, not just military targets for missile or drone launches. However, Iran has chosen to attack only US bases in Gulf countries, including Jordan, and has been relatively gentle with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the big player in the Gulf, and I want you, Khun Guitar, and our listeners to follow their stance. They are a major country in the Gulf, and while they are rivals with Iran, at the funeral of Ayatollah Khamenei, which Iran held on the same day as US Independence Day, July 4th, Saudi Arabia, a major rival country, sent a representative to attend. Therefore, you can see that among the US bases attacked by Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, and the UAE were hit the hardest. Those hit lightly were Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar. Currently, Iran is using a tactic of division, showing the Gulf countries that having US bases in their countries does not guarantee safety; instead, it makes them targets. So, what Iran is doing now is to create a division and show the world that they are playing by the UN Charter, defending themselves by retaliating only against the bases of those who attack them, while Trump is increasingly talking about targets that are not military. Iran has already accused the US of being a war criminal, even though it has no legal effect. However, the world will see that it is unfair that Iran is playing by the rules of self-defense. >> But regarding the attacks on infrastructure, Iran has stated that if the attacked infrastructure extends to energy infrastructure, they will retaliate by having their allies, the Houthi group, blockade the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the Red Sea, which is also an oil transport hub. They have communicated that if Iran loses its energy interests, the entire region will suffer. Ambassador, how do you assess the possibility of closing the Red Sea and potentially affecting the entire region? >> It's possible. Just the threat alone is enough to cause shipping and insurance companies considerable headaches due to future uncertainty. This pressure will then return to Washington, because the US certainly has interests. Trump himself said that the US has no interest in the Strait of Hormuz, does not buy oil, and does not do anything through the strait. However, the Red Sea definitely has interests for the US. Therefore, such threats will increase pressure. If the US expands its targets to include Iran's oil and energy infrastructure, Iran still has cards it has played before with success, such as attacking energy facilities, gas, oil, and oil tankers waiting to transport oil in Gulf countries, which are important targets. These countries will then pressure the US in return. Therefore, Iran definitely has the upper hand. The US must maintain a force of 50,000 personnel, aircraft carriers, warships, etc. Missiles and rockets have been used extensively, and the personnel on these ships need to be rotated for rest and maintenance. Iran has a clear advantage in terms of the battlefield. >> But will this pressure reach a point where the US backs down from attacking infrastructure or using military operations against Iran? >> They probably wouldn't dare, because if they go too deep, it's like the hole I mentioned that Trump dug himself. Trump wants to get out of the hole. He knows this; he's not stupid, he's smart, but he's someone who doesn't want to take risks. Continuing to dig the hole, Trump knows it will further displease his base. Given this, ordinary Americans do not want to see a war. Today, diesel prices at the pump in the US have reached $5 per gallon. That $5 is a level that the public finds unacceptable. Therefore, Trump knows well that if it continues at $5, it's already July, and elections are in early November. The Republican Party in the US will definitely lose the House of Representatives, and according to predictions, four Senate seats. If the Democrats win, Trump is finished. Whether Trump loses both houses or one, his remaining two years will be that of a lame duck. >> This means, Ambassador, you analyze that President Trump will definitely not send ground forces to invade Iran, whether it's Kharg Island or any other location? >> Kharg Island has been discussed a lot. I've mentioned it on this program before. To deploy troops there, you need a large number. And how will these troops sleep, live, and ensure their own safety? They will become sitting ducks, making them targets for Iran's missiles and drones. During Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1983, when American Marines were stationed in Lebanon, terrorists bombed them, killing 243 people. Reagan immediately withdrew from Lebanon. Therefore, Trump's nightmare is if these forces, if they die... At this moment, the Ambassador's signal seems to have dropped. We apologize for the technical difficulties. We will ask the team to contact the Ambassador again. There seems to be a signal issue. We are currently having an intense discussion about what was a past nightmare in the era of former President Ronald Reagan, which might serve as a warning to President Donald Trump, making him hesitant to deploy ground troops to invade Iran. But what will be the adjustments in the future, given that an invasion might be more detrimental than victorious? What will President Trump do amidst a situation of continued pressure, where Iran still holds the advantage, especially concerning vital sea transport routes, oil transport through the