Transcription
Amus channel, just Amus channel, just Amus channel. Therefore, those with less capital this time must open fire first. This blockade, the United States will come in as the protector of the Hormuz Strait and propose to collect a 20% fee from goods passing through this route in exchange for security and safety for navigation. This time, they are shooting and not stopping. They are shooting, then shooting, then shooting back and forth until Trump sends a letter. If viewed from a legal perspective, it can be stated that the war has already begun. The United States then went to look at the Oman channel, which is to the south, and tried to find a way for ships to pass through Iran's Hormuz channel, which would choke the Strait of Hormuz. Ships pass above, and to collect tolls and various fees, Iran will certainly not agree. Trump is trying to mix and match cargo ships, oil tankers, and gas tankers to pass through this channel. Every time they pass, Iran will not agree and will attack. When they attack, the United States bombs back.
Iran wants to change its status from a stakeholder to the ruler of the Strait of Hormuz. On the American side, you must understand that both the economy and military power are at a disadvantage. Staying still like this is just waiting to die.
Today, the United States has confirmed the declaration of a new round of war with Iran. The Trump administration stated that Iran violated the MOU signed on June 17 by attacking commercial ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a counter-attack on Iran.
I think this is a new round of war, but this war may not yet expand beyond Hormuz. Iran's most important weapon in the first round is economic weapons. If the United States opens the Strait of Hormuz and allows ships to pass, Iran's most powerful weapon will become ineffective. Geographically, a narrow strait like this, there are actually two things. The first is to ensure that the other party has little or no capability to attack passing ships. Because closing a strait is not about parking ships there to block it. Closing a strait means that if you pass, we can shoot your ship and sink it. That's considered closing the strait.
And when Iran attacks back, Iran attacks back at Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. But Iran has set a framework, which is to attack only American bases in the main countries.
Control of the Strait of Hormuz before and after the war. Before the war, Iran had no power. After the war, Iran has power. This is an escalating and intensifying event in the past 6 periods. This means the war has escalated, or the attacks are still limited to the issue of Hormuz. Goldmit 2026, the biggest gold seminar in Thailand, is now available for rewatch.
Most people trade gold, 95%.
Why do they lose money?
A crisis period is the best time for you to convert cash into valuable assets that are decreasing in value.
You can watch all Main State Sessions again. Follow more details on Z Event. I think this is a new round of war, but this war may not yet expand beyond Hormuz. Let me put it this way. It might sound like answering a question with a question, but I'm trying to say that the first round was an attack and counter-attack at the regional level. But this round of war, I consider it a war, but it is still limited to the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. Notice that Iran's attacks are focused only on small military targets, and the United States' attacks are focused only on forces related to the Strait of Hormuz. It hasn't expanded much yet. Therefore, I feel that it is still a repetitive war, but I must say that the war has returned, both from Trump's stance and Iran's stance.
You mentioned that the war has returned. What part of Trump's stance and what part of Iran's stance are symbolic that this is not just a counter-attack, but a war?
First of all, if you observe towards the end of the war, or towards the end before the ceasefire agreement, there were exchanges of fire, then ceasefires, then stops. It was just one or two times and then it stopped. This shows that each side was acting to maintain their negotiating advantage and perhaps to leverage the negotiations. But this time, they are shooting and not stopping. They are shooting, then shooting, then shooting back and forth until Trump sends a letter. If viewed from a legal perspective, that is the indicator that the war has begun. And from a behavioral perspective, the war has already started for about 2 days. Therefore, if we can call this round a war, I think we can call it that. It is the second war.
This time, the United States says the goal of the attack is to destroy Iran's capability to be a threat to the Strait of Hormuz area. Do you see this as the true goal, or does the United States have other strategies or goals in initiating this new round of war?
I think what the United States is doing is correcting its mistakes. And if we say it lost in terms of opening and closing the Strait of Hormuz, we can say that in the first round. The United States was unable to convince the whole world that the Strait of Hormuz was open. Therefore, this time, if the United States wants to save face, in a way, and on the other hand, to ensure that Iran's most important weapon in the first round is economic weapons, which is to make the Strait of Hormuz impassable, causing oil to disappear from the world market by 20-30%. That is Iran's most powerful weapon. If the United States makes the Strait of Hormuz open and allows ships to pass, Iran's most powerful weapon will become ineffective. Therefore, I feel that these two points are in Trump's mind. Whether it is successful or not is another matter, but I feel that this is what he is doing, and it is what CENTCOM's deployment and Trump's strategy, which have been revealed through various letters and words, focus on opening the Strait of Hormuz.
