24 with Fardad Farahzad: Suspension of the Iran–U.S. Meeting

[00:00:02]On 24 live from Switzerland, Iran-US talks are underway. Tehran demands MOU implementation for continuing [music] negotiations and a final agreement.

[00:00:13]Conflicting narratives surround [music] the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire. Israel rejects the Trump administration's Iran MOU, asserting commitment only to a separate agreement directly with Lebanon.

[00:00:25]Revolutionary Guard-affiliated Tasnim News Agency states that the open Strait of Hormuz leads to significant [music] losses, demanding the immediate halt of the memorandum of understanding.

[00:00:39]From Bürgenstock Swiss Alps, this is 24 with Farbod Farzad.

[00:00:50]Hello and good evening to Iran International viewers in Iran and across the globe. Just 2 days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding between [music] the US and Iran, both sides, along with Switzerland, the country that was supposed to host the first round of talks after the MOU was signed, announced the cancellation of this meeting. On the other hand, Pakistan has announced that the mediators involved in the Washington and Tehran [music] issue will hold a meeting in Cairo on Sunday. Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, [music] also said that with the digital signing of the memorandum of understanding between the two sides, this meeting has lost its urgency.

[00:01:23][music] He also said that the agency's renewed access to some damage policies will be contingent on the results of the negotiations.

[00:01:30]My colleague Ahmad Samadi has joined us here at the site of the talks, which have for now been canceled. Ahmad, tell us like exactly what happened because it seemed like even US Vice President J.D.

[00:01:41]Vance's plane was on the runway when at the very last minute everything got canceled.

[00:01:49]>> That's right, Farbod. On June 15th, when this agreement, this um actually memorandum of understanding, was digitally signed between Mr. Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian. The next day, the US Vice President's office released a paper, which is like an announcement for reporters. And this program was supposed to take place today in Switzerland. And while the talks were supposed to continue, it's not that like nothing was supposed to be signed, but rather they were supposed to start those 60 days they agreed on for talks starting from today.

[00:02:23]It gradually seems like, you know, some things happened the scenes. I mean, yesterday immediately after it kept being said that talks were going to happen here, Pakistan immediately said that its Prime Minister's trip had been canceled. It seems like, you know, good preparations had been made. Today, we saw pictures of the Foreign Minister, the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of like Qatar actually being here today. And he also had a meeting with the Swiss Foreign Minister. And these talks were supposed to be at a very high level.

[00:02:52]After Pakistan's cancellation, the United States, particularly through J.D.

[00:02:56]Vance, began voicing doubt and skepticism regarding a planned event despite its known schedule. This skepticism grew from the American side.

[00:03:04]Eventually, as midnight Iran time approached, it was formally announced that the event had been totally postponed.

[00:03:11]They didn't say it was canceled. And the Iranian side, after Qalibaf's bravado about how we'll raise the flag and do it, they were saying that like they were going to proceed as planned for now and see what happens. Tasnim and Fars and like these other news agencies kept constantly publishing contradictory news until it was announced by the Islamic Republic that these talks wouldn't happen. And then, like officially, the Pakistanis and Swiss announced that this meeting wouldn't take place. And they said it was canceled and directly spoke of canceling it. But look, two things are happening. I mean, when we read between the lines of the words that were used, for example, the Americans say it's postponed, the Islamic Republic says it's canceled, then some media outlets, both in the United States and in Europe, talk about cancellation and postponement. And it's clear that like some things have happened in the middle, meaning these players are doing things behind the scenes.

[00:04:00]>> And there are like quite a few of these players. So, what are they saying from Pakistan and Qatar to the Europeans and the United States about the situation?

[00:04:09]>> That's a very insightful point you've raised. Today, for instance, the French Minister, Mr. Jean-Noël Barrot, articulated several precise concerns, clearly indicating significant disagreements. This became especially apparent following the talks involving the Italian Prime Minister, who notably challenged Mr. Trump's stance quite forcefully today. The French are highlighting Mr. Trump's alleged promise to the Islamic Republic that all UN resolutions would be canceled. Moreover, he explicitly stated his position on Iranian missiles. They should remain in place, citing Saudi Arabia's own missile capabilities as justification for this unexcited policy. They didn't even talk about proxies at all. France says it's not like that. The missile issue and the proxy issue must be resolved. If these two aren't resolved, the world can't witness peace. And on the other hand, it says we won't cancel the resolutions.

[00:04:54]France, you know, has veto power. It says we'll actually cancel these resolutions only when it's also to our benefit. We also need to state our opinions. And until the nuclear issue is resolved exactly the way we say it should be, we actually can't resolve these things.