Strait of Hormuz, and the Red Sea area, with attention on the Bab el-Mandeb strait? The Bab el-Mandeb strait is a critically important area, accounting for about 12% of global oil transport. The Bab el-Mandeb strait is approximately 115 km long and 36 km wide, located south of the Red Sea, and is a crucial connection between the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. It is bordered by Yemen, Djibouti, and Eritrea. This area already presents natural challenges, such as strong currents, unpredictable weather, and piracy. Shipping companies have been cautious when passing through this strait. However, the key point is that this strait is the last gateway before cargo ships pass through the Red Sea to the Suez Canal en route to Europe. Therefore, it is a vital link for global trade. Since the Suez Canal opened in 1869, it has been an important shipping route, transporting about 12% of the world's oil, about 8% of global LNG, 15% of global trade routes, and 30% of global container traffic also passes through this strait. Therefore, this issue is highly sensitive if Iran incites the Houthis to blockade this area. As we have discussed, this pressure might prevent the US from taking overly aggressive actions, especially regarding ground invasions. This is why the Ambassador has highlighted past events and the losses incurred by sending ground forces on American soldiers' lives. The Ambassador's signal is back. We invite the Ambassador to rejoin the conversation. Please, Ambassador. >> My apologies, Khun Guitar, and to our listeners. Iran is battered. No one doubts the current inflation rate of 90%. They desperately need economic breathing room, and the MOU provides them with a channel, but it would restrict their ability to manage and enforce the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, diplomatically, if there are further negotiations to find a solution that satisfies both sides, that would be one way. But I must say that currently, the conservative faction in Iran controls the country, which will pressure Trump not to concede. Because if he concedes without gaining anything, and Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz, the US will lose significant face. >> But regarding the deployment of ground forces, Mr. Trump also stated in an interview on Fox News that perhaps they wouldn't need to send their own forces; there might be proxies who could conduct ground operations besides US soldiers. Ambassador, who do you think Mr. Trump is referring to? Which forces? >> I don't know. I don't know, and I don't think any force would agree to be a sitting duck. The only thing Trump wants to do now, along with US forces, is to prevent Iran from firing missiles and drones to attack various targets as before. But it's not working. Attacking the launch sites, which are thought to be weapon depots, has not shown any significant reduction in Iran's capabilities. Therefore, the crucial question is, if US forces are still unable to reduce the number of missiles and drones threatening them, whether it's US forces or any other nation's forces, they will all be sitting ducks. >> So, it's not a viable option for the US to have local armed forces, regional allies, Israel, or any other military forces conduct ground operations? >> Anyone who would go in to seize or do anything, if they still see that Iran can fire missiles and drones like this, they would have to think many times before agreeing. It's not a viable path. Currently, Trump's former Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, has warned Trump that continuing to attack with air power will not enable Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz. What he said is similar to what former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to Bush Jr. said: besides not wanting to risk sending any forces, imposing stringent economic measures over time would be the best way to pressure Iran. Currently, the US has only one option left. >> Yes. >> Because that's what Iran wants. They want the sanctions lifted, and they want their frozen assets back, which are their own assets, and they got this from the MOU, but they are still not satisfied. Therefore, I believe the US has only one option left: to tell Iran directly that if they do not comply with the MOU, especially regarding the occupation of the Strait of Hormuz, they will face increasingly severe economic pressure. This is something that would not cost American lives or involve airstrikes like those that have occurred. >> Regarding the issue that might create pressure, leading to military action, some analyses in America suggest it might be the far-right base. [Cough] They analyze whether it's impossible to show weakness towards Iran. If negotiations appear to be losing, will it cause Mr. Trump to lose votes and his base? Ambassador, what is your analysis? >> Trump certainly cares about the base that elected him. And the Make America Great Again group is also dissatisfied and disagrees with going to war because it contradicts what Trump promised them. But since he is Trump, and Trump is this group, they try to support him and don't openly oppose him. Regardless, as long as Trump doesn't completely retreat, maintaining a military presence with forces and aircraft carriers, and applying economic pressure, is a long-term option that can be pursued without causing Trump to lose face. It puts pressure on the conservative faction in Iran, indicating that the nation cannot move forward economically. >> Yes. Regarding