Transcription
Hello, Business Tomorrow Live The Trader KP. During the 16:00 hours of Tuesday, June 30th, we are following an important development in the Middle East war. Today, according to information from several media outlets, it is reported that there will be a negotiation platform taking place in Doha, Qatar, between the United States and Iran. The US side says that Iran was the one who requested the negotiations, and officials from both sides are scheduled to meet. This comes after, previously, over the past weekend, there were continuous military operations since Saturday, and then there was a ceasefire in the early hours of Monday. However, it appears that information from the Iranian side says that there was no scheduled negotiation with the US, but an Iranian delegation did travel to Qatar to push forward the implementation of the MOU and to accelerate the unfreezing of Iran's frozen assets. It seems that this discrepancy in information will leave the world with questions as to whether, in the end, the two sides can negotiate and discuss matters after signing the MOU on June 17th. And when there was another clash, both sides said that they have stopped retaliating and are returning to the negotiating table. How much can we expect from this round of negotiations? Today, we will hear perspectives from someone who is on the battlefield, in the actual area, and understands both the politics, society, and the mindset in Iran. Today, he honors us once again, Assistant Professor Dr. Lerpong Sayi, a lecturer in the Department of Islamic Politics at Al-Mustafa International University in Iran. Professor Lerpong is currently in Thailand. Hello, Professor. >> Hello, Khun Guitar. >> Hello. Thank you, Professor, for taking the time again. I understand you are about to return to Iran, is that correct? >> Yes, I am returning to Iran to attend the burial ceremony of the late Supreme Leader of Iran, and also his family member who passed away on February 28th. >> Yes, before you return, Professor, please give us your perspective on the situation in Iran. Since June 17th, the MOU was signed, but afterward, there seems to have been clashes over the weekend. Today, they say they will talk again, but the information is still inconsistent. Professor, what is your read on Iran's latest stance, which seems cautious, still insisting that they have not returned to the negotiating table? What is your analysis of the situation from Iran's side regarding the talks with the US? >> It's like this, Khun Guitar. Actually, Iran had already submitted proposals and various conditions since the talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, and there were further discussions aimed at leading to the signing in Switzerland. They agreed to sign the MOU together, which contains 14 conditions that Iran proposed. The first condition is that the US must cease its attacks on Iran and Iran's allies, or simply put, the resistance movements, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, south of Beirut. This is the first condition that Iran has urged the US to uphold its end of the bargain on this matter. However, after the signing in Switzerland, it turned out that before the night the Iranian Parliament Speaker, Dr. Ghalibaf, and the Iranian Foreign Minister were to travel, Israel was still attacking southern Lebanon, targeting the Hezbollah movement, which is an Iranian ally. So Iran delayed the trip to Switzerland because it had stipulated that if the signing was to actually happen, the attacks from both the US and Israel must cease 100%. After Iran delayed the travel, Trump ordered Netanyahu to stop the attacks. When the order to stop the attacks was given, Iran traveled to sign the 14-point agreement to find a joint way forward leading to peace negotiations based on the other 13 conditions. But after the signing, it turned out that back in Iran, and we saw in the news just a few days ago, if I'm not mistaken, point 9 or point 10, I don't remember exactly, Iran stated that the Strait of Hormuz remains Iran's strait under Iran's sovereignty. It will be opened freely only when there is coordination on which ships will sail out, meaning notification for information. They haven't collected any fees or tolls yet. But there were ships of certain nationalities, especially Singapore, that violated this after Iran's warning. There was a warning shot fired at the Singaporean ship. After Iran fired, it turned out the US then attacked Iran's Qeshm Island, causing the signing, which should have been successful according to the agreed conditions, to stall. The US attacked Sirri Island and Qeshm Island of Iran. The next morning, Iran attacked the 5th Fleet in Bahrain and the US Anzali base in Kuwait. After that, the US attacked Iran, and Iran attacked back; they exchanged blows, two punches each, both sides firing. So Iran announced that if the covenant of the 14-point agreement continues to be violated, Iran will respond appropriately. If Iran is attacked, it will attack back. If any ship does not coordinate to request passage through Iran, it will be ordered to stop. If it doesn't stop, it will be attacked. Therefore, regarding this 14-point agreement, I still analyze that the chances of it being successfully implemented in a way that makes the international community proud are still quite difficult because Israel is still attacking the Gaza Strip and also attacking Lebanon. After the