Transcription
This is a general feed system in the market. This part, >> Fuel Cost Management System, free of hidden service charges, with benefits and Max Points. Listening to the situation, it might escalate continuously. It's not easy to negotiate. So, regarding the 14-point MOU that was discussed last time, is it still being observed, or how will it be changed? >> In the MOU that was signed, Iran clearly stated that all ships can pass through Iran via the Strait of Hormuz, but it must be a direct passage in the designated water area. The MOU explained in detail the signing that day. It appeared that the US also allowed UAE ships to pass through another route to avoid it. I don't know if the owner of that ship might be Jewish. Iran then threatened twice. The ship did not stop. Iran fired and attacked the ship's engine. This incident made the US dissatisfied because they claimed to guarantee all ships passing through the designated waters. Thus, they attacked Iran. Iran attacked back. After attacking back, Iran declared the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and announced its power, letting everyone know that any ship passing without their permission would be attacked. Iran continued to attack. Iran wants to show and reflect to the international community that the one who controls the Strait of Hormuz is not the US, but only Iran. >> It's like a dispute over ruling or holding the Strait of Hormuz as collateral. Therefore, this conflict, the right to control the Strait of Hormuz, in Dr. Jerapong's view, how can Iran claim ownership by principle? What should be done? >> Actually, the US cannot come and occupy it. If they come to occupy it, it's equivalent to the US coming to rob. >> Because the Strait of Hormuz has belonged to Iran for thousands of years. Regarding whether Iran will use laws to declare this, I would like to say that the International Maritime Organization, or UNCLOS of the United Nations, has members worldwide. It is an international organization under the United Nations. Iran has signed, and the US has signed but not ratified. Therefore, the articles, if I remember correctly, are Article 38 of the organization. It has paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. The UN must determine that ships must pass in such and such a way. Article 38 of the organization is an obligation that arises for those who have signed and ratified. But the US, Iran, and about 6-7 other countries have signed but not ratified. Therefore, the obligations stipulated in the articles of the International Maritime Law Organization cannot be enforced against Iran. This is what the Iranian Foreign Minister, Zarif, has said many times during the past wars. Therefore, we go back to ask, why did Iran allow ships to pass? Before the war, the Iranian Foreign Minister clearly stated that because we signed but did not ratify, the effects of international law cannot be enforced against us. But we allow all ships to pass based on customary practice. Iran has opened freely for all ships to pass for 47 years, or even before the Iranian Revolution. All ships could pass. During the 47 years of the revolution, Iran allowed all ships to pass, except warships that were to be stationed in the Persian Gulf. Iran views this as a threat and a destruction of national security, therefore not allowing ships to enter. Thus, this is something that has been announced to the world that they have been practicing for a long time. Meanwhile, Israel has not signed and has not ratified the organization's convention. You, Thani, can try to find more information. Therefore, Iran has announced to the world once again today that throughout the 47 years of sanctions against Iran, this is the statement of an Iranian scholar that I want to reflect. He said that throughout the 47 years of unfair sanctions by the US, the international community has responded to the policy of sanctions that oppress the Iranian people, such as not being able to conduct transactions, not being able to order medicine, aircraft parts, or various things that we know of, which are sanctions by the US. Meanwhile, Iran is pressured by the US, and the international community responds. What does it mean? It means that the international community has applied foreign policy regarding sanctions to Iran. But Iran still allows the Strait of Hormuz to let ships pass, even countries that accept the conditions and respond to the sanctions policy. Therefore, Iran says that for 47 years, no country, except China or Russia, or some allied countries, has paid attention to Iran regarding sanctions. All countries have responded to Trump's policy. But Iran still uses the principle of custom and virtue by allowing ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, even if those countries respond to the US. Therefore, they say that after 47 years, today they must announce to the world that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to them, and the international community allied with the US must ask for their permission. It's as if they have been kind for 47 years, and today they will announce that this belongs to them. And if the international community wants to use laws, they cannot enforce them because the Strait of Hormuz, if it is 12 nautical miles from the land, is considered to belong to that country. This is international maritime law. And