Transcription
This time, it's about 4-5 times heavier than before. They said this time it's a punishment for America. America will feel that it's not worth it to get involved that much.
Regarding the attack on the base in the Arab world by Iran, the only country that would consider it worthwhile to have a heavy confrontation with Iran would likely be Israel. This is because they are far away. The escalation began from the American side. There are factors that could lead to another war. On Iran's side, the masses of people who participated are pressuring the government to retaliate.
Various products, many songs, over 70 years of Suphap Osot, and care throughout.
Today, we have the honor of having Professor Anucha with us, as always. He is on the 7th floor of the hotel. We are staying at the same hotel and have had the opportunity to discuss many things. However, today we have received news about an emergency situation and a new threat in the Strait of Hormuz. We also learned that there was a funeral procession in Iraq. Therefore, we invited the professor to discuss this. Professor, I would like you to analyze a bit deeper into the war that occurred yesterday. What were the highlights, or what made us feel like, "Hey, this shouldn't be like this, why did it happen?"
When analyzing these matters, we must look at the broader context. I must say that the clashes last night occurred in the context of Iran's funeral procession. If we look closely at what is clearly seen in the media, there were about 10 million participants, at least. Whether it reached 20 million, if we include many cities, it would have, and likely exceeded it. Currently, Iraq also has millions. The number of people who came was so large that the funeral procession could not even enter. It was that crowded. Mr. Thani and I saw it with our own eyes; it was truly packed.
In such a situation, the demonstrators were all shouting demands for retaliation. In simple terms, if they want to retaliate, it might mean going to war, or perhaps assassinating Trump. If they were to assassinate Trump, would it be during his term, or would they wait until he leaves office? This is a question. However, regardless, it sends a signal to the Iranian government that it must be stronger than before, more resolute than before. In this situation, in this context, clashes occur. If we look from Iran's perspective, in this context where the masses are emboldened and pressuring the government to fight, what will the clashes look like from the US perspective? This needs to be analyzed. But from Iran's perspective, I believe the Iranian government, and especially the IRGC and the Iranian army, are more emboldened than before. That is why we see that the response to the US last night was quite fierce. But it's good that they clashed around Persia and didn't come all the way here.
It's fortunate that we are not affected. Yes. But what you just said, Professor, makes me wonder if it's a psychological tactic, like, "We're so emboldened. Let's give them a little something so they calm down." Do you feel that way? If there is such a feeling, it would be more from Israel's side. Yes, yes. America will feel that it is not... not that it's not worth the effort to get involved that much. Regarding being attacked by Iran on bases in the Arab world... Yes. But the only country that would consider it worthwhile to have a heavy confrontation with Iran would likely be Israel. Because they are far away, and if there's a problem... Yes, it doesn't affect them much. We will have to see how much pressure Israel can exert. Yes, yes. Therefore, what is happening now is that Israel might actually be behind the scenes in negotiating with CENTCOM. I think CENTCOM made the decision on the ground this time. There's no need to report to Washington. And Trump must have assigned the task, saying, "You play according to the situation." Yes. They probably didn't say, "You must respond in this way, or cause damage." But from the perspective of the MOU, some clashes are good for Trump. Yes. It's good for him. Because he can increase pressure on Iran, saying, "You have to do as I say." And Iran is playing the same game, pressuring back. Yes. "You have to do as I say too." It's like pushing and shoving. But not punching. Not punching yet. After pushing and shoving, they start to feel like, "Okay, let's talk nicely, let's continue talking." Yes, continue. I see the picture. Now, as we sit and talk further, we have to see who has the strategic advantage or disadvantage. Currently, I think Iran has a strategic advantage in terms of completely controlling the Strait of Hormuz, preventing any leaks. Because if there are leaks, it means you are allowing leaks, which means the negotiation conditions might be relaxed. Therefore, relaxation should not happen from Iran's stance. Yes. They must remain as strong as possible. Yes. And Iran, at this moment, might be at the end of its rope. Right? So, they might play one more game to make everyone feel like... it's not over yet. The world will be stunned again. Yes. Professor, please analyze further. If