US threatened to stop the attacks leading to the signing, after the signing, it turned out that Israel was still attacking Hezbollah. So, for this agreement, I still see that what might happen in Doha is likely a follow-up from those 14 points. But looking at it, if the situation remains like this, the chances of achieving the objectives of both sides are quite difficult, Khun Guitar. >> From the perspective of voices within Iran, Professor, how much do the people or the thought leaders in Iran believe in and trust this MOU? >> If you ask whether the people have faith, I have to say that most people in Iran do not have confidence in this MOU. This is because they believe that no matter what, the US and Israel will continue to violate the agreement. There are continuous attacks on many fronts. The Iranian people themselves also disagree. For example, with the agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz, most people still think that if the Strait of Hormuz goes back to being open as before, Iran will lose its most important card in the war effort. Furthermore, the people do not believe that the US will honor its commitments because there have been two rounds of negotiations before leading to the latest war, and the US violated those negotiations and attacked Iran in June last year, 2025. And most recently, during another round of negotiations, the US attacked and killed the Supreme Leader and several top military commanders of Iran. This time is the same. The people say it might be a deception by the US to probe for information or the coordinates of military commanders and the Supreme Leader, in order to attack and kill them like in the previous two times. So, if you ask the people, I still see that the people do not have confidence in this MOU. >> This point is interesting, Professor. But the political leaders did sign it and went to negotiate, and there was communication with the people, like Khun Kan (a media personality?), for the government to sign this MOU and to have faith in the government's decision. >> The people are trying to voice their opinions through various channels, especially online media and television, that this MOU was signed for the benefit of the people in the country. Khun Guitar, looking at the content of the MOU as we have read it, if all of it could truly be implemented, I would see it as being for the benefit of the Iranian people. I consider it beneficial if it could really be done. But the Iranian people do not have confidence in the other party to the agreement because they have had bitter experiences many times before where they violated agreements. For example, the MOU that stated all sanctions against Iran must be lifted. These sanctions have been in place since Iran won the revolution in 1979, and sanctions have continued continuously. One clause in the MOU says all sanctions must be lifted. If Iran's sanctions were completely lifted, the domestic economy would recover very well. Beyond that, another clause in the MOU states that the US must pay 300 billion dollars for Iran to use for reconstruction. On this point alone, if the US actually pays, it would mean the US is the loser in the war. Furthermore, Iran's frozen funds in the US and several other countries, totaling over 24,000 million dollars, must be returned. I see that for many of the clauses in the MOU, if they could be genuinely implemented, the Iranian people would agree. But the problem is the Iranian people do not trust. Therefore, the government is trying to use the media to explain that the content and content within the MOU is for the benefit of the nation and the people. They say that if the US violates any single clause, we will respond accordingly. The government is trying to present to the people that if they violate, and they attack us, we will attack back. And they proved this last week when the US violated the agreement, Iran attacked back. >> Professor, regarding the most fragile or sensitive aspect of this MOU, which of these 14 clauses do you see as the most difficult and potentially critical for the negotiations between the two sides? >> I see that the most difficult thing, Khun Guitar, which I still think is quite difficult, is I can't remember which number, but it is that the US must completely withdraw all its troops from the Middle East region. This is a goal and an ideology of the Iranian people, including the late Supreme Leader who stated that if there is a next war, we, Iran, will drive out US bases from the Middle East region, from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, many countries surrounding Iran. Iran will expel US bases. So, I see that the most difficult thing is that the US must withdraw from the Middle East region, including Iraq as well, which is one of the conditions in the signed MOU. On this point, I would like to propose that if this actually happens, I would consider that Iran has 100% eliminated the power and the superpower that has been causing problems in the Middle East. If it can truly be eliminated or driven out, I believe Iran will certainly rise to become a superpower in the Middle East region. And this morning, there was news, internal news from Iran, stating that the US army and troops are beginning to gradually leave some countries with bases in the Middle East, but this hasn't been confirmed by official media. I see this as quite strange. And if it really happens, it would be extremely