another thing that says all ships must pass, this is a rule of the international organization, which Iran has signed but not ratified. Therefore, the effects or articles stipulated in this matter cannot be enforced against Iran, the US, and many other countries, if I remember correctly, about more than ten countries. I think that if this is fought in the international arena, Iran will definitely bring this issue up for discussion in negotiations regarding the Strait of Hormuz. >> Listening to the professor, I feel I understand. I was confused before, and the general public is still confused. But if we listen to the legal details, Iran has the legitimacy. But what the US relies on is not legitimacy, but the law of the jungle. Whoever has more power wins. So, what is difficult is that if we want to resist the law of the jungle, we must use the law of the jungle as well. The only condition is to fight. Today, the fighting in the Strait of Hormuz is quite a back-and-forth. I would like to ask the professor, if in the case of war, will it escalate into a full-scale war, especially with the full use of the military to fight in the Strait of Hormuz by occupying it? What is the chance of this happening with the United States? >> I think the US's plan today to attack the IRGC command centers in various southern provinces of Iran, near the Strait of Hormuz, might be one of their preparations to launch a ground invasion to occupy the Strait of Hormuz. Because the situation is like a military operation where they intend to invade and occupy. As for Iran, they are prepared. The people and the army are extremely prepared to have the US send troops to invade on the ground because they want to fight in a one-on-one manner. This is something that the Iranian people and the Iranian army have been waiting for a long time, and it is their territory, Mr. Thani. Throughout the 88 years of the Gulf War, the Iran-Iraq War, they share borders. Iran fought with Iraq. At that time, Iraq was supported by the US and 65 other countries to overthrow the Iranian government led by the late Imam Khomeini. Iran had just successfully revolted for about a year. The US wanted to overthrow the ruling system because they lost enormous benefits. Therefore, they supported Saddam to wage war. Thus, Iran fought for 8 years, which was mostly a ground war. Therefore, this experience from the country, geopolitics, and the geography of Iran, Iranian warriors are quite experienced in ground combat. Therefore, if the US thinks that by destroying the command centers or IRGC centers, destroying bridges, they can invade and occupy Iran, I think this war will definitely be something to watch. And the US will fall into a trap from which it will be very, very difficult to escape, just like what happened in Vietnam. This is what analysts are looking at. Regarding whether it will be a full-scale war, we have to see the intensity further. What kind of intensity will occur? Because of Iran's retaliation last night, the US fired at a hospital, a children's cancer hospital in Ahvaz, and a bridge connecting cities in Ahvaz. Therefore, Iran retaliated with Sijil missiles, Fateh missiles, and Qadr missiles. These three missiles have warheads that are quite heavy, weighing tons. Earlier, I tried to follow the news, Mr. Thani, about which missiles Iran used, so we could analyze the intensity. But last night, after the US fired at the hospital and the bridge, Iran used Sijil to retaliate against Bahrain and Kuwait. This is very intense. Even though the governments of Kuwait and Bahrain, I have many Thai fans who live in Bahrain, sent clips and confirmed statements, but I cannot disclose them to the media because in Bahrain, if they send clips or are caught, they go to jail for 5 years. Kuwait also goes to jail immediately for 5 years, UAE for 3 years, Saudi Arabia for 2 years. These are laws that screen news footage from leaking out. What we see is from foreign media that may have leaked out. Therefore, the damage that has occurred, we may not have seen it like the damage Iran has received, because the US has its own radar systems, satellites, and fighter jets with infrared cameras that can record images. But losses have definitely occurred. Because just a moment ago, a US C-135 took off from Germany, if I remember correctly, and came to the Middle East with 8 aircraft. These Cs are for transporting injured soldiers or transporting equipment or weapons from the location. It is a question for military analysts: why do 8 aircraft have to fly into the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain? What are they doing there? Are they taking the injured? Or are they quickly moving their remaining power to Germany? Therefore, this is something that is escalating. We have to keep watching whether a full-scale war will occur, whether Tehran will be fired upon, or if there will be assassinations again, or if Israel will jump into the war. Everyone is watching. >> Now, I have a lot of questions, and many people are wondering why the US fired missiles into Iran, and why Iran didn't fire back at the US, which is tens of thousands of kilometers away. I'm not sure if Iran's missiles have the capability to attack. >> The US fired missiles, not from the US. The US fired Tomahawks from warships. >> Yes, that were floating in the Oman Sea and the Indian