[00:05:11]The number of involved parties is increasing, intensifying pressure on Mr. Trump and his administration. Key players are now heading to Egypt for discussions with anticipated talks there.

[00:05:21]>> Thank you, Ahmad Samadi, my colleague, for being with us here today. We are also joined from Washington, D.C. by Miad Maleki, former head of the Office of Sanctions Targeting at the Treasury Department. I want to ask you both, where do you believe these persistent delays and the unfulfilled promises by the United States to lift numerous sanctions, including those mandated by the UN, will ultimately lead? Despite initially welcoming and digitally signing the understanding, the Iranian side now appears reluctant for further bargaining during the remaining 60-day period. This hesitation is particularly significant given recent statements from the leader of the Islamic Republic, which suggests a hardening stance or a skepticism towards ongoing negotiations.

[00:06:00]>> Thank you for the invitation. Look, you're asking a very good question. I think both sides aren't really in a hurry right now to start the talks.

[00:06:09]Look, from the American side, if you read the type of this memorandum of understanding, it's more like a memorandum of misunderstanding. These promises that have been made about lifting sanctions and that fund actually, the investment or for the reconstruction of the Islamic Republic.

[00:06:28]In my opinion, those on the American side who wrote this, they knew that most likely they wouldn't get to a point where they'd actually want to implement these promises because well, it's so complicated. It's not that simple to do and it's not even feasible. From the Iranian side, well, there was a lot of pressure on the Islamic Republic because of the Strait of Hormuz being closed.

[00:06:47]Now, put their slogans and stuff aside, they are really dealing with a completely truly bankrupt economy.

[00:07:00]And this agreement, it allows them to like better circumvent sanctions and sending oil to China again has reduced the pressure on them. I think both sides aren't really in a hurry to get anywhere right now and start. And on the other hand, I also think Iran's interpretation of the text of this memorandum of understanding is very different from what actually the way the memorandum was written. And this this goes back to the JCPOA conditions where both sides will completely speak two different languages.

[00:07:35]>> Before too, the parties had come to the negotiation table several times. Yet, these efforts consistently culminated in outright war. Today, the divides appear even wider in many crucial respects.

[00:07:43]With the Islamic Republic's profound anger over recent casualties naturally escalating against the Americans, this deeply rooted animosity and lack of trust present formidable obstacles.

[00:07:51]Therefore, despite the persistent optimism put forth by some American parties regarding potential breakthroughs, it is vital to realistically assess the probability.

[00:07:57]How likely is it that a truly comprehensive agreement could actually be forged and sustained within the ambitious 60-day timeframe?

[00:08:04]>> I consider the probability very weak. I don't think it's at all likely that in 60 days you could reach a result on any of these issues that there are disagreements on. I think if you remember the JCPOA negotiations or before that, look, the time the negotiations took was longer than the time the JCPOA actually lasted.

[00:08:25]Negotiations on these issues, especially the way the Islamic Republic negotiates, 60 days? I think it will take even one or two more years for you to reach a conclusion on very minor issues with them.

[00:08:41]But while the Islamic Republic now knows that President Trump and Mr. J.D. Vance want to prepare for the midterm elections, they didn't want to talk about Iran anymore. Look, presidents in America usually hear and read about Iran for like 10 to 20 minutes a week. I've seen two or three presidents and right now President Trump, his first year and a half of presidency has just been about Iran. He hasn't gotten to any other issues.

[00:09:08]And well, the Islamic Republic of Iran has sensed this and knows it and it might put more pressure to get more sanctions relief. That's what might lead things to a point where we go back to war again. But otherwise, I think we'll stay stuck on this issue until after the next US midterm elections and then we'll have to see how things change.

[00:09:32]>> How do you think they'll implement these sanctions suspensions, which is also your area of expertise? Because it's not just US sanctions, you know. Some of them are from the UN. My colleague Ahmad Samadi was pointing out that the French say it's not that easy to lift those sanctions. They have conditions, too. If the US really wants to lift these sanctions based on the step-by-step actions the Islamic Republic takes, in your opinion, one, how possible is that?

[00:09:57]And two, what mechanism and form will it take?

[00:10:02]>> Look, US sanctions are a series of sanctions that have been legally passed in Congress. Those are the sanctions that a president can The president can temporarily suspend, but he has to inform Congress, notify Congress, talk and consult with Congress about these suspensions. These sanctions that were legally passed are related to the US's concerns with the Islamic Republic. For example, some of them are related to Iran's nuclear issue. Some are related to human rights. Some are related to supporting terrorist groups. And some are related to Iran's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war.