this is the case, what about the future situation? Let's consider the opinions of the world's people. Yes. Like Thailand and other countries in the world. Yes. They see this situation and are disheartened. And oil prices will go up and down. Yes. How do you see the future of the ceasefire negotiations? Will they end, or will it be an endless, prolonged war for 60, 90, 6 months? Because they can extend it indefinitely. Is Trump smart enough to extend it indefinitely? It's endless. It's worth thinking about. Actually, as we've discussed many times, this war between America plus Israel and Iran has reached a deadlock. Both sides are locked in a stalemate, and it will remain this way. The balance of power, the balance of fear, is very close. Both sides can harm the other, and both sides don't want to get hurt, so they try to control the clashes or conflicts to a manageable level, as we've seen. They clash back and forth. Okay, America attacks, Iran attacks back, America stops. That's it. Okay, this round stops here. Then it will continue in round 2, round 3, round 4, as Mr. Thani said. But what will happen in the future is something to consider, because this deadlock will continue. As it continues, we can't see how it will unfold. But if it continues like this, it will be as Mr. Thani said, that eventually it will be like this: they will retaliate back and forth until one side, which I believe is more likely to be America, feels that if they no longer have anything to worry about, they will be ready to wage a full-scale war again. Perhaps. Or not, we have to see how much Israel will support. However, for now, let's not look at it. Okay, the World Cup is almost over, and things are like, okay. 250 years have passed. It has passed. And strategic oil reserves have been filled. Started. Okay, filled. Okay, and so on. There are factors that could lead to another war. On Iran's side, the masses are pressuring the government to retaliate. Speaking of this, it's like they are ready for war at any moment. So, when it becomes a deadlock again, it will depend on which side is weak and the other will attack. But from Iran's perspective, I don't believe Iran will be the first to attack heavily. They might attack like this continuously, but to open a war, Iran is unlikely to do it. It might be the US that does it, or not. We have to see how Trump will act. A strategist once said that, in summary, it's a bit long, but in summary, strategists say that full-scale war like before doesn't work anymore. They will have to return to the old strategy, which is to support the Iranian people to cause riots and revolution from within. Although it hasn't succeeded so far, they see no other way, so they have to return to the old strategy. We have to wait and see. Some people may not know that, yes. Actually, the fighting yesterday, there was... how intense was it? Yes. Professor, could you look at the intensity of yesterday's fighting? Yes. Did it reach the point of destroying buildings or causing damage? As far as I've followed the news, both from Iran's side and the international side, it seems to be more violent than before. As we've discussed, there were exchanges back and forth. This time, it's about 4-5 times heavier. This is from the statement from the American side. And simply put, they said this time it's a punishment, not a response on a similar level. So this time, it's an escalation, starting from the American side. As for Iran's side, instead of stopping, they responded with equally heavy attacks. And there were attacks on 85 targets at American bases in the region. This is the statement from the IRGC. And there is news that Iran fired directly at a US fleet. It might not have been many shots, just drones. It's likely a warning, saying, "Okay, we are not just attacking your bases anymore. We are not just attacking your cargo ships anymore. We are ready to go to war at any moment." Because firing at a ship, if it causes damage, then certainly the percentage of war will be very high. So, this time it's quite heavy. But since both sides are playing heavily, the chance of peace is also high. Because, as Mr. Thani said, pushing and shoving, both sides get hurt, okay, let's stop. Something like that. If they push and shove, they will punch. When they punch, it's over. It's over. So they don't want to punch. They have to stop first. They have to be patient. And what the soldiers do, they fight with a strategy. Yes. To what extent is correct? Correct. It's not that they just do it randomly. Not for fun. Ceasefire agreement. Yes. Negotiation for 60 days. And in my personal opinion, I expect it to be extended for another 60 days. Meaning, it won't end in 60 days. They will be in it for 60 days, and everyone will forget about it. Yes. When they forget, they will say there's no deadline. Yes. They will keep talking. And it might be 6 months. Yes. After 6 months, after the election passes, that's when the decision will be made whether to fight again or not. If at that time, everything is settled, they might say, "Let's do something else." Yes. It will end. Yes. But