Ocean. Second, the US fired missiles from Bahrain, which is a US base. Third, the US fired missiles from Kuwait, which is a base. Therefore, Iran fired missiles in retaliation at several US bases that were firing missiles at Iran. The US has not fired directly from America at Iran. Now, regarding whether Iran can fire directly, I am not sure if Iran's ICBMs can reach New York. I must say I am not sure because the distance is 12,000 km, which is not close. Regarding whether Iran can fire, I am not sure. But if you ask about a distance of 4,000 km, it has been proven by firing one missile at Qom, just to show it reached. I am confident about this because it has been fired and reached 4,000 km. But whether it reached the US, I don't know. Perhaps science has not reached that point yet, I am not sure about this part. >> Because some people commented, saying that if they fired at the US, it would make the American people afraid and they would oppose the full-scale war. This is hard to say. Firing that far. But now, the retaliation is from the launch bases that fired into Iran. This is an appropriate retaliation, right? >> Yes, it is the most appropriate retaliation because neighboring countries are US bases used to attack Iran. Let's assume Iran can fire. We still don't know how much it will be intercepted, whether it will reach, or if it will be intercepted along the way. This is something that needs further analysis. But firing at a base is firing at a US base. My fan in Bahrain also clearly said, "It's good that the Iranians didn't fire at civilian homes, didn't kill Bahrainis, didn't kill Kuwaitis. They fired at the Fifth Fleet and the command center in Bahrain, and the aircraft hangars in Jordan and Kuwait." Iran will attack US interests in the region more. Because their missiles are accurate at a range of about 1,000 km or less than 1,000 km, or not exceeding 2,000 km, they are reliable. If they fired over 10,000 km, it would be okay. It might make the cheerleaders clap with joy, but the strategic impact might not be as significant. Personally, I believe that the commanders of the IRGC forces, especially the commander of Iran's air and space force, have the ability to make decisions, more than the cheerleaders. I get a lot of questions asking why they don't fire. I don't know how to answer. I tell them they are probably smarter than us. Because they have been fighting America for 2 years and haven't surrendered, it means they can analyze and evaluate each retaliation. I also have questions, like why don't they fire 100 missiles at once to destroy the bases? This is a question from fans. "Why don't they fire all at once and destroy everything?" When I met with experts in Iran, they told me they have ways to retaliate. Firing all at once is not necessary. Firing back and forth, back and forth, makes the war expand. The war becomes prolonged. It will affect neighboring countries. It will make them afraid. "Hey, see? Our economy is deteriorating because we allowed US bases to be established." The siren sounds will be disturbing, Mr. Thani. The sound of explosions will make us mentally ill. I was in Iran for 40 days during the war, and last year I was there too. The sound of explosions, the sound of aircraft, the sound of missiles, the sound of air defense systems firing, will create more unrest. Whereas if they fired 100 missiles at once, it would be over. This would be over. The US might establish new bases, but firing back and forth, back and forth, I think there is something they want to convey to the people of that country, the government of that country that provides benefits, and to let the United States know. >> I also heard that if infrastructure is attacked, Iran threatens to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait. This is another trump card, another ultimate move. I don't know how likely it is. >> In the 40-day war, Trump also said he would destroy Iran's infrastructure, including oil refineries and power plants. Iran said if they fire, they will shut down all electricity in the region. They can attack every country. And I believe they will fire, and it will explode for sure, and all Arab countries will be plunged into darkness. I am confident about this. As for Iran's trump card, closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait in Yemen, I think the Houthi Ansarullah of Yemen is probably waiting for the green light from Iran. If the war escalates further, and the intensity increases, then Yemen's Ansarullah will probably close it. If that is closed, it will definitely be difficult, especially for Europe, because nothing can be transported. The Houthis have closed it before and fought with US warships until the US finally retreated two years ago. So, regarding the capability to close it, yes, there is. But they have to wait for the green light from Iran. And Iran also retaliates, saying that if Trump closes it, and Trump fires at our infrastructure, they will fire at all countries that provide benefits and send them back to the era of camels, riding camels, over a thousand years ago. Trump once said he would send Iran back to the Stone Age, right? Iran said they would send all Arab countries back to the era of camels, riding camels, meaning no energy, no electricity. This is what I have to say: we have to see how much the Arab world can pressure Trump. But if