strange for the world that the US lost the war and was driven out, its bases expelled from a region. >> On the issue related to the world, like the Strait of Hormuz, the views still seem mismatched. Professor, the Iranian side confirms that according to the MOU, Iran has the absolute right to manage it, but America says it must be managed according to the principles of international law regarding maritime navigation. Professor, how do you see the Strait of Hormuz ultimately ending up? What does Iran want, and how should it end? >> The Strait of Hormuz, as I mentioned before, Iran is not a signatory or member of the international maritime navigation conventions. Therefore, the Strait of Hormuz still belongs to Iran because it is about 12 nautical miles from the Iranian mainland. Being 12 nautical miles away, it is still considered Iranian territory, and Iran has the right to control it. It is divided between Iran and Oman and is under the conditions of the signed MOU. But Iran says that if the agreement is signed, Iran must jointly control the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, considering it as the sovereignty of Iran. This is one of the heading conditions in the MOU. So when the US says Iran must comply with international law and international maritime law, Iran is not a member, and the US itself is not a member of the central maritime organization either. Therefore, I think the Strait of Hormuz will continue to be a problem. According to Iran's demand, it wants to control it jointly with Oman, collecting what they call a service charge along the way, similar to other straits like the Panama Canal or other countries that collect tolls. They call it a service fee you could call it a toll or anything, but they call it a service charge for transiting. Iran will determine which channel ships must pass through, perhaps through Larak Island, they must use this route to exit into the Gulf of Oman and then to the Indian Ocean. Iran will determine the navigation route for ships. But the US does not accept this. Why is Iran so insistent on this, Khun Guitar? Because if Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz freely like before, the US could just bring warships to park there immediately. If the US or its allies station warships there, I think Iran would lose its military power balance immediately. So Iran must block it, enforce that you must only pass through the route we specify for the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, warships cannot enter unless permitted. Goods to be shipped must be goods approved by Iran; they must not be military goods for Iran's enemies. So there are quite a few subsequent conditions. Therefore, I still see the Strait of Hormuz as a problem, not knowing how it will end between Iran and the United States. >> Yes, but looking from the perspective you mentioned and what Iran wants to use for its strategy regarding the important area like the Strait of Hormuz, the world must realize, right Professor, that Hormuz will never return to how it was before. It won't be freely passable or passable for free without fees. >> I think the Strait of Hormuz will not return to how it was before. This is my personal analysis that the Strait of Hormuz has no way to return to how it was before. But regarding the collection of tolls or service charges, I think that countries allied with Iran will get special privileges in payment or exemption from certain fees or some service charges. This is what I believe. But will it return to how it was? I see the chances are very difficult, Khun Guitar, for the Strait of Hormuz to return to being freely open for ships from all over the world to pass through. I think it's no longer possible after this. >> So this is a point where Iran will not compromise at all, is that right, on the Strait of Hormuz point? >> Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, I think Iran will definitely not compromise with the US. >> Yes, clearly. You firmly believe this. >> The Professor sees it this way. The world will wait and follow this area further. Besides the Strait of Hormuz issue, there is also the closely watched issue of lifting sanctions and returning the previously frozen funds. Professor, there is the 300,000 (billion?) sum that the US talks about, which will be a fund, and the money that must be returned from freezing Iran's assets. How much development or progress is there on this matter? >> Regarding the frozen funds during my time in Iran before I returned, some of it had already been transferred, partly through the UAE and through Saudi Arabia. For the rest, we have to wait and see which country the US will find to make the payment or through which country it will transfer the money to be returned to Iran. The total amount based on figures is approximately nearly 30 billion US dollars that the US has frozen from Iran. As for the money that must be paid as war reparations, Iran calls it war indemnity, 300 billion. But if the US accepts it as war reparations, it becomes that they are the losers, so they will have to call it reconstruction funds. Normally, the US has never won any war and then taken money for reconstruction. They only win and then exploit the country's resources. So, I think in the next negotiation, if the situation proceeds in a way that the US does not attack Iran and Iran does not attack back, then the next talks that might happen in