there must be some agreement coming out during this time. Yes. As progress. Professor, what do you think about the progress in negotiations? We're not talking about 100% success, but regarding the Strait of Hormuz, I don't think it will pass the ceasefire agreement. Yes. There will likely be conditions that the US asks for concessions, such as... they can collect fees, but America wants to participate. Or all Arab countries in the Middle East should participate. I think that will definitely happen. Yes. And Iran should agree. Yes. So that the matter ends. If Iran doesn't agree, the negotiations won't end. It's like a heart condition, right? This heart condition. If Iran doesn't agree, I'm thinking, if Iran gets a little bit, gets a fair amount, gets a reasonable amount of money, and the Arabs agree to pay. Then the one who pays is the Arab, right? Yes. America doesn't pay. What does America care? Yes. But there might be a time limit of 10 years, so they can get their money back. This is just an idea. And then they can agree again. Like this, Iran gets a certain amount of money, and they are confident. I think there are many ways. Yes. So, I would like you to analyze further, in such a case, how does it relate to Iran's economy? Because Iran needs money. And I think it's linked to many things that are being negotiated, such as seized money, lifting sanctions, free trade, giving opportunities for foreign investment in Iran, especially from Arab countries. Yes. I think there are about 10 issues to negotiate for everyone to benefit. Professor, what does Iran want personally in the negotiations, excluding the Strait of Hormuz? Yes. Mainly, it's about the right to enrich uranium. Yes. And for peaceful nuclear programs. Which America and Israel oppose. They oppose it and don't believe you can do it peacefully. You will have to do it militarily. Because they have used this method. For example, Israel has developed nuclear technology to lead to nuclear warheads. So they don't believe others either. This is what's happening. Iran wants this. As for Hormuz, as Mr. Thani said, it's already de facto in Iran's hands. Even if there might not be legal support yet, de facto, Iran controls it. And another thing that the media doesn't talk about much is the original power, or the leadership, the network of Iran in the region, whether it's Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, or the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, which is having a funeral procession in Iraq right now. Iran is trying to preserve these. Because Israel is trying to attack, to put it simply, to eliminate Hezbollah completely. But Iran is trying to keep them alive and expand their influence. We can see this from the funeral procession of the supreme leader in Iraq. This is, from a political perspective, a signal that Iran's popular power or soft power is not just within Iran but extends beyond Iran's borders, to Iraq. Iraq, which has American bases, but has about 6-7 million Iraqis participating. This is a signal to the White House. That what Trump said, he doesn't believe it, he doesn't believe that Iranians would have such a large funeral procession for a former supreme leader. This is in Iran. What's more surprising is that in Iraq, the funeral procession was not much smaller. This signals to Trump that if he intends to take military action in the future, he must be careful of Iraq. He can't consider Iraq as a given like before, when he waged war against Iran and flew over Iraq to attack. It won't be easy anymore. Because soft power has become strong in Iraq due to this funeral procession. And of course, when Iran's allies in Iraq are this strong, with such a large number of people, it will affect the thinking or policies of the Iraqi government. Which, de facto, normally has to follow the orders of America. Because the income from oil for Iraq is not received as cash. The cash must go to America first, and then be transferred to the government's account. Yes. This makes the Iraqi government unable to negotiate anything with America. But with such a large funeral procession in Iraq, the government is like being pressured, saying, "You can't just back down to the United States alone anymore." So, this is something to consider from a future perspective. I think Iraq itself wants to liberate itself. It's using this opportunity to show its strength to pressure the government. The government itself is a government that is quite independent. I've been listening, and it seems they want to liberate themselves from financial matters. The US is very good at using its old rule, using the dollar to pressure, making the Iraqi government unable to do anything if the US is displeased. Now, what we want to summarize today is that if this is the case, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, even Pakistan. Yes. During this time, they are uniting, especially Turkey. Yes. It has played a very significant role as a leader in the Middle East. Yes. Most recently, the NATO meeting was quite successful, especially in being on the US side, on the NATO side, and