However, during the war over the past 4 months, the Strait of Hormuz has been an issue all along. In the end, America still could not open the Strait of Hormuz. This time, Mr. Trump says he will blockade it again and become the guardian of the Strait of Hormuz. There must be some operation. What do you think America will do with the Strait of Hormuz?
Theoretically, to open the Strait of Hormuz, in the case of a narrow strait like this, there are actually two things. The first is to ensure that the other party has little or no capability to attack passing ships. Because closing a strait is not about parking ships there to block it. Closing a strait means that if you pass, we can shoot your ship and sink it. That's considered closing the strait. Therefore, if this capability is reduced or no longer a threat, it will be considered open. That's one. The second is to show the world or passing ships that there is protection, meaning there is naval power for protection. Normally, when deploying naval forces for protection in this kind of strait blockade, warships are used to form a protective barrier. If a missile is fired, it will be intercepted. Both of these must be done. It sounds easy, but it's actually very difficult because of Iran's capabilities. They don't need large forces; they only need a few missiles. The confidence of passing ships is already damaged. Closing or opening a strait depends on confidence, on the belief of the ships, not on Trump's words or the IRGC's words. Therefore, as long as passing ships still believe that the strait cannot be passed because they might be shot at, the strait will not be open. Conversely, the naval forces trying to open it must be numerous and have enough replacement ships, because ships cannot sail 24 hours continuously for months. They need to refuel, rearm, and allow the crew to rest. It is uncertain whether the United States has such naval power at this time, while the United States as a whole, its shipbuilding and maintenance industry, and its navy are facing severe problems with ship maintenance, the worst in many years, or some say even since World War II. US ships are decreasing. Therefore, we observe that the ships in operation have to extend their operational periods. For example, the Lincoln has been here since the first round until this round and has not returned. Or the General Ford, which has been out of service for a year, until its toilets caught fire, and only then will it return. Therefore, no matter how much is said, what the United States must do to truly open it is to make the world believe that even if Iran tries to shoot, the United States will be able to retaliate. Frankly, we are not there yet, not even close. Therefore, no matter what Trump says, what Trump must show is that he can actually do it. But with several ships being attacked, it raises questions about whether what Trump is doing and saying can really happen. We will have to wait and see.
Are there any other combat tactics or troop deployment strategies that can effectively protect navigation or truly defend the narrow Strait of Hormuz that America has not used before and might use now?
Actually, to make it more effective, the United States must land troops on the beaches along Iran's coast and open a "safety corridor." That is, penetrate 4-5-60 kilometers inland to ensure that Iran cannot set up coastal missile launchers to attack passing merchant ships. But on the other hand, as we always say, landing troops is a very big matter, a huge matter. It requires hundreds of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of tanks, and much more. As far as we can see, the United States does not have this force in the Middle East yet. Therefore, this means the situation is not ready for such action. If not ready for such action, we must return to the original approach, which is to try to use air strikes. If we know where there are missile launchers or where the command centers are, we destroy them. Frankly, even if we destroy them, they might not be completely gone because Iran can produce replacements. Or, the second option is for the United States to use ships to block the front and back, forming a convoy. It's really like this: imagine walking in a group. The tour leader holds a flag, everyone follows, and someone walks at the back. The person at the front and back holds missiles. If anyone shoots, they will intercept. It's not easy. It sounds easy, but it's not easy at all. So, if the United States is going to do something, I don't think it will be much more than this, because if it's more than this, it requires ground forces, and the situation is not ready for that, definitely.
In the latest letter clarifying with Congress, President Trump stated that no ground forces will be sent. The operation will be limited, carefully planned, aiming to reduce civilian casualties, but only to destroy military capabilities that threaten US forces and US territory. The question is, is the clarification in the letter sent to Congress the final word? Can military operations in real life, in actual combat strategy, be changed from this document?
I think if there are changes, the situation might require further notification. And it might even reach the point where if it's bigger, Congress would have to be asked to declare war, like in the Iraq war. Because this is the most that can be done with naval and air forces. I use the term "forward forces," meaning not the forces stationed in the US, but the forces stationed in CENTCOM in the Middle East.