[00:10:37]These These economic sanctions that are currently on Iran and the Islamic Republic is looking to lift them. Not all of them are related to the nuclear objective. Something that really stopped President Biden and Mr. Malley from reaching a conclusion and negotiations with Iran was that the IRGC was sanctioned as a terrorist group. Even if you suspend all the sanctions, if the IRGC remains a terrorist group, the Islamic Republic won't see any meaningful benefit from these sanctions being lifted.

[00:11:09]And the Islamic Republic knew that, and that's why it was pressuring Mr. Biden to remove the IRGC from the terrorist group list. And Mr. Biden's team wasn't willing to do that because of congressional pressure. That's why issues are so complicated. It's not like they can solve these economic issues for Iran in say 60 days or even 6 months from now.

[00:11:32]>> Thank you. Yoad Malecki, former head of the office of sanctions targeting at the US Treasury Department is with us from Washington, D.C.

[00:11:40]Shortly after news of today's canceled negotiations in Switzerland, CNN reported that the US has assured the Islamic Republic that Israel does not intend to escalate tensions in Lebanon, particularly regarding recent border issues. This assurance the network indicated was a key part of recent consultations between the two sides and Axios also cited it as the main reason for today's meeting falling apart.

[00:12:00]Nevertheless, Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social defending the understanding with Tehran that the US did not negotiate out of desperation, but rather Iran was the one in a desperate position. Trump also said that war has severely weakened Iran's military capabilities and that they are at their end.

[00:12:17]My colleague Marwan Abasian has also joined me here. Marwan, many questions are being raised about what the main reason for this cancellation or suspension of negotiations is. One of the issues being brought up, and the Iranian side doesn't really shy away from mentioning it, is the continuation of Israeli attacks against Lebanon. What do we know about that? How much of a role has that really probably played in this post home indoor suspension?

[00:12:41]>> Look, Fred. Since yesterday when we were here in front of, well, the hotel where it was being held, there were a lot of contradictions. Most media outlets are also covering this. They say that in an agreement with 14 clauses, you can find more than 140 contradictions. JD Vance first said that he thought it was the weekend, meaning Saturday and Sunday, not Friday, which is when it was scheduled for. And the fact that Israel was an option that was announced later because it attacked Lebanon, the Islamic Republic delegation canceled this trip again.

[00:13:22]But the Qatari foreign minister who had a meeting here today said it was because the Islamic Republic officials were observing the month of Muharram, but the truth is, and it's clear to see, Israel and the US have launched an attack on the Islamic Republic to achieve certain goals. But now we see that these goals in this memorandum of understanding, whose parts have now been released, don't really show any specific details for Israel. The missile issue is something you can't see anywhere in it.

[00:13:51]One of the main things Israel is worried about is that if this memorandum of understanding doesn't have any clause about missiles to prevent the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles, then with the money it might receive, well, it could launch attacks on Israel again in the future. And the pressures on Netanyahu inside Israel, they've launched an attack, they've spent money to achieve the best possible outcome to stay safe. And well, these attacks on Lebanon are also in the Islamic Republic's media.

[00:14:21]They too, the hardliners of the Islamic Republic, are again attacking the officials of the Islamic Republic, saying you couldn't actually implement an agreement or a memorandum of understanding that would benefit the Islamic Republic. Both sides are actually unhappy, really. That's why over these past two days, we've seen every media outlet here, well, from its own perspective, explaining why these negotiations, this meeting that's supposed to happen in Switzerland, which they've spent a hefty sum on over the past few days, should be canceled. But again today, in the statements of Swiss officials, the Swiss Foreign Ministry today again mentioned something it hadn't said in previous days. It had actually kind of stepped back, but today, probably after its meeting with the Qatari Foreign Minister, it announced that we are still ready for the officials of the Islamic Republic and the US to come here so that this understanding or agreement can be finalized.

[00:15:10]>> Thank you, my colleague Mehron Abbasiyan, here in Burgenstock, Switzerland, near the Alps. Ali Reza Namwar Haghighi, a political analyst, has also joined us from Toronto. Mr. Namwar Haghighi, these statements by the leader of the Islamic Republic saying, "I had a different opinion, but because of the doctors, I've now accepted this memorandum of understanding." Do you think it's just a show, or could it really become the Achilles' heel of the final agreement?

[00:15:35]>> Yes, hello to you and the viewers and listeners of Iran International Television. From a legal standpoint, personal statements truly don't alter the situation. Legally, the leader is directly responsible for the proper implementation of the system's policies.