Doha, Islamabad, Switzerland, or other countries offering to host, will likely discuss the details, the specifics of how the frozen money will be paid back, through which country it will be transferred, or if it will be paid directly in Iran. And the money that must be paid as war reparations or reconstruction funds that Donald Trump mentioned, how will it be transferred? I think the details of sanctions or the frozen Iranian funds will be discussed in the next round in a more in-depth manner if the situation holds, with both sides respecting, no violations, and no attacks. I think the next step would likely be this issue. >> The issue of returning the money, even in academic circles or US political science, is analyzed as being very favorable conditions for Iran. Why did the US agree to this extent, both the 300,000 (billion?) block of money and the frozen funds? Professor, how do you see the origin of this MOU? What did Iran have to exchange for this? Why did America provide such good conditions? >> These are the conditions of the victor, Khun Guitar. To put it bluntly and without circumlocution, the US has never accepted any nation's conditions. They always have to be the one winning, especially in war. When the US is bogged down in this war, its legs are stuck in the Middle East. It cannot open the Strait of Hormuz. Khun Guitar, you have to admit that for almost 4 months, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. The US tried everything, sent all its forces, warships, dispatched army divisions, bombed Qeshm Island and various islands, but could not open the Strait of Hormuz. They announced they would send destroyers to escort various ships and cargo ships, but no nation dared to let the US escort them. The US also tried to invite many nations, especially NATO members, to help open the Strait of Hormuz, but no nation joined. The US assessed that the Strait of Hormuz could not be opened, and the US itself had to end the war because of the massive financial losses. Besides being unable to open the Strait of Hormuz and losing enormous amounts of money, the US, especially the Republican party and Donald Trump, also lost a great deal of popularity. With the upcoming elections, the seats in the US Congress are in disarray. So they had to find a way to end the war quickly. Ending the war quickly means accepting the conditions of the adversary. That's it, Khun Guitar. So when the US wants to end the war, Iran sets the conditions, just like we see this time. It appears that it's not the US setting the conditions, Khun Guitar, saying "1, 2, 3, 4, 5 you must do this, you must do that." Instead, Iran is the one setting the conditions. So when Iran sets the conditions, it lets people know, especially international academics and military personnel, that the US has lost this war and must accept the conditions. But if they were to come out without any retaliation, attacks, or posts on social media, without this, it would mean a loss of power balance or the reputation of being the world's number one superpower. So there have to be continuous snide remarks aimed at the US, which we are seeing, perhaps even from the Secretary of Defense. It's the same for Iran. The current Supreme Leader of Iran does not seem to fully agree as much as he should, that he has other objectives to continue the war this time. But since it is the wish of the government and the president whom, with the intention of helping the people according to the conditions agreed with Iran's enemy, we agree that the Supreme Leader has initiated it. It is a declaration that the Iranian people and the Supreme Leader might have other scenarios they wanted to pursue, but because the president and the government guaranteed it could be concluded and bring benefits to the Iranian nation, he said he agreed. And in his statement, he reiterated that the president stressed that if it does not achieve results or if there are any violations, we will end the negotiations, we will nullify the MOU, considering it void, and we will retaliate. So this is what the world is seeing today in the 21st century because the US has never accepted any conditions. The US always sets the conditions. Khun Guitar, on day 2 of the war, Donald Trump very clearly said, "Kill the Supreme Leader of Iran, kill the commanders, and he will appoint the next leader, he will appoint the Iranian government, Iran must surrender unconditionally." This was Trump's tweet on his Truth Social. But as time passed, it could not achieve that result. Iran did not surrender. It is the US itself that has come to submit to Iran's conditions. But whether they will submit completely, or in what form, this is what we have to follow because it depends on the context of the war and the violence that will occur in the region. >> And on the issue of compensation, what is called war indemnity, Professor, the US says there are conditions that this money, or part of it, Iran must use to buy goods from the US. In a way, America also benefits from trade. Professor, how do you see it? After this, will it be a trade relationship between the US and Iran, or just pay the damages and end it with no interaction on other trade matters? >> I think about what was said about giving money and then buying from the US. Iran will definitely not buy. It's just the US trying to say something to make it look a bit pretty, Khun Guitar, like "Hey, I'm giving you money, you come buy our goods." I