past events during times of US-Iran conflict, the era of former President Jimmy Carter is often brought up as a potential nightmare that Mr. Trump might want to avoid. This might lead him to adopt a strong, decisive policy. Ambassador, what is your analysis of the history of US-Iran wars? >> 1979 was a nightmare for the US with Iran. I was a student in a dormitory in London at the time. The helicopters that Jimmy Carter sent to rescue diplomats held hostage in the US embassy in Tehran collided with each other and crashed. Iranian students were furious, almost getting into a fight with American students in the room. It was a day of immense sadness and loss for Americans. It was the cause of Jimmy Carter's landslide defeat. And Iran, I must say, wanted Jimmy Carter to suffer to his death and still remember it. They chose to release the 44 diplomats who had been held for 543 days on the day President Reagan was sworn into office. >> Yes, Ambassador. >> And >> Iran, Iran, I must say, can be very cunning. >> With Americans. Americans, Trump will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the nation. Iran chose that day to hold a memorial ceremony for the former spiritual leader whom Trump assassinated on February 28th. And Iran has conducted very clever diplomacy by telling all its friendly countries that if they send representatives to be ambassadors in Tehran, they will not be accepted, only government representatives appointed from the capital. This is a very smart move, a way to measure and show the Americans and the world that there are 70 delegations, representatives from about 100 countries. Among these countries, besides Russia, which sent a former president, and China, Pakistan sent both its prime minister and its army chief of staff. Neighboring countries sent representatives. The most important Gulf country to send a representative, as I mentioned, was Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Saudi Arabia is making quiet diplomatic moves. I must commend the Thai government, commend the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for sending Dr. Prannapri, former Deputy Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister, who currently serves as Chairman of the Advisory Board to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is the most suitable person, with seniority and a deep understanding of matters, and extensive political experience. I have mentioned on this program and others that the Thai government must elevate its engagement, showing Iran that we are friends, that we have only good intentions. For me, Dr. Prannapri is a true special envoy that the government should utilize further, as Dr. Prannapri has access to ceremonies and has met all Iranian leaders. He is someone whom Iranian leaders recognize and are familiar with. Therefore, we must continue to utilize Dr. Prannapri for coordination and exchanges, and to elevate relations. Whenever we can establish open relations without fearing the US or anyone else, we will pave the way from now on. So, what the Thai government is doing is correct. I strongly support the continued use of Dr. Prannapri. >> Regarding US-Iran diplomatic policy, will it still work amidst this escalating conflict? >> I believe it will. I am confident that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman are not sitting idly by. They are talking to Trump's son-in-law, talking to Trump's special envoy. And Trump himself said that he sees no benefit, but if these two or three people want to do something, it's up to them. Trump is always leaving options open. And I believe that if there is a diplomatic agreement to resolve the interpretation issues in a way that neither the US nor Iran loses too much face, Trump will announce it before the midterm elections. So, Ambassador, you believe that an escalation or a wider war is not the intention of President Donald Trump, nor of Iran? >> Trump can do it, but he won't take the risk. Iran is ready to do it because they believe that after enduring so much hardship, they can withstand it. Time is what makes the radical faction in Iran believe they can move towards a more intense war because they will benefit. >> And the other side? >> But who loses? >> Those who lose are the people of the world, the poor, the developing countries, and the Iranians themselves. >> And what about the Arab world, Ambassador? How do you see their reaction or actions? Iran has stated that attacking targets in the Red Sea will not only affect US interests but will also cause trouble for the entire region. Iran is aware that the war could escalate to a regional level if America does not stop its attacks. >> They are certainly concerned. They are definitely concerned because these two straits are the lifeline of the Gulf countries. What Iran is doing is putting pressure on the countries that Trump cares about regarding oil. >> Yes. >> Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar – they must feel that they cannot accept what is happening based on the image Iran is projecting. The US must help them. >> And finally, what should Thailand prepare for? You mentioned earlier that we should elevate relations with Iran. However, given the current tensions and clashes, even if negotiations proceed technically, how should diplomatic engagement proceed cautiously and with our best interests in mind at this juncture? >> Quietly behind the scenes, as I've said. Continue to use Dr. Prannapri. Use our embassy to survey Iran's