With forward forces, there is only so much that can be done, as we have seen. If anything more is to be done, Congress will definitely have to be asked, like when they were about to invade Iraq. Therefore, if it reaches that stage, it will definitely be a long and big issue. But I still feel the same way: I don't believe the United States is ready to go that far. I don't believe the United States is ready to send ground forces to fight, given the oil price crisis, domestic political problems, and many other things, including the American public's aversion to war. Therefore, I think ultimately, due to its own political limitations, the United States will be forced to do only that: use air and naval forces.
According to your analysis last week, the attacks have indeed occurred, and this round seems to be more severe, with hundreds of points attacked, and Iran's counter-attacks have also occurred in many areas of the Persian Gulf. What is your analysis of these attacks? Do they confirm the hypotheses, and what will these attacks lead to next?
We need to try to look at this in two or three layers to see this event going forward. Instead of just looking at the news and seeing that events are happening 1, 2, 3, 4, if we can project into the future and see that it might become 8, 9, 10, 11, etc., it would be beneficial for advance planning. To look ahead like that, we must compare the behavior of the parties involved in the past with the present and with what is happening now. What you, Guitar, said is correct. After the MOU was signed, and the conflict began, this will be the third time. Because the United States wants to, what do they call it, "twist Iran's wrist." Because Iran uses its hand to squeeze, like choking, the Strait of Hormuz. So the United States looked at the Oman channel to the south and tried to find a way for ships to pass through the Oman channel. This is a new idea that Trump has started to see. He sees that the MOU signed and stamped with conditions, various conditions in the MOU, benefits Iran too much. He is looking for a way to fix it. And one of the solutions he sees is to dismantle the agreement in the part concerning the Strait of Hormuz. Previously, it seemed there was no choice but to compete with Iran's northern channel. It turns out that with the Oman channel to the south, Trump sees that this can be used as a thorn in Iran's side. How can ships pass through the Oman channel? The more they pass, the more Iran's "hand" that chokes the Strait of Hormuz and forces ships to pass above and collect tolls and various fees will dissolve. Iran will certainly not agree. Therefore, what has happened, starting from the first ship that the United States pushed to pass, was a Singaporean ship. You might remember the first ship attacked in this round. It was a normal cargo ship from Singapore. Iran said that Oman had agreed with the United Nations to use the Oman channel only for humanitarian purposes, to allow ships that were detained in the Persian Gulf, with 11,000 sailors and crew, who had been detained for 3-4 months, to leave. It turns out that Trump is trying to mix and match cargo ships, oil tankers, and gas tankers to pass through this channel. Every time they pass, Iran will not agree and will attack. When they attack, the United States bombs back. The nature of the US bombing in the past was bombing back into various towns along the coast. If we look at the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the entire northern part is Iran. Therefore, what the United States did to retaliate against Iran's attack on commercial ships was to bomb small towns along the coast, claiming it was bombing radar stations or buildings used by the authority controlling ship passage, which Iran had set up, called the Persian Gulf State Authority. They destroyed that building and this building. But in the two attacks that have occurred so far, the United States has been observed to have attacked narrowly, focusing only on these towns and military points along the coast of Iran, the coast of the Persian Gulf. And when Iran attacks back, Iran attacks back at Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. But Iran has set a framework, which is to attack only American bases in these main countries. It's like both sides are attacking with limited force. America attacks, claiming to be military targets. Iran retaliates, focusing only on American bases in these countries. This is what happened in the first two rounds. But this third round, if we observe, something has changed. This change, I think, indicates a new policy by Trump, a policy to intensify the situation. It's like this: after the MOU was opened, and oil tankers could leak out from where they were previously detained, world oil prices dropped sharply, to a low level. This made Trump feel that he could attack and create stress, and even if it affected oil prices, he probably guessed that it wouldn't make oil prices surge to a level that would cause problems for Americans. Therefore, I analyze that Trump probably sees that now, after oil has leaked out, he has an advantage. He has an advantage in terms of time, and he has the opportunity to do this and that. And oil prices might rise a bit, but not to the point of causing dissatisfaction among American voters. That's the US side. On the Iranian side, the MOU was prepared in advance. Before they signed, they took ships, which are mostly "dark fleets," old ships, ships belonging to this person and that person, and prepared them with Iranian oil. As soon as they signed, Iran released these ships first, ahead of all Arab countries. Therefore, it is estimated that Iran previously exported about 60 million barrels of oil, and these ships are now sailing around the Strait of Malacca. These ships are mostly waiting for China to be ready to buy. When they are ready, they will bring ships to dock. But it's not about bringing ships to dock at Sengai or anything. They will have Chinese ships come and transfer oil in the middle of the sea because Iranian ships are old, and these frigates are old, and ports will not easily allow them to dock. But this means Iran has moved its floating oil storage tanks from inside the Persian Gulf to the Asian region safely. That's a benefit for Iran. Furthermore, when there were two rounds of attacks, Trump threatened to blockade again. Iran then exported more oil, another lot, about 10 million barrels. Therefore, since the MOU was signed, Iran now has money to buy imports, because previously there were concerns that they wouldn't have money to pay for imports of food, medicine, etc. Now that it has happened, China has started buying, so they will have money. They can keep it in Yuan outside the dollar system and use it for imports. Therefore, Iran feels comfortable and has more time. Both sides seem to be able to tolerate the tension to some extent.