think Iran will definitely not buy US goods. They might buy some, but the idea of using the 300,000 billion to buy agricultural products, I consider it impossible. I'll bet on this. Because Iran still does not want to open direct trade with the US. But they might open it with European nations. If the sanctions are removed, Khun Guitar, I must say that Iran is one of the most attractive countries for investment. It has vast resources, energy is among the top 1 or 2 in the world. So many countries will travel to Iran for investment and trade. I see this as a key factor that might make Iran use the war funds received to rehabilitate from the pressure of sanctions, rehabilitate domestic industries, and rehabilitate domestic energy, rather than using the money received to buy goods or invest abroad. >> And the part about economic rehabilitation is interesting, Professor. Being under sanctions for 50 years, but Iran has been able to rely on itself to this extent. Have there been internal discussions or have you seen signals about what the direction of Iran's economy or trade with the world would be like if sanctions are actually lifted? >> If sanctions are truly lifted, Khun Guitar, I see many things where Iran can recover by leaps and bounds. Amidst nearly 50 years of sanctions, they have evolved in almost everything. In medicine, when the US wouldn't sell medicine, many countries wouldn't sell medicine, Iran produced its own medicine. It is the 3rd or 4th in the world in producing vaccines and various medicines. In robotics, Iran has developed greatly. Industry and science have developed by leaps and bounds. They launched their own satellite, produced by themselves, without using science from other nations. In terms of weapons or military power, I see Iran as among the top in the world. In agriculture, investment, and industry, sanctions forced the people in the nation to initiate new things and study various startups. This made Iran one of the most notable countries amidst sanctions. When the sanctions are lifted or become void, the opportunity... the basic foundation that Iran has maintained and created will develop even more by leaps and bounds in every area. So I see it as a good opportunity. If sanctions are truly and seriously lifted, there are many things where Iran has the potential to develop and be able to supply many products to the world market. I see it this way more. >> So what are the highlights or strengths, the products with the potential to go out to the world from Iran? >> If talking about what has the most potential, I think about energy first because it is a global need, a top demand of the international community, especially oil. Simply put, Khun Guitar, before sanctions, Iran's oil production was about 3.5 to 4 million barrels per day, right? But US sanctions meant Iran could only export about 600,000-700,000 barrels per day. So, if Iran returns to the pre-sanctions era, without oil sanctions, Iran could export nearly 4 million barrels per day. But if sanctions are lifted and Iran develops its oil sector, it has the potential to produce oil by extracting it from the sea, the Persian Gulf, or the southern part of the country, and has the potential to develop to maybe one day 10 million barrels. When there is a large amount of oil, it will affect the world market price, especially for consumer countries, causing the oil price to decrease because of the large supply. It will fill the oil reserves of many countries in need around the world. So, number one is oil. Number two, the second energy, is natural gas. Iran is probably second in the world after Russia. For LPG, Iran can also supply many countries all over the world. After that, there are various chemicals that are products of petrochemicals from oil, which are already demanded by the international community. These will flood the world market, which is in the energy category, and will result in the price of goods, which are important cost factors, coming down. Besides that, there are miscellaneous imported and exported goods. I see that also plays a part that can be exported. Especially for Thailand right now, if sanctions are lifted, Iran might return to buying Thai rice again. Iran used to buy nearly a million tons of Thai rice per year before sanctions. Some periods it was 1.5 million tons per year, some years 1.2-2 million, some years 800,000-900,000 tons. Iran used to be Thailand's largest customer for rice imports. But today, we have lost this opportunity due to several reasons, allowing India, Pakistan, and Vietnam to dominate the rice market in Iran. I see that for Thailand itself, agricultural products are still in demand by the Iranian people. So, if sanctions are lifted, direct trade can happen, making money transfers, L/C openings, or T/T between us easier. This will benefit the people, business sectors, and governments of both countries and many other countries even more. >> Yes, I understand that Iran is self-reliant and produces many types of goods, almost covering everything. But if the market opens, what are the key products Iran needs to import, Professor? >> If the country opens, I think the top imported goods would likely be consumer goods more than others. Probably rice, meat products, because even today meat is imported from abroad. Beef and rice, I think would be the top items Iran needs. Then sugar and agricultural products would likely be top items. For medicine and