[00:15:49]Specifically, in foreign policy, he wields a critical veto right through his two representatives on the Supreme National Security Council.

[00:15:56]Significantly, both of these representatives explicitly voted yes.

[00:15:59]Moreover, the Iranian government has formally signed that agreement.

[00:16:03]Therefore, whether he expressed a particular opinion or not, it's legally irrelevant. Ultimately, his legal responsibility and the standing of the agreement remain identical, regardless of any individual sentiment.

[00:16:15]You could say he's followed Ayatollah Khamenei's style, but again, in this text, you see that he's given credit to the president for accepting it, and then the commitment of the president and the Supreme National Security Council. The leader has also accepted to go down this path. This, in my opinion, is again a step forward compared to the past, meaning that they've accepted that the country's most important high-ranking executive officials should play a fundamental role in accepting responsibility in foreign policy and commit to advancing it. So, this too, but practically speaking, the core issue, uh substantial heart of this discussion, hinges on the true intentions of the two sides regarding this agreement. Are their objectives simply to buy time, perhaps to regroup, or is there a genuine desire to reach a lasting, mutually acceptable agreement?

[00:17:07]This foundational question is paramount.

[00:17:09]Furthermore, significant ambiguities are inherent within the agreement. While the accord undoubtedly provides many concessions to Iran, these uncertainties remain, especially where key actions are contingent on bilateral arrangements.

[00:17:20]Such unclearness could easily become problematic, impeding future negotiation mechanisms and implementation.

[00:17:26]And third, in its first clause, the commitment made in this agreement must also be signed by Israel. If it's not signed, then in reality Israel has no commitment to this agreement. And well, if Israel is the dissatisfied party, it can change it anytime. The fourth point is the political rhetoric in Iran, which given the situation in the US, Mr. Trump, and the general atmosphere, could be destructive. Look, one of the coins written in the text is that both sides should refrain from threatening each other.

[00:18:04]For example, slogans like death to America chanted at Friday prayers or death to Israel, if these were to be discussed later in legal courts, they themselves could violate the respect for sovereignty mentioned in the agreement, in the memorandum of understanding, and could also be considered a threat.

[00:18:24]Therefore, the propaganda policy of the Islamic Republic is very important. You also saw today that in the letter Mojtaba Khamenei wrote that discussion about Mr. Trump's desperation actually led to a strong reaction from Mr. Trump.

[00:18:41]I mean, if you look from the day the initial agreement was signed until today, this was Mr. Trump's first notably strong reaction. It consistently seems they haven't learned the important lesson. Using aggressive, offensive, and overtly hostile language against Mr. Trump inevitably triggers robust reactions from him. However, the ultimate outcome will entirely depend on how the negotiation process moves forward.

[00:19:07]A part of Iran's power block has certainly concluded that governing the country, the country's economy, and its future are contingent upon de-escalation with the US and even normalizing relations with the US and ceasing hostilities with Israel. There's no doubt about it. Mr. Ghalibaf's statements clearly show this.

[00:19:27]In reality, what's been finalized must now translate into tangible economic benefits directly simulating economic production. However, a significant group opposes this transition driven by political rivalries and economic interests. For them, existing economic sanctions and Iran's chaotic situation are their bread and butter, providing direct financial gain. These factions harbor alternative, often disruptive, dreams for Iran's future. Additionally, opponents include those motivated by ideological factors, intellectual beliefs, and certain foreign infiltrators. All these diverse elements are staunchly against this agreement, making serious efforts to disrupt it as much as they can. Therefore, it can be said that the supreme leader's speech in this context, if Iran, Iran's diplomacy team, and the country's administration team can't properly advance the path, and if they don't correctly manage both propaganda and negotiations, and the economy, then definitely we can say we'll have another severe conflict after November.

[00:20:26]>> Mr. Namvar, while a comprehensive agreement remains distant, even the current understanding appears exceptionally fragile. This precarity was highlighted right here in Bergenstock, where Iranian and American delegations were scheduled to meet today, only for their initial talks to be canceled at the 11th hour. If the two sides cannot reach this ultimate agreement, the unavoidable alternative, as you articulated, is military confrontation. This grave scenario prompts a vital question. In your assessment, which side holds greater political capacity to absorb the impact of renewed hostilities, Washington or Tehran, should such a confrontation unfortunately materialize?

[00:21:02]>> Given inherent economic challenges, it's natural Iran's capacity for an extensive all-out war, especially a prolonged war of attrition, is severely limited when confronting two major global powers like the US and Israel.

[00:21:18]Naturally, Iran contends with significant resource limitations.