needs. They need medicine. What kind of medicine do they lack? These are things that the Iranian people would appreciate. The Thai government should provide them. Let's build bridges. Iran will certainly be an important trading partner and economic destination for Thailand in this region, besides the Gulf countries. >> Yes, Ambassador. Beyond the US-Iran issue, are there any diplomatic and international relations developments between Thailand and China that are noteworthy at this time? Including China's role in attempting to de-escalate the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia? Ambassador, how do you view China's role and our relationship with Cambodia at this moment? >> If I were the Chinese Ambassador now, I would be worried. Since taking office, the Chinese Ambassador has not been a professional diplomat from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; they have been appointed by the Communist Party, not a professional diplomat. I would be worried for the Chinese Ambassador because since taking office, China's image has declined daily. Starting with the issue of "grey China," then the issues of "godfathers," "godmothers," "godchildren," factories with substandard standards, involvement with the "ST Group" building, and scammer gangs all around us, all these grey businesses. The Chinese Ambassador has even stated that he does not want Thai people to use the term "grey China," which is understandable. We never say "grey Japan," "grey England," or "grey France." >> Yes. >> This Ambassador should understand that you shouldn't blame Thailand for accepting bribes and having officials willing to break the law with those who disrespect the law. But China can cooperate to crack down and bring the culprits back for punishment. The second thing that has significantly damaged China's image, as you mentioned, Khun Guitar, is the issue between Thailand and Cambodia. Thai people cannot accept China sending tanks, weapons, ammunition, and other supplies. Even the Thai military, out of respect for China, said these tanks were for exercises. Everyone knows that the tanks received by Cambodia are not just for exercises. Therefore, I have said on other programs that we should not be angry with China because China has interests in Cambodia and must protect and expand those interests. So, what we should say to China is that the Prime Minister, who is currently in Shanghai and will meet the President and Prime Minister, and also Mr. Manes if he wishes to meet him, should tell China to pressure Mr. Manes not to use Chinese tanks, rockets, and artillery to attack Thai civilian targets. They should pursue diplomatic channels with Thailand, as that is the best solution. China is the only country that, frankly, can tell Cambodia to do anything. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs must show their skills in telling the Chinese side that we understand the issue of tanks, but please persuade Mr. Manes to stop thinking about confronting and advancing with military forces. The third issue, which is the latest and affects all grassroots people in the north, as well as people in the region, is the polluted water from Chinese factories located in some states, which are areas with ethnic minorities where the Myanmar government cannot manage. The opposition party has raised this with the Chinese Ambassador. Therefore, what the Prime Minister should do is follow the suggestion of the opposition leader and speak directly to the Chinese leadership, stating that the Chinese government has strict regulations regarding environmental protection for factories in China. Since these factories are 90% state-owned, according to UN data, why doesn't the government order these factories to treat the water before releasing it as waste, instead of shifting blame by asking Thailand to talk to Myanmar? This is a blame-shifting that appears irresponsible. Therefore, what the Prime Minister should do in three areas during his visit to China, to preserve and improve China's image and earn the admiration of the Thai people, is: First, cooperate with Thailand to crack down on "grey China," godfathers, godmothers, and godchildren. Second, pressure Cambodia to pursue diplomatic channels, cease confrontation, and stop thinking about clashing with the Thai military. Third, compel Chinese factories to treat their wastewater so it can be used for consumption and agriculture. These things are difficult, but if we are too hesitant to speak, we will miss opportunities. >> Regarding the issue of Cambodia, there is information that Major General Zhang, an assistant to the army chief, confirmed that in July, Cambodia contacted China to request the use of PHL03 rockets against Thailand, but the Chinese authorities did not permit it. Ambassador, do you believe that China is aware of every step Cambodia takes in its military operations against Thailand? And can China truly have the weight to permanently pressure an end to the conflict, both present and future? >> China is aware. And I quite admire the technique of the Chinese side, as you mentioned, Khun Guitar. They can use their own wrongdoings to claim credit from Thailand. They provided rockets to them. Who receives rockets and then fires them in the desert or at Vietnam? They receive rockets and know where the targets are. Yet, China still manages to claim credit from Thailand, saying they told China, and China told Cambodia, not to aim at Thailand. I must tell China that Thai people are not fools. We