on the Middle East side. They can talk to Iran too. I would like you to summarize this, Professor. In the future, will the power blocs in the Middle East be able to unite? And will they have the real power to resist and oppose America? For example, Iraq, which has been protected by America for decades. If they want to liberate themselves and be independent in conducting their affairs, or if the government has its own policies without being pressured by the US. Yes. What power will they have to fight if they don't have power from the bloc of Middle Eastern countries uniting? Yes. Is it possible for the Middle East to truly unite and love each other? If we look at it ideologically, the people of the Middle East want to join hands and unite. But in reality, as we've discussed many times, on many occasions, the Middle East region can be divided into three camps, three teams. The team that is with the United States and Israel. The team that is with the US and also with the opposite side of the US. And the team that is completely opposed to the US. The team that is clearly with the US and Israel is Bahrain. Clearly, and UAE. Kuwait might not be very clear, but Bahrain and UAE are clear. They are clearly on the side of the US and Israel. Israel's missiles or defense systems are helping to protect the UAE a lot. This is the first team. The second team plays on both sides, as Professor Thani mentioned. This would be Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. They are linked to Pakistan as mediators between the US and Iran. And the third team is the group that is clearly an enemy of the US and Israel, which is Iran. And non-state actors like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen. These would be the third group. Now, the second and third groups, perhaps we shouldn't call it joining hands or uniting, which is unlikely. It's more like talking and setting policies in a similar direction, which might be possible. For example, Iran and Turkey. There is a possibility because they have a common enemy. The common enemy here is not the US, because as Mr. Thani said, Trump visited Turkey recently. So, the US is not Turkey's enemy. But the enemy of both Turkey and Iran, the common enemy, is Israel. Israel is threatening everywhere, threatening Iran and even threatening Turkey. To the extent that Jewish analysts say that if Iran is defeated, the next target will be Turkey. So Turkey is also worried. And they have to be careful. Recently, there was news that the Turkish leader has set or issued a law in parliament, I'm not sure, but it was issued in a way that if they have to go to war with Israel, they can do so without needing approval from the president. So, these two sides, these two teams, the one that can play on both sides, meaning they can talk to Iran and talk to the US, and the Iranian side, these two groups can probably talk to each other because they have a common enemy, Israel. The enemy here is not the US, because as Mr. Thani said, Trump visited Turkey recently. So, the US is not Turkey's enemy. But the enemy of both Turkey and Iran, the common enemy, is Israel. Israel is threatening everywhere, threatening Iran and even threatening Turkey. To the extent that Jewish analysts say that if Iran is defeated, the next target will be Turkey. So Turkey is also worried. And they have to be careful. Recently, there was news that the Turkish leader has set or issued a law in parliament, I'm not sure, but it was issued in a way that if they have to go to war with Israel, they can do so without needing approval from the president. So, these two sides, these two teams, the one that can play on both sides, meaning they can talk to Iran and talk to the US, and the Iranian side, these two groups can probably talk to each other because they have a common enemy, Israel. The Arab side that is with the US and Israel, such as Bahrain and UAE, these two countries probably cannot talk to Iran at all. So, the picture of the Arabs and the Middle East uniting all three factions into one camp is impossible in my opinion. But the second and third teams might be possible, not by uniting, but by uniting to protect themselves from a common enemy, which is Israel. This is how it will be for a long time. I think the method of change is not a blink of an eye, not a snap of the fingers. It will take a long time. Meaning, the Middle East has been complex for decades. So, what we have to wait and see is whether the United States will withdraw from the Middle East. The key is how China and Russia will pressure the United States. Because if the United States collapses economically, this is what we've discussed in global strategy: America will not collapse militarily. Yes. Because America has laid many foundations. But what it cannot survive is money. It will have no money to wage war. And it will be destroyed by itself, with overwhelming debt. The American people will no longer have the strength to support the government. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to the Suav Thao channel to not miss interesting clips and watch new clips first.