[00:21:21]Moreover, swaying public opinion presents a formidable challenge. It's profoundly improbable the government could effectively convince its populace to endorse another war. The notion of renewed conflict, whether related to Lebanon or nuclear enrichment, is deeply unpopular. The regime would find it nearly impossible to sell such a demanding proposition to uh a public already facing domestic issues. Thus, these internal constraints undeniably place Iran in a weaker strategic position. In my opinion, this memorandum of understanding is fundamentally a good one. However, it contains ambiguities, particularly in deferring certain critical issues to future bilateral agreements. Such vagueness could, in practice, significantly impede progress.

[00:21:59]Yet, this document has forged a huge, unprecedented opportunity for Iran since the revolution. This chance materializes if the Islamic Republic genuinely desires to end hostilities with Israel and normalize its relations with the US.

[00:22:13]If Iran seeks to become a normal country, addressing its developmental and economic issues, this MOU provides the crucial pathway.

[00:22:21]This agreement is a really big opportunity. It's more than the JCPOA, meaning more is given to Iran than the JCPOA, even though Iran also gives more than the JCPOA. But anyway, it can bring more benefits for Iran than the JCPOA. I mean, it depends on whether the government is willing to make a strategic shift. If it doesn't have this, according to the history of international relations, it will be a fragile ceasefire, and we will enter into conflict again. But if they strategically change those four elements, which are the issue of Israel, the issue of hostility with the US and expelling the US from the region, the issue of enrichment, and the issue of proxy forces. If the Islamic Republic isn't willing to strategically change these four things, it can be said that this memorandum of understanding won't turn into a lasting agreement. This can be said for sure, but if they do it, a new chapter in the country's economy can be written.

[00:23:23]Implementing these significant changes would mean it's no longer the Islamic Republic as they oppose its spirit.

[00:23:30]Its name will be the Islamic Republic.

[00:23:33]Look, it won't be the former Islamic Republic, but a new Islamic Republic, meaning it's an Islamic Republic that's operating with truly different priorities, distinct outlooks, and a fresh way of working. The Islamic Republic, in fact, you could say one chapter truly closes and another chapter significantly opens. I mean, there's absolutely no possibility of continuing with these severe economic challenges.

[00:23:56]Thanks, Alireza Nonvar Heidi. Look, military figures as Mr. Ghalibaf, having been involved in economic affairs and economists, they truly understand that continuing on this current path is practically impossible with these limited resources. Their pragmatic perspective stems from direct experience. Yet, there are people who haven't run the country or done executive work. They harbor certain ideas now. They genuinely think America is collapsing or Israel is falling apart. These kinds of profound delusions are precisely what create our ongoing problems. Incidentally, Mr. Ghalibaf himself referenced Mr. Jafari's delusions concerning those five negotiation conditions, none of which, as we well know, were ultimately implemented. They have these delusions.

[00:24:34]One part thinks like you can get all the advantages just with a Strait of Hormuz card. With the naval blockade, Iran realized no, it's not like you have a free hand and can do whatever you want.

[00:24:45]In my opinion, actually, you could say the outlook is between delusions and calculations that have a wrong understanding of the international community and international relations, and an understanding that has accepted that by changing strategy, a new path can be forged for the country.

[00:25:06]You can see these two forces soft among the elites and in society everywhere this difference. And if this doesn't happen, well, in America because the Iran-America relationship has many enemies. It's Israel, even China and Russia aren't really keen on Iran making a strategic agreement. And in America, well, you know, there are a lot of disagreements. Because of these obstacles, if they can't navigate it skillfully and prudently, we will definitely head towards a conflict whose dimensions will become wider.

[00:25:38]>> Thank you. Ali Reza Namvar-Haghighi, political analyst from Toronto, Canada.

[00:25:45]While reports indicate a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, NBC News says Donald Trump, in talks with Israeli officials, asked them to agree to a ceasefire with Hezbollah. Earlier, a senior American official had also said that Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire that would take effect from Friday evening local time. At the same time, a Gulf diplomat told Agence France-Presse that this agreement was reached through the mediation of Qatar, the US, and the Islamic Republic. Israel says it is not committed to the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and the Islamic Republic and is only adhering to a separate agreement with Lebanon, which was mediated by Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu also said that his country's army, under his orders, targeted 150 Hezbollah-affiliated targets in Lebanon since last night and eliminated dozens of the group's forces. Meanwhile, Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem, rejecting calls to surrender the group's weapons, said Hezbollah will not surrender as long as it has the ability to resist. Naim Qassem emphasized that the group has made a Can of Cola style decision and insists on continuing its path. Our correspondent Ardavan Rousmeh joined us from our other studio in Washington.