But is this something done to give America bargaining power and bring back benefits, or is it a case of returning to war or starting a new conflict?
Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, we must try not to let Iran completely control the Strait of Hormuz, even though Article 5 of the MOU states otherwise. But from America's perspective, it can be interpreted that controlling it means ensuring safety, not allowing Iran to have economic power. Therefore, America must do everything to exert its influence in this strait. So, if Iran shoots any ship, America must at least have the capability to retaliate and shoot back at Iran. Now, what will this lead to? Will it lead to a full-scale war again? That is the important question. I predicted when the MOU was signed that the permanent ceasefire agreement is fragile, and these MOUs are fragile because they arise from haste and immediate problem-solving by both sides, not from truly sustainable solutions. On the American side, they must do everything to maintain the balance of power or their position in the region. But whether it will lead to a full-scale war again, I still assess it as difficult, Ms. Guitar, and viewers. Why is it difficult? Because the war that has occurred for almost 4 months has shown us that using military force cannot lead to a decisive victory, and America itself cannot achieve its objectives in any war. In this war, when Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, even if America blockades the outer perimeter, it cannot make Iran open the Strait of Hormuz. It's not that America didn't try, Ms. Guitar and viewers. America tried to open it. If you remember, the operation to open the strait, called Project Freedom, if you recall.
Yes.
America said, "You can go through, America will protect you through the strait." But in the end, after only 48 hours, this operation had to be terminated when the Arab allies of America pleaded with America to stop firing at Iran. This means that using military force cannot open the strait. If it could, America would have opened it already. And returning to a full-scale war, Ms. Guitar, like on February 28th, I think it's difficult. Why? To wage war, one must win. No one wants to lose, right? But America knows that winning a war against Iran is extremely challenging. The most basic principle of waging war or overthrowing a regime is what? It is using only air power, bombing from planes and missiles. It has never and cannot cause any regime to collapse. There is only one way: ground forces must be sent in for the regime to collapse. But America has not sent them in for 3-4 months. This means they cannot send them, right? America expected that before the war, the masses would protest, right? There was suppression, and there were mass protests in Iran. They expected the masses to rise up when the leaders were killed, and the masses would rise up to overthrow the government. But the results were not as expected. Therefore, returning to a full-scale war, I see it as difficult. Another thing is the fragility of energy prices. Trump himself does not want energy prices to surge again. He does not want Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz again. Therefore, due to these limitations and past experiences, I believe that the MOU, since it was signed, may encounter setbacks along the way. There will be exchanges of fire, but it will be difficult to return to a full-scale war today, even though Trump says 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.
What about Iran's side, Professor? Iran retaliated against the US attack by firing at US strategic military points. And this time, Iran is in a period of mourning for its supreme leader, and people seem to want revenge and have an emotional desire for Iran not to negotiate or be at a disadvantage with America. How conducive is the current atmosphere in Iran to peace negotiations, or is it more conducive to attacks or conflict?
One thing we observe from this war with Iran is that Iran is very resilient to losses or has great flexibility in war. In this war, no matter how much damage it sustains. Another thing is that it has succeeded in many things, Ms. Guitar. It has succeeded in making the Iranian people, who were previously protesting against the leadership before the war, unite. When war broke out, it made the Iranian people more unified. Trump himself was surprised by the number of people who came to mourn the supreme leader's body. This indicates that Iran still has unity. And as for whether it 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 it is necessary, I think they are still prepared to return. This means they will have to endure fighting or economic pressure. For example, if sanctions are lifted, what is the end result, Ms. Guitar? It is returning 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 sanctions that America might impose are reimposed, it is just returning to the pre-war situation. What has changed is the control of the Strait of Hormuz before and after the war. Before the war, Iran had no power. After the war, Iran has power. This is what is happening today.
