Transcription
The goal for Trump is what, do you know? To make Americans see themselves as not losing in the war. The old order was that America was the guarantor of security for all countries in the region. No one dared to defy America's policy. Before the war, what did we see? The Middle Eastern countries, especially the leading ones, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, these countries, had a clear stance that they wanted to be independent from America.
Besides trust, it's about accepting a new reality that America cannot guarantee their security. If America could guarantee it, they wouldn't be attacked by Iran. But since America cannot guarantee it, America can only guarantee it for one country, Israel. So, what must they do? Will they become adversaries of Iran? I don't think so, it's not like that. The latest news is that the leading countries in the region that I mentioned are looking at what is called a "collective security architecture" in the region. How to remove external countries from the region, reduce America's influence, and how to jointly isolate Israel. That's what happened after the war. In fact, it had been ongoing since before the war, but this war is the final nail in the coffin.
Our goal is to take this channel to 1 million subscribers. We are currently in the process of dismantling the current world order. Therefore, at the international level, it is very dangerous. And if you don't want to miss any good tips, please subscribe. For the past 2 years, our financial institution system has remained strong, so we won't be doing too badly. For those who want to upgrade their knowledge in depth, we now have YouTube Membership. By subscribing, you will receive exclusive content and seminars from Trad KP and Team Business Tomorrow.
Those who see the situation as untrustworthy, both sides, during discussions, may separate to accumulate strength, replenish military strength, and then return to fight again. A moment ago, the professor thought that it is true that now, if looking at the benefits, not fighting might be more positive for both sides. But as the situation progresses, Iran becomes stronger, America gets through the midterm elections, are there any points of risk in the future that could cause both sides to return to war or conflict?
Yes, I think the pressure from internal politics is important, both in Iran itself and in the United States. In Iran, it's normal, there will be the right wing, the center, right? There are hardliners, there are softliners in the government, right? In America, it's clear, of course, internal politics has a great impact on policy. Trump's policies. For example, if the Iranian side, if the right wing sees it as too compromising and will lose benefits, it might stimulate the government to show a tough stance, to use force again. It's the same in America. Right now, Trump's goal is what, do you know? To make Americans see themselves as not losing in the war.
Yes, right? The point is, how to campaign to voters, to say that they won, they didn't lose, right? This is Trump's big goal, right? I had the opportunity to read an article by a Trump campaign aide, and people in the Republican party, right? They are looking at the thinking of Trump and those close to him. His name is Franco, and it's an article in The Anja Sin. Better to call him Trump's aide. Trump's campaign aide said that this MOU is not a peace agreement, but a tactical ceasefire, just as you, Gita, said earlier.
Yes. Right? So that each side can buy time for their own different personal reasons, based on complete distrust. It means that it's a reason why neither party can move forward, but for now, it's just buying time, a ceasefire for now, to replenish the strength of each side. And Trump's aide, Franco, mentioned Iran's past behavior that America will not forget. For example, he said that history shows that Iran will only negotiate when facing heavy pressure. Once signed, when the pressure is reduced, they will go back to doing the same thing. Another agreement. That's what was said. For example, in the JCPOA agreement in 2015, Trump's argument was: this agreement is okay, it's good for nuclear issues, right? But it gives Iran money to support its proxy groups and develop weapons. And in the end, Iran didn't stop the nuclear issue. In fact, Franco said that Iran's nuclear goal has never changed. Iran intentionally tells the world that it is happy with the IAEA, but ultimately does not cooperate. The ultimate goal is to possess nuclear weapons. Therefore, if we evaluate the thinking of Trump's aide here, they still believe that this agreement does not solve Iran's problems sustainably. It's a ceasefire, or if we want to talk about peace, there are two types: negative peace and positive peace, right? Negative peace is the cessation of the use of force, the end of the war, that's all. Positive peace is not just the cessation of the use of force, but it must address the structural problems in the relationship, cultural issues, thinking issues, right? Past structural problems include nuclear issues, sanctions, and the laws and regulations that have been issued. If these are not revived and their details are not resolved, ultimately, there is a risk that they will return to using force again in the future, or as you, Gita, said, it's just a temporary ceasefire to lead to war again in the future. What Trump's aide is saying here is that they are trying to say that we need to revisit the structural problems, especially the nuclear issue and the sanctions. Okay, the MOU, the MOU signed on the 17th, tried to solve the nuclear problem. But I think it's a very superficial approach, if we compare it to the JCPOA, right? Which had a lot of details and a lot of hard work. But the details of the latest MOU, as I said, it seems to be a solution to immediate problems rather than long-term problems. How to end the war, how to get more. Finally, I might see it this way, Gita, that even regarding Iran's nuclear issue, Iran might go back to the period before the war, meaning they would confirm that they don't have nuclear weapons and don't want to make nuclear weapons. But at the same time, they are not resolved, not cleared up, it remains unresolved and prolonged. Trump can explain to Americans that see, Iran doesn't have it, they say they don't have it. But in terms of inspecting it in detail, point by point, it might not be reached at all.
Yes, but during the clashes over the weekend, the US side, through Mr. Trump, threatened that there are other options, such as full military operations. He previously said that force could be used to seize the Strait of Hormuz. Professor, how do you view what the US is communicating? Are they threatening, or do they have an army ready to operate?
If they could, they would have done it long ago. The point is, they can't. In the first 40 days of the war, Trump couldn't open the Strait of Hormuz. This is the truth. The reality is that force cannot open the Strait of Hormuz. If Trump could, he would have done it long ago. But what about it? One Arab nation doesn't agree, right? The Arab nations in the Persian Gulf don't agree. European nations also don't agree, right? This isolates Trump himself. He cannot use force to open the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, the statement that they will use force to seize the strait or anything after this, I think it's far from reality.