[00:26:57]Ardavan, hey, we keep hearing about those fragile ceasefires between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Hezbollah, but on the other hand, the bombing is still continuing.

[00:27:08]>> Regarding the last point, Nawaf Salam, Lebanon's Prime Minister, directly addressed recent statements by Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General. Salam unequivocally stressed that all fundamental decision-making concerning the nation's administration, governance, and especially weapon control must exclusively reside with a legitimate Lebanese government. He firmly declared that no diverse groups or non-state actors would be permitted an armed presence, asserting the state's sole authority over national security.

[00:27:34]Many Arab analysts interpret Salam's powerful statements as a direct challenge to Hezbollah's ongoing narrative and operational guidance regarding its armed status. Despite circulating reports, including a notable Reuters dispatch alleging two Israeli drone operations in southern Lebanon hours after the ceasefire announcement, the Israeli ambassador to the United States firmly denied these claims. He unequivocally stated Israel's unwavering commitment to the recently brokered agreement. The ambassador characterized such allegations as propaganda originating from Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic designed to generate hype while stressing Israel's full readiness to respond decisively to any hostile actions. He reaffirmed that for now, Israel remains steadfast in abiding by the ceasefire agreement.

[00:28:20]>> The US State Department announced that from June 23rd to 25th, the governments of Israel and Lebanon are scheduled to hold another meeting in Washington, D.C.

[00:28:30]mediated by the United States with the aim of establishing lasting peace.

[00:28:34]Lebanese President Michel, however, emphasized a critical condition for any future negotiations, the existence of a serious and verifiable ceasefire. He reiterated that Israeli attacks on Lebanese soil must definitively stop for a meaningful resolution. President Michel stressed that these two countries must reach a fundamental enduring agreement in a truly calm and conducive environment, ensuring genuine progress towards peace.

[00:29:05]The Israeli army announced this morning that in the operation it carried out, it targeted at least over 100 areas that were precisely Hezbollah's strongholds.

[00:29:15]And Mr. Netanyahu, who has taken responsibility for this operation during this complex period, an event that according to one account, at least disrupted today's Switzerland meeting.

[00:29:26]According to another account, of course, the Tehran side says it canceled the meeting from a harm. Later announced it was from a harm.

[00:29:38]He has taken full responsibility for the operation, explicitly stating he personally ordered it. He emphasized that this extensive military action was a direct response to Hezbollah's targeted killing of four Israeli soldiers, an incident that prompted a forceful retaliation. Lebanon's Ministry of Health subsequently reported it as an extraordinarily large operation, tragically resulting in over 47 fatalities and more than 100 injuries across the affected areas. An NBC News report further highlights that despite Mr. Netanyahu's firm prior commitment to doing whatever it takes to defend Israeli soil and sovereignty, the specific period surprisingly saw the apparent acceptance of Mr. Trump's mediation efforts, suggesting a complex diplomatic maneuver amidst the conflict.

[00:30:21]This NBC News report is emphasizing that Trump was the one who mediated this.

[00:30:27]This was approved, so it practically wouldn't affect the serious negotiations Trump is conducting with Tehran. Mr. Ruby's remarks are once again referring to the fact that America is ready to have a serious discussion alongside Israel and Lebanon regarding a serious agreement to preserve Lebanon's territorial integrity. And the next point I can talk about is Mr. J.D.

[00:30:50]Vance's remarks.

[00:30:53]After these extensive Israeli attacks, Vance once again directed the spearhead of criticism towards Israel and emphasized that Israel owes a large part of its military capabilities to America and must abide by what Americans decide.

[00:31:09]I should point out something. In Mr. Netanyahu's government and also in political parties, especially on the right, and even within the Likud party itself, it seems there are serious pressures on Mr. Netanyahu. Many, especially in these days leading up to an election, under the premise that Netanyahu's decisions have practically been based on Trump's wishes.

[00:31:35]has actually endured this increasing pressure. And now, according to some media reports, it seems that it was under this pressure that Mr. Netanyahu independently and directly took responsibility for this operation and tried to show that such decisions are actually not a function of Mr. Trump's opinion. And let me also make a final reference to the remarks of Ben Gvir, Israel's national security minister, who, with a very hardline view, has been completely critical of the issue of attacks on Israeli soldiers and has emphasized saying that in Lebanon, for every Israeli soldier killed, actually several times that number of people should be killed. He has been completely critical of any kind of peace. And Ben Gvir also emphasizes that any decision-making on any issue internally in Israel must be done exactly within Israel itself. Now, we have to see what will happen in this situation where, on one hand, there's an agreement, a memorandum of understanding that's being conducted between Israel, between America, and Iran, and the un-sayable peace situation exactly until the 23rd when the meeting is here.