things like that, I think they have advanced and would likely be exporters more. On technology and medicine, besides that, major car companies that previously had representatives in Iran, but after sanctions, all those big companies left Iran. There are only small dealers who import from neighboring countries and sell in Iran, but there are still no direct dealers in Iran. I think another business that could grow in Iran is automobiles. Famous global companies will open showrooms and direct dealerships in Iran. Beyond that, when cars enter, I also see that auto parts and motorcycle parts would likely be among the top products for export that Iran demands as well. >> Very interesting to follow, the economic and trade dimensions in the future if sanctions are truly lifted. Now, regarding the conditions related to security, a major issue in the MOU is the nuclear issue. Professor, from your perspective, will Iran abandon its intention to develop nuclear power altogether? What will be the direction of Iran's nuclear weapons after this? >> They have always insisted that their nuclear program development is not for producing nuclear weapons. They use nuclear for alternative energy, such as generating electricity. There are many nuclear power plants in Iran. They also use it for agriculture, medicine, or nanotechnology, employing nuclear technology. I think regarding nuclear, even if negotiations happen, Iran will definitely not abandon its nuclear program. I am confident about this because it was the initiative of the late leader and the current leader, and it is considered an important national policy. But it might be possible that the uranium enrichment capacity, which Iran achieved up to 60%, might be negotiated downward, reduced to maybe 40%, down from the 60% Iran can enrich. They can extract and purify up to 60%, 70%, 80% like that. They might reduce it to maybe 40% or 30% to use in agriculture, nanotechnology, or other fields. I think this might be possible; there is a possibility. It depends on the negotiations. But if you say completely abandon or terminate the program for 10 years, I think it would be impossible because it remains a principal national policy of Iran. >> But what I have heard is that the previous Supreme Leader did not have the objective to develop it into a weapon because it might be a weapon of mass destruction. But in the era of the new Supreme Leader, Professor, do you think it will change? Because on the other hand, nuclear weapons would be an effective deterrent. >> This is an interesting point, Khun Guitar. The former leader was completely opposed to making nuclear weapons because he considered them weapons that kill a large number of innocent people and it contradicts Islamic religious law which does not permit killing or murdering innocents. So he opposed making nuclear weapons. As for the current leader, we have to wait and see if the context after this will lead to a change in the fatwa or religious ruling. The fact that we had no nuclear weapons in the past allowed our enemies to invade our country two or three times. So, if there is to be nuclear weapons, is it possible? Hello? >> Yes, we can hear you clearly, Professor. >> Did it drop just now? Can you hear me? >> We can hear you clearly, Professor. Please continue. >> Okay, I'll continue. So, I think we must look at today's context. Is it possible that Iran will see that having nuclear weapons could be a deterrent to prevent Iran's enemies from trespassing and attacking? This, Khun Guitar, has been discussed in the Iranian parliament. There are hundreds of MPs who proposed that we must sign again for Iran to withdraw from the NPT and withdraw from the IAEA, just like Israel is not an NPT member, and we must build nuclear weapons as a deterrent weapon, not an offensive weapon, similar to what many countries have but haven't used since World War II. I think about the nuclear weapons issue after this, there will be things to follow up on. Will the new Supreme Leader change the policy? Or will the political context intervene and change the fatwa or religious ruling? Or will the parliamentary mechanism in Iran force a change in the policy on producing nuclear weapons? This is something being hotly debated in Iran. We have to wait and see in which direction it will lead. >> And what is the public opinion, or what have you heard from people you have spoken with or communicated with, how do they see the idea of developing Iran's nuclear program? >> If you ask the people, they say produce it, Khun Guitar. The people say produce nuclear weapons, don't listen to, don't believe the US. And they ask, what is there to fear from US sanctions? They have been sanctioning us all along already. What else is there after this? If we produce nuclear weapons, will the US attack us? They are already attacking us today. So what are you afraid of? This is what the people are demanding. It also makes sense, Khun Guitar. They say, if we make nukes, what will they do? Attack us or sanction us? You have already sanctioned us for over 40 years, almost 50 years. Will you make war? You already did that, maximum war, you killed the Supreme Leader. So what will you do after this? We are ready. This is the voice of the majority of the people. They demand that Iran produce nuclear weapons. But whether they can produce them depends solely on the policy and orders of the Supreme Leader, because he is the supreme