Trump continues to listen to Netanyahu and Israel's whispers, I think the chance of firing might exist. There might be. But will Iran retaliate? Iran will definitely retaliate. I guarantee it and I am confident because every time they say if you fire, we fire back, and they actually fire, and they don't wait. But Trump might change his mind later, like last time when he said he would destroy civilization, but he didn't. He said he would fire at infrastructure and nuclear power plants, power plants, but in the end, he didn't. And he had to beg for negotiations. I think he has assessed whether to fire or not. If he fires, the Middle East will definitely have problems in many countries. >> If the Bab al-Mandab Strait is closed, will Europe join the war? What is the chance of this happening? >> It has to be assessed. Because at this moment, Europe is burdened by the economy, especially the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. I think NATO and European countries do not want to add more war and bear more expenses. And they see this war as a war initiated by the US and Israel. So, I think it's likely they won't join. But if they join, the war will definitely expand significantly. Will Russia jump in fully? Because Russia is also involved with Europe, supporting Ukraine with weapons and money, and strategic combat. Zelensky uses this to attack Putin, to attack Russia. The chance of the war expanding is very frightening if Europe declares its participation. I think many countries will not remain indifferent. >> Oh, Professor Ruephong, you hit the nail on the head. Russia will not allow it. If Europe joins, Russia will also come. And Russia is already showing signs by sending strategic bombers to Tehran. I don't know what their purpose is, but people say it's a command aircraft, especially for long-range combat. This makes us think if Russia and China will react in the coming period. >> Russia is quite clear in sending command aircraft, which they call central command in the sky, to Iran. But there is no news yet about what they will do or how. It's like sending a telepathic message to the Iranian people that Russia has sent it, and sending a message to Iran's enemies, the United States. So, I think they will have operations and discussions to deal with the US for sure. As for China, there is no military sign yet. China is currently focusing on the economy. And they are using the experience from this war to manage the Asia-Pacific, especially the issue of Taiwan. Because China is using the conflict between Iran and the US in this instance to model and assess how China would use combat strategy if they wanted to invade Taiwan and the US intervened. Iranian analysts believe that the current war between Iran and the US is a lesson for many countries that are opposed to the US to use as a case study for assessing US power. Therefore, I think China is more focused on negotiations. Because just a moment ago, the Chinese government and Pakistan called on all parties to be calm and to sit down for negotiations. But Russia's actions are more prominent than China's in this war. >> I heard that Xi Jinping is visiting North Korea. And after his visit to North Korea, the North Korean Prime Minister came to Beijing to discuss something we don't know. And most recently, yesterday, they sent a deputy prime minister, who is number 4 in the Politburo, Wang Huning. Wang Huning is responsible for strategic planning. He is a strategist who develops various strategies. He went to North Korea. So, I understand that China and North Korea must have some deep-seated plans because they visit so frequently. Wang Yi has been there, Wang Huning has been there. It seems like they are planning something we don't know, because it's not this frequent. Therefore, with Iran at war with the US at this time, I think they might let North Korea take the lead in sending various equipment to Iran, rather than coming out directly. Because if they come out directly and confront the US, it will be a big issue. We will have to watch to see if North Korea will send anything to Iran in terms of equipment or military assistance. There should be discussions on this matter. So, I would like to ask the professor to analyze further. Since the four countries cooperating are Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia, on one side, does this negotiation have the potential to cause the war to escalate significantly? Because there is no way to back down. Iran will not back down. The US will not back down. Therefore, if Iran is to survive, China and Russia must provide full support to sustain it. Otherwise, the next stage of the war is unavoidable. It will have to clash violently. The fear of this, I would like to ask for an analysis of how likely it is. >> Based on the current situation, I think if other countries do not join, if European countries do not join, if Russia and China do not fully jump in, including North Korea, if they send anything, it might be some strategic supplies, perhaps some missiles. But Iran already has many missiles. What would be helpful is satellite imagery, like during the 40-day war, China provided a lot of satellite imagery. Russia also helped a bit, and China helped a bit. If they are still fighting one-on-one, I think many countries will not join, those that are allied with Iran. But if it