Looking at the behavior, the developmental sequence that has occurred, it's just a threat. It's just Trump's threat. Trump uses this method, Gita. He continues to show his superpower. If you don't do what we want, you will be destroyed, something like that. But the point is, Trump can say this to some countries, like Venezuela, right? If it can be said, right? It's over. But when talking to Iran, what was the result? Over the weekend, Iran didn't wait, they fired first, right? They fired at a cargo ship to say, hey, this is our territory. This means that he can say this to some countries, but he cannot say this to countries that are militarily prepared, especially countries that Trump himself cannot win a war against. Therefore, Trump's words are what might be called self-consolation rather than a threat. But no one will act on it in reality. First, Gita, I see it this way: what is called order in the region throughout the Middle East has changed. In fact, it had been ongoing since before the war.
Yes. But this war is the final nail in the coffin, confirming it. Before the war, what did we see? We saw that Middle Eastern countries, especially the leading ones, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and so on, right? These countries had a clear stance that they wanted to be more independent from America, right? While America was at war in Ukraine, they opened up space in the Middle East, and these countries showed more independence. When this war started, the result is that America could not win this war. The result is what? It changed the order. The old order was that America was the security guarantor, or the guarantor of security for all countries in the region. All countries had to show loyalty. All countries that wanted to survive safely had to pledge allegiance to America. No country dared to defy America's policy, right? And America was in the position of controlling the entrances and exits, the shipping lanes, all of them, freedom of navigation. That was the situation before the war. But after the war, what will happen? The order in the region has changed, right? From America being the guarantor of security for the region, it has become that this region will, let's say, share the responsibility of guaranteeing security from the leading countries in the region themselves, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey. These will jointly guarantee security for the region by reducing dependence on America. America will lose more and more influence. If America cannot enter and exit as before, it is a final closure, Gita. Because in the past, America could enter and exit anywhere, right? Using its vast navy. But if it cannot enter and exit anymore, it means the end of both credit and the ability to control and oversee this region. And what will we see after this? The latest news is that the leading countries in the region that I mentioned are looking at what is called a "New Security Architecture" or a "collective security architecture" in the region. It might not reach the level of a NATO, because each of these countries has its limitations, and there are conflicts among them. But at least it creates an effort to figure out how to remove external countries from the region, meaning to reduce America's influence, right? And how to jointly isolate Israel. And how to join hands, cooperate on various issues in the region, and solve problems together using our own platform. That's what happened after the war.
Yes, the picture is very clear, professor. But the question is, how much trust do they have in the Middle East right now? During the war, Iran attacked many countries. Can trust and unity happen when, when there's an incident, many countries are drawn in and have to bear the damage?
Besides trust, it's about accepting a new reality that America cannot guarantee their security. If America could guarantee it, they wouldn't be attacked by Iran. But since America cannot guarantee it, America can only guarantee it for one country, Israel, right? So, what must they do? Will they become adversaries of Iran? I don't think so, it's not like that, right?
Yes. But it will push them to talk to Iran, or to jointly create a security system, at least to balance America.
Yes. Or to push America and Israel to reduce their influence in this region, right? Of course, each country has its own issues and conflicts in the Muslim world. The weakness is unity, right? Various problems, right? But we see that the direction of the world is changing. As the world order is changing, right? When America is no longer the sole superpower, other countries are rising. The idea is that the world order changes when the world powers change, right? It will affect the order in the region, including the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The Middle East is the same. Since America is not playing the same role as before, but other superpowers are coming in, such as Russia or China. Countries in the Middle East cannot remain the same. They have to think. Because all countries aim to survive and aim for their own national interests, almost entirely.
Yes. This point is interesting, professor. They will try to balance the power in the Middle East and America's power by forming groups themselves, or by bringing in other superpowers like China and Russia.
Yes, they have to do both. Relying on outsiders, it's already clear what they've encountered in the past. In the end, they will be manipulated by outsiders, right? Russia didn't just come in. Russia has been here since the Cold War. Russia has had political influence in the region since the Cold War. Yemen was divided into North Yemen and South Yemen because of ideology during the Cold War, right? But the lesson these countries should learn is that it's good to rely on a variety of superpowers. But it's even better if they themselves are strong enough. Meaning, in this region, they organize themselves, they talk about interests. While Israel wants to surround Iran through the Abraham Accords strategy, right?
Yes. And succeeded in bringing in the UAE and Bahrain, right? But many countries don't trust this policy of Israel, and they want to prevent this policy from going forward. Therefore, if they unite, let's say form groups, to prevent Israel from interfering or surrounding their countries, that would be a better solution for them. Don't forget another role, one country that deserves praise in problem-solving is Pakistan. Although geographically it is not in the Middle East, Pakistan has a reputation for diplomatic problem-solving. When America and China had a crisis, it was Pakistan that helped. It's in the DNA of its foreign policy paradigm. And Pakistan is at a crucial junction, connecting Central Asia, West Asia, or the Middle East, and South Asia, right? After this, we will see Pakistan playing a greater role in the Middle East due to Pakistan's strengths as a facilitator of interests, conflict resolver, and the only Muslim nation that possesses nuclear weapons.
Thank you everyone for following us all along. Our goal is to take this channel to 1 million subscribers to create a wider society of learning in economics, business, and investment. We now have YouTube Membership. By subscribing, you will receive exclusive content and seminars from PRP and Team Business Tomorrow. Please subscribe.