A scholar from the Institute said that Iran is trying to establish a status in the Strait of Hormuz, meaning that during wartime, whoever wants to pass must ask for Iran's permission. But the MOU does not seem to be like that. What do you see as Iran's goals for the Strait of Hormuz going forward?
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 that Iran, through its agency called PGSA, the Iranian authority for the Persian Gulf Strait, which is an agency that did not exist before the war but was established when the war broke out. In this map, it shows that Iran has colored a very large control zone that extends through the Strait of Hormuz area. It's not just there; it extends west to the Iranian city of Kuweir, to Fujairah in the UAE. And to the west, it's from Qes Island in Iran to Umm Al Quwain in the UAE. This is Iran drawing a line of control, declaring sovereignty over the maritime territory in this region. By declaring this, Iran expects to be able to collect fees and tolls from various nations. Although currently, there are still exemptions according to the MOU, which is for the 60 days mentioned. In this map, we see that the area is huge, very large. Iran says that anyone who wants to enter or exit this purple area must submit documents to the agency called PGSA before they can enter or exit safely. Therefore, if any ship enters without notification, Iran will use control or firing at those ships. If we look at this map, the country that will likely have the most difficulty is the UAE. Because the UAE has an alternative exit in the Strait of Hormuz area, which is not to go north, but to go east to Fujairah, right? But in the end, Iran has extended its territory to the port in Fujairah, making the UAE, even though it is its own territorial waters, unable to enter or exit freely. An interesting piece of information, Ms. 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. On one hand, the UAE is a victim of Iran's claims, but on the other hand, it is also a major customer of Iran.
The largest, because they have no choice.
Many people might ask, what about international law and regulations? This is a classic problem of international law, Ms. Guitar and viewers.
Is the enforcement different from domestic law? Domestic law has a sovereign, a government, security agencies to enforce it. It has a judicial agency to enforce the law. But with international law, the question is, who enforces these laws? This is the weakness, and it has become what allows Iran to claim rights in this maritime area. The question is, if Iran violates the rules, which country will punish it? In the past, the United States was in the position of the superpower that organized the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. This means that security, the existing order in the region, was that America was the guarantor of security for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. But when America, in my opinion, weakened in this war, you see the power America had before and after the war is clearly different. Iran, which had no power before the war, has power after the war. When this change occurs, from America being the guarantor of security for ships entering and exiting, America can no longer be in that position. And Iran has become the controller of the Strait of Hormuz, controlling energy in this region. This is a great loss for America. Therefore, it is not surprising, Ms. Guitar, why...
Why?
America cannot accept this status. Why must there be attacks on Iran? Why is Trump so frustrated and announces the cancellation of the ceasefire, the cancellation of the MOU, and the cancellation of sanctions? Because America has weakened and lost, most importantly, it has lost its dominant status in the Persian Gulf region, which America previously held before the war.