head of state with ultimate authority, more than the president. So if he decides to produce nuclear weapons, I think Iran will produce them. If he says it's not appropriate, not yet the time, and requests to adhere to the policy of his predecessor, the former leader, then there will probably be no production of nuclear weapons. I cannot bet on this; we must continue to follow up. >> As for other types of weapons, we saw during the war that Iran has a very high capacity to produce weapons. There were many weapons the world just saw, like the ballistic missiles or long-range projectiles. What is the direction of Iran's development of these weapons after this? >> For other non-nuclear weapons, I think they will continue developing as before, and might even develop further because of the experiments in the past two quarters. Whether it's the hypersonic, the cluster bombs, the ballistic missiles, or the drones, I think Iran has gained experience from this war. And they consider their attacks on various places, especially US bases, to be very accurate. I think Iran will definitely not stop developing ballistic missiles, and there will be advanced development, especially in air defense systems. Iran used its own technology to lock onto and shoot down an F35, the US stealth fighter jet. I think this is what Iran will develop even more. And they now have the experience of which defense systems can lock onto targets. Several countries that are adversaries of the US are interested in exchanging this technology with Iran, including China and Russia. >> This point is very interesting. I'd like the Professor to provide some insight because some global analyses say this is actually Iran's own technology, or is it technology sent by Russia, or did China provide assistance? Professor, regarding the level of development of military technology, where does Iran stand, and how much cooperation does it have with these allied countries? >> Based on my long residence in Iran, and I lived through the war in Iran, I have to state clearly that military technology is almost 100% Iranian. It is not Russian, and it is not Chinese. It is 100% the nation's own and the brainpower of the country's people. There might be some technology exchanged with China, like satellite imagery or certain coordinates, and some might have been received from Russia, but nonetheless, it is all Iranian technology. I am confident about this. If we see some technology, they always insist it is theirs, whether it's the missiles, the fuel, or the drones. Russia itself uses Iranian Shahed 136 drones. What Iran wants from these countries, I think, is likely only fighter jets, which Iran hasn't fully developed yet. There is talk that Iran bought fighter jets from Russia. If they actually bought a large number, like Sukhoi 35, 20, 22, in the past war, we would have seen many Russian fighter jets that Iran would have used to bomb US bases in neighboring countries. But we only saw one. As for the reports that Iran bought J10, J15, J18, or other J-series fighter jets from China, in the two previous wars, I haven't seen a single one. So, to create a theory, I wonder if it's speculation that Iran received support from China and Russia to attack the US. I see that the facts are a completely different matter, Khun Guitar. >> Thank you very much, Professor, for clarifying this. Earlier, the US said it had completely destroyed Iran's military capability. They said this since day 1 or day 2, but currently, we still see retaliation from Iran. >> I couldn't hear anything. The signal dropped. >> Professor, can you hear me? Are you still there? >> I don't know if it was my signal or yours, Khun Guitar. I can't hear anything now. >> Yes, could viewers please help check the signal? Team, please recheck the signal from the Professor's side. >> Professor, can you hear me? >> Hello? >> Ah, it's on the Professor's side. Please allow the team to contact the Professor to fix the signal problem. Right now, for everyone watching, can you still hear clearly? Is the picture clear and sound good? Please check and report the signal. Right now, the Professor's signal seems to have dropped. Please allow the team to contact and coordinate, and we will invite the Professor back in a moment. Actually, we were talking until we reached the final topics. But now, the very intense issues are the management and direction of future security, whether it's the nuclear issue or the production of missiles, including the question of whether Iran's ability to fight the US up to this point and its military power come solely from its own capability and weapons potential, or from the help of close friends like Russia and China. The Professor confirmed that it is a development of Iran's own potential, especially in military technology, technology related to targeting, or the production of various missiles. The Professor confirmed that this is entirely Iran's own creation for its military security. This is the perspective we heard clearly from Professor Lerpong. Oh, the Professor is back. I would like to ask the Professor further. Professor, you are back now. Can you hear clearly, Professor? >> Yes, I can hear now. It dropped a moment ago. >> Sorry, Professor. Yes, I can hear you clearly now. Professor, can you hear Guitar clearly? >> Yes, I can hear. I can hear. >> Yes, Professor. On the issue that the US claimed it had destroyed Iran's military capability