Transcript [Anchor Neil Harvey] Welcome, James. I mean, let’s carry on from the point that Reza was just making there. The claims from Iran are that when Donald Trump says that peace talks are continuing, it’s just, it’s a cloud to disguise the fact that the US is actually moving more of its troops into the region. How would you assess the situation? [James M. Dorsey] Well, I think what we’re seeing on the part of the United States is what some have called coercive diplomacy. Underlying that diplomacy is a fallacy as far as I’m concerned. And that is that the more pressure the United States keeps on Iran militarily and economically, the more likely is that it is going to capitulate and surrender. The last 31 days of the war show the opposite. So, I think that that’s part of what we’re seeing. As far as the talks are concerned, or the messaging back and forth, what you’re seeing is a dialogue of the death, or if you want, motion without movement. With other words, both parties have put forward maximalist demands that they know the other party will not accept. But on the other hand, you see no give and take on that. So, in that sense, there’s no movement. [Anchor Neil Harvey] The fact that there’s no give and take, does that not suggest, just logically, that Trump’s claims that, you know, the US is winning and we’ve almost nothing left to blow up isn’t actually true? Because we know that Iran is still firing back. It’s actually hurting Israel and Gulf states. So, I mean, if you just follow what you see with your eyes, does that suggest that actually this is more balanced than Trump claims? [James M. Dorsey] Well, clearly, as long as Iran can inflict significant damage on Israel, on the Gulf states with its missiles and drones, as long as that’s happening, Trump’s claims that he has obliterated Iran’s military power are de facto false. At the same time, I think if you look at the last 31 days of the war, it’s been Iran rather than the United States that has been shaping the battlefield. And a battlefield is a form of negotiation, too. On top of that, a lot of Iran’s response is tit for tat. You attack my power plant, I attack your power plant. You attack my university, I attack your university. And that cycle, if you wish, the United States has not been able to break. [Anchor Neil Harvey] I really want to get to this report from The Wall Street Journal. President Trump suggested, you know, we might walk away from this, even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. It’s not really our problem, we’ve got our own oil. And it’s a suggestion Trump has made previously. Now, there’s two possibilities here. One, do you think he would walk away and just leave this problem for everybody else that he created? I mean, effectively, the US, its actions and Israel’s actions led to the Strait of Hormuz getting closed. Would he just leave everyone else who’s affected to deal with the problem? Or could it be, and we know that President Trump has no problem with saying that things aren’t true, quite often, it’s just fake news to try and disguise the fact that the US is planning to actually ramp up a military attack? [James M. Dorsey] Obviously, the indications are that the United States is preparing for a military expansion of the war, or in any case, the possibility. I think as your correspondent, Andy Ruskin said, one has to treat Trump’s statements with a grain of salt. He’s often contradictory, whether that’s by design, or whether that’s just simply depending on his mood. Your guess is as good as mine. If he were to walk away, he would have a very difficult—it would be very difficult for him to justify this war, and he will have to justify it. He would not be able to credibly and unambiguously declare victory. The other part of this is what happens afterwards. In the Wall Street Journal statement, or article, it was not clear whether ending the war, walking away, would entail withdrawing the US forces. And that is part of what likely would shape Iran’s response. The Iranians, if they’re smart, and they are smart, would respond to Trump walking away by opening the Strait of Hormuz to everybody but the United States and Israel. There would be no justification anymore for them to throttle shipping through the waterway. And, of course, they would earn a lot of brownie points by immediately opening the strait. [Anchor Neil Harvey] Yeah, I mean, I wanted to ask, effectively, I mean, it’s reported that Iran is basically charging a toll for countries to have their ships pass through. So, if the military pressure on them stops, will that leave them in a situation where, as you just suggested, they can charge massive tariffs on those countries that they don’t get on with, and then could use this as leverage to develop really strong geopolitical connections with other countries? [James M. Dorsey] I don’t know for a fact whether they are charging tolls or not. They’ve certainly spoken about it. Whether they’ve implemented is not clear to me. Having said that, I think the Iranians will understand that their position currently on the Strait of Hormuz is legally not defensible. With other words—and I’m not an international lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, you have three jurisdictions in the Strait of Hormuz. You have the territorial waters of Iran. You have the territorial waters of Oman. And in the middle, you have an international waterway. [Anchor Neil Harvey] Does that matter, though, James? Because, I mean, haven’t Israel and the United States just established with the ongoing conflicts that they’ve been carrying out that no one cares about international law anymore? [James M. Dorsey] Sure. I mean, we didn’t need the Iran war to see that. We saw that in the Gaza war, too. And we see that in Ukraine. But having said that, the Iranians will want to be seen, certainly if they have a victory with Trump unilaterally walking away. And they will see that as a victory. They will not want to undermine that by then overplaying their hand. [Anchor Neil Harvey] What about the—I mean, it’s a report from AP. It’s a credible news agency. But, I mean, we can’t prove this is true or not. But they make the claim that insiders in negotiations taking place with the Gulf states are claiming that Saudi Arabia, Qatar have been putting pressure on President Trump to actually continue with the conflict. They want to see Iran weakened even further. I mean, does that sound credible to you? [James M. Dorsey] First of all, I think what you’ve seen in terms of—and that’s important here—the evolution of the Iranian position, it no longer is regime survival. They feel comfortable that the regime will survive. For them, it’s now establishing and cementing their leverage in the region. And that is exactly what Gulf states fear. They don’t want to be left in the middle with an Iranian regime that is angry, that is vengeful. You’ve already seen suggestions by the Iranians that the Gulf states would have to pay for the reconstruction of the damage done in Iran. So—and you also have seen steps or moves by certain Arab states—Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and, to some degree, Bahrain, towards changing from their defensive position, focused on intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, to a more aggressive participation in the war. [Anchor Neil Harvey] James, always great to speak to you and get your analysis. Thank you. James Dorsey from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. |
No comments:
Post a Comment