Today, the United States has confirmed the declaration of a new round of war with Iran. Most recently, the Trump administration sent a letter to Congress regarding the initiation of a new round of attacks on Iran. It states that it began on July 7th, opening a new 60-day timeframe under the War Powers Resolution Act, allowing the President to use military force in the Middle East without Congressional approval. The Trump administration's reason is that Iran violated the MOU signed on June 17th by attacking commercial ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a counter-attack on Iran. The United States plans to reinstate naval blockade measures for the Strait of Hormuz, stating that these measures will be used again to intercept Iranian vessels and cargo ships entering and exiting the Strait of Hormuz. The system states that it must intercept Iran's ability to use the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining tool and for attacking cargo ships. The US side states that in this blockade, the United States will act as the guardian of the Strait of Hormuz and propose to collect a 20% fee from goods passing through this route in exchange for security and safety for navigation. Meanwhile, on the other side, attacks continue. This is the third night that the United States has heavily attacked Iran, and last night's attack lasted for 5 hours, covering over 170 targets. Key points attacked in Iran include the southern coast, the city of Bushehr, a strategic energy area and a location of important infrastructure, Bandar Abbas, a port city and trade center, as well as naval bases in the Strait of Hormuz, Chabahar and Konarak, important port cities in southeastern Iran, Qes Island, a strategic point in the Strait of Hormuz, Qish Island, which is near important shipping routes, and areas in Bushehr and Khuzestan provinces, where there are reports of injuries and some areas where Iran reports fatalities. CENTCOM, the US Central Command, states that the targets of this round of attacks are coastal defense systems, missile bases, drone operational sites, and Iran's capabilities used to control or attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz area. Iran's side has recently announced a strong response and has retaliated by firing at two oil tankers. The United Arab Emirates states that two UAE oil tankers, the Mumbasa and the Palia, were attacked by Iranian missiles, causing both tankers to catch fire. This incident resulted in the death of one Indian sailor and injuries to eight others. The UAE has condemned this as a blatant attack and a violation of international law. Iran, on the other hand, states that in addition to attacking unauthorized cargo ships, Iran has also attacked US bases and assets in Kuwait and Bahrain. These are escalating and intensifying events in the past 6 periods. This means the war has escalated, or the attacks are still limited to the issue of Hormuz. Clear signals come from the letter President Trump sent to Congress in writing. The initiation of a new round of US military operations against Iran. In this round, do you see it as partly an attempt to save face for the operations carried out in the past 4 months, which were seen as a defeat by Iran? And another point that has been clearly confirmed is the need to have control over the Strait of Hormuz and reduce Iran's leverage. Iran has used Hormuz as a key bargaining chip and to pressure both America and the world through oil prices and fears of inflation and commodity prices. However, the US operation this time seems to be clearly aimed at the Strait of Hormuz. But the question is, what kind of military operation will be used to definitively control the Strait of Hormuz to the extent of being a guardian and collecting protection fees or 20% fees? Security experts like Gu A-ryo say this is very difficult, even with the deployment of escort ships and fighter jets. But the point of protecting ships from being shot at even once is very difficult. And Iran still has capabilities, potential, and very low costs to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz area. Therefore, the point of this war, even if it does not escalate as severely as the attacks on infrastructure across the region in the past, will be a deadlock, a protracted situation, and difficult to find a solution for both America and Iran. We pray that it does not escalate to the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb or other strategic points in the world, and we must be cautious in the region that could be a risk, which is the Red Sea area, the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb. If the Strait of Hormuz cannot be Iran's full 100% strategic card, and if there is coordination with the Houthis to close Bab-el-Mandeb, this will be a new problem for the world's energy transport routes. This is what we are currently monitoring and must remain prepared for both the public, the private sector, and countries to cope with new global disruptions in energy and goods transport. If a war is to be opened, the initiator or the warring parties must be confident that they have sufficient strength and will win. If we look at the readiness of the superpowers, are they ready for war now? I see that the country that opens the war is the American side. Because on the American side, you must understand that both the economy and military power are at a disadvantage from the confrontations over the past 4-5 years of exercises. And staying still like this is just waiting to die. Because, as I said, this round is hybrid warfare, a real war involving news, economy, and weapons. They have been fighting for 5 years. And Guitar...
Yes.
But ultimately, it will reach a breaking point because this kind of prolonged stalemate cannot continue. Both sides will be destroyed. Therefore, the one with less cost this time must open fire first. Just like in World War II, Japan and Germany had to open fire first, at a disadvantage at the time.
Yes.
Germany had economic problems, Japan also had economic problems, so they had to strike first. But they lost because it was prolonged. This time, I believe the US side will open fire first.
And is there a chance of winning?
I can't answer that because it's time to see if America can counter this game within 6 months. Because America has already said that the weapons to be created from now on will be cheap and effective, like China and Russia. America has learned lessons from the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Guitar. And don't forget, America is the world's leading arms manufacturer. But what America lacks now is rare earth. Because both missiles and drones will have improved capabilities, longer flight times, increased accuracy, and faster mobility. Whether it's 17 or 18 models, they are all pure. Therefore, I believe that from now on, America is accelerating this matter greatly. Therefore, the thousand drones that attacked Moscow are interesting, Guitar. You might wonder, "Wow, Europe can develop today." Because I believe it's not Ukrainian drones; it must be drones from a NATO country, whether it's German drones or French drones. It must be from one of the few countries with advanced weapons technology in NATO, right? And if Russia finds out and decides to let it continue, Russia will be finished too, because it has reached Moscow and destroyed apartments and oil tanks, causing the current energy crisis in Russia. Therefore, Russia may not be able to stand idly by if the war continues like this. There are two possible scenarios. Scenario 1 has a high probability. Why? Because if I were on the Chinese-Russian side, I would play first before Trump is ready, right? Because if Trump wins this election, it will be easy. He will control the House and the Senate, approve war, and it will be a long one, Guitar. Therefore, from now on, anything can happen. But what we are discussing today is that we are summarizing the situation, explaining why it must happen. Viewers and listeners, listen and analyze, don't just believe me. I have analyzed the situation and gathered information for many days and assess that the probability of it happening soon is possible.