previously, but currently we still see Iran able to retaliate against the US. What is the factual truth regarding Iran's military strength compared to what the US communicated to the world? >> The US has been communicating lies since day 1 of the war, via Donald Trump. Then, just last month, the CIA came out and admitted that Iran's military capability remains at 90%. The Pentagon itself admitted that 70% of Iran's missile projects and missiles still remain. This is what the CIA and Pentagon admitted. As for what Donald Trump says, he's just continuously deceiving the world, saying 90% was destroyed. So this is another thing that the Iranian people and the world need to understand: Iran's military capability remains strong as before. Many days have passed, and they can still shoot back and retaliate as before. >> Finally, Professor, what is your own scenario for after this? You have seen actual events on the ground, and you have likely had the opportunity to see news and information from the global level as well. Today, a new round of negotiations is coming. How much hope does the world have for a better future direction? Should we be afraid of another war erupting between the US and Iran? What will the future of the Middle East be after this? >> For a closing statement, the last thing I want to say is that the international community wants to see peace happen because this war has affected the whole world, especially our Thai brothers and sisters who have been affected by rising oil prices. But Iran itself does not want to continue fighting. Iran has always said it is not the initiator of the war. It was not the one who started it. But if there is aggression against it, I think it will stand firm and continue to fight. But if peace can truly happen, I still believe it must be a peace with equality, not a peace where a superpower dictates the direction for one nation. A country that acts like a superpower with the best military power, the best potential, and the greatest economic bargaining power in the world, and then oppresses smaller or weaker nations. I see that if the US continues its foreign policy like this, world peace will never happen. One day, there might be another country like Iran that rises up to fight, like Cuba, which said if you invade, we will attack, we will fight to the death. If they use oppressive rules, I think many countries will stand and fight. But if they act as friendly nations, whether with smaller or less developed countries, using goodwill, using equality and justice to build relationships, I think this will bring true peace to the world. However, we cannot expect this from the United States because, historically, over the past 250 years since its founding, the US is the country that has invaded other nations the most in the world. The US is the country that has started the most wars in the world. This is a background that has been attached and tied to the United States all along. So if peace is to happen, it must be a peace based on justice and equality only. But if the superpower continues to use oppressive forms, being imperialist, being a colonial hunter in the past, and today becoming a hunter for economic resources and economic colonialism, I think true peace can never happen. It's just waiting for the day it erupts again. I leave this with you. >> Professor, one more thing. What about Iran and Israel? >> Oh, Iran and Israel are sworn enemies, Khun Guitar. With Israel, it will definitely never end. There will certainly be no peace. There will certainly be no negotiation with Israel. It's just a matter of waiting for the day to continue the war. For Israel, I think Iran has no way, no day, to shake hands with Israel because Israel invaded and occupied Palestinian land and kills innocent people. Even last night, they were still firing on Gaza, firing at the humanitarian tent camp in Khan Yunis. So for Iran to shake hands with Israel is absolutely impossible. I bet 100% on this. >> Very clear today. Thank you very much, Professor. Travel back safely. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Khun Guitar. Goodbye. Goodbye. >> Yes, goodbye. Goodbye. Today, Professor Lerpong took the time to talk with us. Intense issues and what is actually happening in Iran, the feelings and thoughts of the Iranian people and academics, the issues that have occurred in Iran's political sphere, and the agreement with the US that Iranians do not trust. What they don't trust is the other party to the agreement and some conditions that still seem difficult to achieve, especially regarding the management of lifting sanctions or ending the war on all fronts. The issues to keep following are both the Strait of Hormuz and the 7 (?) intentions of Iran in developing nuclear power after this. But the issue the world should pay attention to again is that if sanctions on Iran are truly lifted, Iran will return to interacting and trading with the world once more. Opportunities for trading in energy products, some agricultural products, and other industries will be a good chance to build relations with Iran. However, the security issue between the US, Iran, and Israel is something that is highly volatile and we must continue to monitor the situation. If we have the opportunity, we will invite the Professor for an interview directly from Iran again. Today, thank you very much for watching Guitar and Professor Lerpong. The team is signing off now. Goodbye.