[00:32:48]>> Thanks. My Washington colleague, Ardavan Roozbeh, was with us.

[00:32:53]Manashe Amir, a Middle East affairs expert, has also joined us from Jerusalem. Mr. Amir, it seems that this Hezbollah situation is turning into a very big crisis for Israel, not necessarily because of the attacks Hezbollah is carrying out from southern Lebanon, which of course are also important, but because of the increasing pressures we're seeing from Washington against Israel. How unprecedented is this? And how much do you think Israel can tolerate, overlook, and disregard the pressures from the Trump administration?

[00:33:25]>> Mr. Netanyahu's government is facing intense pressure from two distinct fronts internationally. A ceasefire, the fifth of its kind, is again being implemented. This repeated cessation has been initiated not just at a request, but arguably under the direct order of Mr. Trump, underscoring significant external influence on regional stability. Domestically, a crucial debate unfolds within Israel.

[00:33:49]Discussions revolve around the strategic imperative of maintaining its security presence in Lebanon, questioning if current military operations are truly effective in permanently neutralizing the Hezbollah threat, and if specific targets struck are weakening the group as intended. This internal strategic re-evaluation has been critically impacted and intensified by yesterday's profoundly shocking events, which have undoubtedly rattled Israel. Four more Israeli soldiers have tragically died in the recent fighting. While the precise overall count is unconfirmed, at least 18 Israelis, including both military personnel and civilians, have now lost their lives during the five separate ceasefire periods. In Israel, this mounting toll is prompting some opposition parties to demand a lasting political solution.

[00:34:42]On the other hand, the pressures Mr. Trump is exerting have caused very severe dissatisfaction in Israel. What's profoundly dangerous in terms of Mr. Trump's behavior towards the Iranian government is that he had explicitly stated one of our goals is to cut off the Iranian regime's ties with its regional proxies. Yet, Mr. Trump has, at least twice in recent weeks, publicly confirmed and overtly recognized this critical connection and relationship between the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Furthermore, he has pressured Israel, at the request and threat of the Iranian government, to agree to a ceasefire, which deeply undermines Israel's security interests.

[00:35:26]None of the Israeli government officials have confirmed in recent hours that a definitive ceasefire agreement has been established between the warring parties.

[00:35:37]However, it has been stated, quoting an unnamed official, that Israel and Hezbollah are expected to cease all hostile military operations and aggressions against each other immediately.

[00:35:51]>> Mr. Amir, you referred to Mr. Trump's statements, but Mr. Vance has gone even much further than his boss, Mr. Trump, in two or three interviews and press conferences he's had these days. He's made statements that are really unprecedented. You have much more experience. I don't think since the Suez Canal crisis an official of this caliber has made such remarks about Israel.

[00:36:12]He talks about how some Israeli officials, diplomatically speaking, I don't know if Netanyahu is also pursuing it or not, were trying to Libya-fy Iran, where he talks about how Israel currently has no other friend in the world except America and must play its cards right. Do you recall any time tensions reach this level right after a war where coincidentally they fought shoulder to shoulder against the Islamic Republic, and then the Vice President of the United States comes and makes such statements?

[00:36:42]>> Yes, of course I remember it very well.

[00:36:45]In fact, an official even more senior than Mr. J.D. Vance has made strikingly similar remarks asserting a clear hierarchy. That individual is Mr. Donald Trump, who explicitly stated, "You are a small country. We are a large and superpower country. You must obey our demands." This declaration of power established the precedent. Right now, a very unpleasant and challenging situation has undoubtedly arisen for Mr. Netanyahu. Upcoming prime ministerial cabinet and parliamentary elections in Israel are slated for about 3 or 4 months. The exact date is still pending.

[00:37:20]Mr. Netanyahu has consistently prided himself on his remarkably close friendship with Mr. Trump, frequently emphasizing their strong harmony and cooperation. Currently, however, a concerning sentiment is prevalent in Israel. Many believe Mr. Trump and Mr. J.D. Vance perceive Israel as a mere dependent or proxy, expected to unquestionably obey their directives.

[00:37:51]History consistently demonstrates that when Israel's security is genuinely threatened, it will act independently. A clear example was the 12-day conflict where Israel engaged alone after securing brilliant victories through its strategic actions. Former President Trump notably recognized this as a compelling opportunity within the evolving regional dynamics.