Yes. So, there should be questions. Guitar is trying to gather what she thinks viewers, investors, or businessmen will think, especially regarding the theory of benefits if war breaks out, or comparing it with past statistics, such as the Iranian battlefield. Mr. Rangsi, the US has not yet succeeded, has not won the Strait of Hormuz, and it is still not open. Today, they have to come to the negotiating table. Will they go to a major war? They haven't even won the war with Iran yet. Guitar, admit it. The war with Iran started on the 28th, right? When they dropped the bomb in the Middle East. Today, the whole world understands that the US is not the initiator. The initiators are Zionists and Netanyahu, who are stuck in war. But this time, if it happens, I believe it will happen because they know that if they do nothing, they will be completely destroyed, just like each other.
Yes. And if the US itself has severe domestic economic problems, the military will not be able to use their underwear or shirts to plug a leaky toilet and make the ship unusable. Because remember, in the last war, US warships had problems.
Yes. The Lincoln went in and out, but didn't fight. It had problems because the military didn't want to fight. A fire broke out on the deck of the ship.
But this time, if the internal situation is really bad, and the military is ready to fight, it's a different story. Trump's side, which has been opposing it all along, and everyone sees that if they don't fight, the US will be finished, because the US cannot set economic policies. US debt is increasing, and US debt is now believed to be over 40 trillion dollars.
So, it's a different mood, Guitar.
Yes. Entering war unwillingly versus willingly is different. Entering war because of a compelling reason not to do so means being finished. I believe the US military will listen. If Trump's team is wise enough and can explain to the decision-makers that if you don't do this, the whole country will be destroyed, because the debt is overwhelming, right? The CPI index, I believe it can be manipulated, but the real situation, I believe, is not good.
How can it be good when there is a war like this, national debt is soaring, and the 30-year bond rate has exceeded 5.22%? It's impossible, Guitar. Even China's economy, which is strong, is slowing down, right? And on the economic front and American public support, Mr. Rangsi, the American public did not support the war with Iran. Congress also passed a law opposing the continuation of the war, the War Powers Resolution. They don't even support small wars. Will Trump be able to start a big war?
I ask, if Trump cannot make America regain control of foreign policy and global economic policy, what else can he do? It will only deteriorate. And don't forget, the 16 CEOs who flew with Trump, they must be looking at it. They see that China doesn't care. Oh, finished, Guitar.
Yes. And Guitar, here's the information I got about why gold has been falling steadily. The most plausible reason now is that national banks are selling gold. Why? Because of a lack of cash flow and liquidity in their countries, they need to sell gold to get liquidity back, because the economy is declining worldwide, inflation is soaring, and the energy crisis is escalating, increasing costs, leading to oversupply. But I believe gold will eventually return because it is a safe haven asset. But today, gold has fallen so much. I have researched extensively, and the most plausible reason is...
Yes.
People are selling gold to bring liquidity back to their countries because gold, when held, does not yield interest.
Yes.
Gold is just an asset that guarantees a country's security. So, when there is a liquidity need, another possibility is the entry into the SpaceX stock market. People sell gold to subscribe to SpaceX IPOs.
Yes.
But today, they have suffered huge losses because SpaceX did not perform as expected.
These are two major reasons, but the first is the lack of liquidity in each country, especially in the Middle East, which has suffered a lot. The Middle East holds a lot of gold, and countries have sold a lot of gold. They say there are two countries: Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, everything I have said has a cause and effect. So, viewers and listeners, take my reasons and analyze them, and plan for yourselves, whether it's your business or your finances.
Thank you all for following us all along. Our goal is to reach 1 million subscribers for this channel to create a wider society of learning in economics, business, and investment. We now have YouTube Memberships. By becoming a member, you will receive exclusive content and seminars from PRP and Team Business Tomorrow. Please subscribe.