expands, if the Bab al-Mandab Strait is closed, and Europe or NATO joins, I think Iran's allies will have to join when the time comes. And if they join, the war will definitely be terrifying, Mr. Thani. Russia has grievances with Europe but has not had a direct opportunity to start a war. Now, if Iran and Russia are ganged up on, and China, a close ally of Russia, I think China will follow. And North Korea, which is very indebted to Russia, because in the Ukraine war, North Korea sent thousands of soldiers. If Russia is attacked by Europe, North Korea will definitely intervene. I analyze that if they are still fighting one-on-one, many countries will not join. But if Iran is ganged up on by European countries, I think the chance of Russia, North Korea, and China joining has a percentage. But it is not guaranteed to join 100%. >> What I would like the professor to analyze is that Iran currently has no air force strength. Can it resist by only using drones and missiles if they use full-strength weapons and cannot defend their airspace? Will the situation worsen if viewed this way? How long can Iran endure? >> In the 40-day war, Iran used its air defense system to fight the US, and the US was able to attack many locations. Because Iran installed a new defense system called the Navin system, it can shoot down several US fighter jets, lock onto US F-35s, and can shoot them down. They had to make emergency landings in neighboring countries. It is considered that their defense system is excellent. The US claims to control all of Iran's airspace, which is not true. They come in, but they have to flee quickly. Sometimes they are shot down. Do you remember when one was shot down in Isfahan, and they had to send people to help? So, the claim of controlling all airspace is not true. They can enter, but they have to find a way to flee as quickly as possible. Now, regarding Iran's air force, many countries that produce fighter jets have not delivered them to Iran. Russia's Su, which they said they would deliver, has only sent a few. China's J-10 has not been delivered yet. I still don't understand why they haven't delivered them and haven't let Iran use them. Could this be a condition for Trump's visit to China, or a bargaining chip for Trump with Putin? Iranian analysts still believe that our allies have not delivered fighter jets to Iran's air force. This is still a question for the people and many people in Iran. Iran considers that even though they don't have modern fighter jets, they have a good defense system and missiles. They believe that with this, they can still retaliate and fight against the US. But if they had fighter jets, would it be better? I can tell you, Mr. Thani, it would definitely be better. They could fly and attack in many countries, just like before the recent 40-day war. In the 40-day war, Iran used fighter jets to attack US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain 2-3 times. Now, if Iran had more fighter jets, the opportunity to invade and bomb US bases in the region would increase. >> Now, regarding international relations, especially among GCC countries, after several clashes between Iran and GCC countries, what is the relationship like? Can it improve? If they keep attacking them like this, will the relationship worsen, and can they move forward in the future if the relationship is like this? >> We have to wait and see. Because during the funeral ceremony of the Supreme Leader of Iran, I saw a representative from Saudi Arabia, which is the big brother of the Arab countries, the leader of the GCC countries, traveling to attend and send a representative. As for the Gulf countries or Arab countries, honestly, Iran wants to cooperate. But if they don't cooperate, Iran won't give much importance to the Arab countries because they are small countries and have good relations with Israel, especially the UAE and Bahrain. Iran, if it prioritizes relations, I think Iran will prioritize relations with Saudi Arabia more than the Gulf countries, which are small countries like Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain. Bahrain, over 50 years ago, belonged to Iran. King Faisal I gave it to the British. Actually, Bahrain is originally Iranian. 65% of Bahraini people are Shia, like Iran, and speak Farsi, the Iranian language, in addition to Arabic. Therefore, they see that if proactive diplomacy can lead to cooperation with the Arab world after the war, they will work together. But if they can't cooperate, they won't care, because for 47 years, they haven't cared about many countries. Regarding other policies, I think Iran will focus more on Saudi Arabia. Because if Iran has good relations with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia can instruct the small Gulf countries in the future. >> I have heard that Iraq is a country that is quite close to Iran in terms of Shia religious adherence. But what is surprising is that Iraq has been ruled by the United States for over 20 years, and is still dominated, especially in oil sales, which must be sold through the US. Every penny earned is managed by America. So, I wonder why, despite the great mourning for the leader, his body was taken to Iraq, and there was great mourning. And they have good relations. It seems strange. What is the current relationship between Iraq and Iran? >> The relationship between Iraq