[00:38:18]The pursuit of quick and valuable victories drove participation in this war with an initial focus perhaps on sites like Natanz and Fordow. However, the pivotal moment arrived when Israelis severely bombed Isfahan, a critical location, thereby greatly weakening the Iranian government's nuclear capability.

[00:38:42]>> Thank you, Menashe Amir, Middle East affairs expert from Jerusalem.

[00:38:48]Simultaneously with the announcement by the newly established Persian Gulf waterway management body regarding the necessity for ships to submit requests to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and that no fees will be collected from foreign ships during a 60-day period, a media outlet affiliated with the IRGC has called for the closure of this strait. Tasnim News Agency, referring to Israel's continued attacks on southern Lebanon, wrote that every minute the Strait of Hormuz is open is a significant loss, and if America relieves energy pressure from itself, it will become more aggressive.

[00:39:18]Bijan Kian, National Security expert from London, has joined us. Mr. Kian, this isn't the stance many imagined the Islamic Republic would have against Washington a few months after the war started, where it wouldn't even be willing to sign an understanding with them and would say, "No, we must continue to close the Strait of Hormuz."

[00:39:37]Do you think the Islamic Republic has become bolder after the war now?

[00:39:43]>> Fardad, greetings to you and our very respected viewers and listeners. It's necessary to remind everyone that I have never ever claimed that the people of Iran have put their hopes in Mr. Trump.

[00:39:54]Although some had indeed pinned this particular hope on what Mr. Trump might potentially do to serve the objective of regime change. I have never held such an opinion. I have always reiterated that all countries universally prioritize their own national interests and their people's welfare, and they naturally pursue what they deem beneficial for themselves, not necessarily what people of Iran truly want. If there is anyone truly caring about the people of Iran, whose absolute priority is their welfare, it is Prince Reza Pahlavi, the leader of Iran's popular and democratic Lion and Sun uprising for freedom. Thus, we had no expectations. But Farnood, let me state this. We are witnessing two scenarios. Either we are experiencing a sophisticated psychological war that has entered very complex and intricate stages. A scenario whose probability is exceedingly high. Why? Because logic fundamentally doesn't align with what we're seeing. Indeed, these current conditions absolutely defy any rational understanding.

[00:40:56]Alternatively, and this is quite improbable, Farnood, we must accept that Mr. Trump is both crazy and ignorant. We could attribute both these traits to him, but only if we are entirely removed from what seems to be a psychological war. However, the probability of such a scenario, where Mr. Trump is simultaneously both crazy and profoundly ignorant, is extremely low, almost negligible. Logic, fortunately, serves to prevent us from becoming unsuspecting victims of this psychological campaign.

[00:41:24]Additionally, the agreement in question is merely a memorandum of understanding, a less formal declaration, and not a truly binding international contract in its genuine sense. This is something in the same press release that some might reasonably liken to the JCPOA, or that joint comprehensive plan of action. And I think they wouldn't be entirely wrong to draw such a comparison. However, upon a careful reading, this document is designated as a memorandum of understanding, or as one of my friends rather pointedly dubbed a misunderstanding memorandum that the two sides have apparently signed. But it is crucial to read it well and diligently observe its various clauses and their potential implications. This is an arrangement, as one of my respected friends analyzed. He says that if you jump from the 50th floor of a building without a parachute, when you reach the bottom, I'll be there. I might, for example, give you $10. Now, forget about $300 I think it must be a joke. Just that you see tomorrow. That's the issue. The problem is if this psychological warfare is ongoing, we're just doing exactly what the mastermind behind this psychological warfare wants us to do.

[00:42:37]To pit us against each other, you know, one silver the Persian Gulf, one silver a football match, one silver everyone.

[00:42:44]Everyone is trying to make sure no voice is heard, but it has been heard. The reason these reactions have increased, that's exactly why. A very respected, very high-level expert, someone who really knows what he's talking about, was reminding me. He was saying, "Look, you don't get it. You're measuring with Western standards. You think if there's conflict inside Iran, like, you know, like you guys, this conflict is negative for them."

[00:43:09]This conflict is a positive thing. One person is lenient, one person is strict.

[00:43:14]They do this so much just to buy more time. So, we're witnessing such a complexity at this time, tomorrow.

[00:43:24]>> Thank you. Bijan Keyon, national security expert is with us from London.

[00:43:29]And thank you for watching this special coverage of program 24 from Berkenstock here in Switzerland. Another segment of program 24 will be broadcast [music] in about 15 minutes at 11:00 p.m. Tehran time. You can, you know, watch this segment again a bit later on Iran International's YouTube channel.