listen, and we ask China to understand that Thai people admire and want good relations with China, but China must be reasonably sincere with Thailand. In the past, China has lost face, I think they have overlooked us because they prioritize their interests with Cambodia. They truly have more interests with Thailand than with Cambodia, but we have never used the cards we have. >> Is that because they overlook us, or because we haven't used them correctly, Ambassador? >> Both. They always overlook us, and we see them as emperors. We are humble and respectful. >> What more can we do today? >> We are still afraid of them. We are afraid of them getting angry. >> But what should we do more, Ambassador? >> As I said, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs must demonstrate their diplomatic skills. They should not speak to destroy relationships, but to preserve and improve them. These three points are the ultimate tests of sincerity at the highest political level of China. If any of them are achieved, the Thai government should immediately publicize it, saying, "See, China is showing its goodwill and sincerity towards us. They are willing to do and concede this and that." When China concedes something, they will certainly claim credit for more than they have done. I'm not blaming them; it's a normal method. But we often don't claim credit when we do something for others. The Prime Minister attending National Day events is like giving away cards for free. In this world, no Prime Minister or Foreign Minister attends National Day events of other countries unless there is a benefit to be gained or to thank that country for its contributions. This is a card we create for free, without investment. But when the Prime Minister brings half of his cabinet to various National Day events, it diminishes the value of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It reduces the value of our participation in National Day events to almost nothing. We are giving away cards for free. I have served in six embassies, and government leaders and foreign ministers do not attend National Day events, not just for Thailand, but for any country. They can achieve much more by doing other things. >> Yes, Ambassador. And in closing, regarding the competition between superpowers like the US and China, even though the US is currently entangled with Iran, everyone sees a connection to China as a close ally. Speaking of the BRICS bloc, some factions call it the "new axis" or a group that might lead a new opposition. Ambassador, how do you view the future relationship between the US and China? >> As long as it's Trump and Xi Jinping, I see it positively. Trump has a sense of admiration for Xi Jinping, though Xi Jinping doesn't admire Trump. Simply put, the chance of war or conflict is low as long as these two can talk. Trump's recent visit shows that China welcomed the US. A little more, and Trump will be pleased. >> Yes. >> He likes it. >> And Trump will return to Chengdu in November for the APEC summit, where they will meet again. I once suggested in Chiang Mai, for a few hours, that Chengdu is only a little over an hour away. Let's lure him with things that Trump is interested in and wants. If he agrees, we will be safe for another two years under a president named Trump. This is creating leverage out of thin air without investment. I suggest naming a small road in front of the consulate in Chiang Mai "J. Trump Road" for the 250th anniversary and 194 years of Thai-US relations. It's a small road. We lose nothing. And it's a tactic that doesn't require major agendas or national-level discussions. This is something that we might overlook, but President Trump would likely value. >> He values it greatly. He wants to see his image, his symbols, not just in Washington, but worldwide. >> His ego. It's because he's narcissistic, someone who wants history to record him. >> Exactly. >> If we are ready to praise Trump, >> Praise for our benefit, without investment. This is a way of praising that costs us nothing. Just a road name. A small road in the Chiang Mai Business Park. We are not suggesting changing the name of Nimmanhaemin Road or any important road in the old city. Low investment. >> Yes, very interesting. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your time today, for analyzing the situation, the diplomatic direction, and the diplomatic policies we should implement in this volatile geopolitical world. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Goodbye. >> Goodbye. >> Goodbye, Ambassador Pisamarn Wattanaphol, former Ambassador to the United States. He analyzed the assessment of the major issues at hand: the possibility of the US sending ground forces to invade Iran, and Iran's threat to blockade the Red Sea, which would cause severe hardship. These remain cards that Iran holds the advantage with and can still pressure the US. However, from the Ambassador's perspective, diplomacy still works, and the approach of negotiation or attempting to interpret the MOU, concerning interests in the Strait of Hormuz, is likely to resolve the conflict between the two sides better than military action, which is difficult to succeed and risks losses. The dimension of trade or economics might still have the power or possibility to pressure Iran more. This is what we have discussed in this segment. Our time for this live broadcast is up. We will meet again shortly in the next live broadcast. Guitar, the Ambassador, and the team bid farewell. Goodbye. [Music]