and Iran remains good. But >> Of course. The US has taken control of oil sales. If they don't fight America, America will use this method, just like what happened in Venezuela and many other countries. Therefore, Iran has learned lessons from around the world: no matter what, they will not let America dominate. As for Iraq, the majority of the Shia population is allied with Iran. They are good allies with Iran. The militias that were established by General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by Trump, were established by him, including the militias in various provinces when fighting ISIS. Therefore, the majority of the Iraqi people and the militias, which are quite capable, are good allies with Iran. These groups have influence over the Iraqi government. Because if the government does not lean this way, they will lose in parliament. Therefore, they must be good to the militias and also good to the people who favor Iran. Because if they are not good to these groups, they will have no voter base in Iraq, as the Sunni population is small. Therefore, the most steadfast ally of Iran is the Shia population, which is almost 60%. Therefore, any government that comes must be good to the Iraqi people who favor Iran, who are also Shia. For this reason, we see the grand procession for the leader's funeral, paraded in two important Shia cities: Najaf, an important Shia city, and Karbala, also an important Shia city. When receiving him at the airport, the young Prime Minister of Iraq received him himself. He met with the leader's son and the President's son, Peskhian, at the airport as well. Therefore, I think Iraq is a close brother to Iran. The current government may be somewhat dominated by the US, but they still do not dare to confront their own people who admire and are allied with Iran. >> Hmm, so Iraq is still safe and can be relied upon. There won't be many problems. But countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE are not very friendly, from what I hear about the attacks on their bases. So, the chance of change in the future might be possible if Saudi Arabia, as the big brother, has good relations with Iran. Now, I want to ask about the Strait of Hormuz again. This is the last question. Actually, the Strait of Hormuz has 20% of the world's oil. And Iran also has to export oil. If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, Iranian ships cannot leave, Iran cannot sell oil, and other countries around the world cannot receive oil. How long can we tolerate this? One month, two months? Will the world not collapse? If it's a problem for one or two months, or will it end in two weeks? >> In the 40-day war, when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it was observed that Iran still exported oil, by exporting it to its close friend, China. China sent ships to pick it up, and Chinese ships were able to sail out. Oil prices jumped from over $60 to $117, for Brent crude, if I remember correctly, $117 US dollars per barrel. During this period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, Chinese ships have already picked up 6 shipments of Iranian oil. Iran said that ships of its allies can come to buy oil. Now, if the US dares to fire at Chinese ships, in the end, they won't dare. If it were Iranian ships, the US would fire, right? But if it's a Chinese ship, the US won't fire. Therefore, Iran can still export oil, but in limited quantities, and not in large amounts. So, closing the Strait of Hormuz, like in the 40-day war, we have to see the reaction of the global community, especially the American people, who will have to bear $4.5 to $5 per gallon, or maybe up to $5. Will Americans accept this? Will the global community, especially the Thai people, accept it if the oil price rises to $120 US dollars per barrel? It will affect the whole world, and this ripple effect will cause the Pentagon's and Trump's policies to change again, just like in the past during the 40-day war. Now, regarding the impact on Iranians from not being able to export, because in Iran, almost everything is produced domestically. Most products are "Made in Iran." Some imported goods are imported from China. As for domestic oil, there is no shortage. I have been here for several years, and oil is still cheap. People fill up normally, about almost one baht. With a card, it's 30 satang. Therefore, the rate of oil consumption by the Iranian population, over 90 million people, the government has a huge oil reserve. Therefore, the long-term impact on the livelihood of the Iranian people, I think it is difficult to occur. But it is the global community and Americans themselves who will be directly affected by the oil price. And this is what will pressure the war to reach its end sooner. >> I think so too. Trump cannot tolerate it for more than two weeks. After that, it will have to end. How it ends, we have to keep following. I would like to invite Professor Ruephong to update us on any progress. We will have to keep following. For now, we can only guess and anticipate that the strait will not be closed. If it is closed, the war will definitely escalate. Today, I thank you very much. See you again in this clip. Thank you, Mr. Thani. >> Hello. Hello. >> Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to the Sawat Thao channel to not miss interesting clips and watch new clips.