Tahawol: Reason for postponing US attack on Iran | تحول: دلیل تعویق حمله امریکا بر ایران

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:13]In the name of God, with greetings and good time, welcome to the Transformation Program. I am a writer.

[00:00:19]US President Donald Trump announced that he has postponed the planned US attack on Iran at the request of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. He added that serious negotiations are now underway. However, Iranian President Masoud Pezzekian has also said that dialogue does not mean surrender, and Tehran has entered into dialogue with dignity, authority, and protection of the rights of the people of this country. In this program, I will talk about this very topic with our distinguished guests, Mr. Mohammad Faeq Hisham, Professor Panton, and also Mr. Shams Mobasher, a researcher in international relations, who are here with us in the studio.

[00:00:58]I welcome the distinguished guests. Thank you for the opportunity. We will begin the dinner with you. How do you assess the main reason for postponing the US attack on Iran? Is it really true what America says, that it postponed this at the request of the leaders of these Arab Gulf countries, or does it have other reasons?

[00:01:19]In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, and with the help of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon you, Mr. Mutar Sahib, and also your television audience, peace be upon you. You see, America, in light of the 12-day war and the 40- day war that began in Ramadan, Iran's firepower, Iran's response power, and also Iran's regional allies, has seen the path under the name of the axis of resistance and the actions that Iran has taken and has taken during this period, including strict and severe restrictions on the movement of commercial and transit people in the Strait of Hormuz. The Americans have issued warnings, hedges, and other such declarations through announcement channels. However, from the field point of view, the Americans, in any way, see themselves getting caught up in another war that is in the interests of the Americans and increasingly in the interests of the terrorist enemy Israel. The Americans want to enter.

[00:02:40]Public opinion in the United States is such that few factions, institutions, and personalities can be found that align with this war and see their own benefit in it, and most of its fellow Zionists are Anglophones, such as the very vocal Senators Lancey. Graham Graham and Ted Cruz, but the rest of the public opinion in America and also in Europe, at the level of America's allies, cannot stand the start of another war against Iran, which has no benefits.

[00:03:21]On the other hand, Iran has the potential and capacity that could devastate the global economy. So, this position that the US has adopted at the moment is not a one-off tactical pressure, but rather, it is really based on the game of field assessments that have taken place. The costs of the war with Iran in the past, and finally the assessment of the future, and then another war, when examined, force the US to do this. This is what Trump, who is described as capricious, and Trump, who is a self-interested and profit-seeking person and a businessman who ultimately cares about nothing but profit, money, trade, and deals, forces this same Trump to retreat. These are the facts that put these things in their place.

[00:04:15]You see, Trump has a pattern in the discussion of lies and lying, the pattern being the same criminal gang leader or Netanyahu.

[00:04:29]Netanyahu lies to himself, to the Zionist community, and to his extremist cabinet. Trump also copies these lies.

[00:04:37]Trump's copying and continuing to use these lies to keep the stock price stable is more desirable than whether he wants to hurt himself and his own personality or oppress his own personality.

[00:04:54]They have to lie so that stocks remain stable, American stocks in the global market, and so on. The other way they see it is all closed. If we leave aside the issue of the naval blockade of Iran, the US cannot do anything here. At the moment, the enemy and terrorist Israel, which is engaged in the war against the Islamic resistance in Lebanon, is trying to expand the area of ​​the war and drag other powers into it. For example, the large arms contracts you see with England, you see with Germany, and some other European countries.

[00:05:39]Of course, Finland is also among them. This is an attempt to fill the insulted weapons warehouses of the terrorist regime of Israel and to drag these powers into the war with Iran in order to remove Iran as an obstacle and as a shield for achieving the goals of the tourist enemy of Israel in the Iranian region. Yes, thank you, Mubasar. The Middle East crisis, especially the war that took place between Iran and America, which finally ended in a stalemate and negotiations and mediations did not yield results. Finally, today, as we see the entire Middle East on the brink of a possible war, from what perspective and from what angle do you view this crisis and this war, and what do you think America has achieved with this attack and what position does this crisis occupy today? In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I greet you, Mr. Adib. To you, Mr. Sham, and to your esteemed viewers. If we look at the developments in the Middle East, especially the ongoing war of war and peace between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, from the perspective of the approach and theories of constructivism or structuralism in international relations, we come to a conclusion by examining the beliefs of some elites in the field of war and peace. In some cases, it is difficult to get us to the truth of the issue in the Middle East.

[00:07:11]Or in some cases, the approaches are based on the approach of realism and Jacksonism, which can be closer to what currently exists in the Middle East. In essence, the Middle East is a region in the world that has been constantly undergoing various developments and wars. Yes, the Middle East is logical. Whenever the United States of America and any other country enters a war, it is difficult to know how long it will take to withdraw from this war in the Middle East, as in the attacks that have taken place on Venezuela and some other countries. So I think that the Middle East and the psychological war that exists between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which dates back to about 47 years ago when there was tension between Iran and the West and has now reached a stage of war that cannot be resolved through negotiations and such negotiations, because the fundamental difficulty that exists between the United States of America and Iran is the issue of uranium enrichment.

[00:08:22]Yes, and the demands that were sent to Iran by the United States on Sunday through the mediation of Pakistan are one of the fundamental issues of the uranium enrichment issue, which Iran has emphasized that it will not back down from and will stand by its right and fight for its right, but the United States on the other hand says that there must be a complement of a nuclear-free Iran.

[00:08:47]Therefore, these tensions will not be resolved in one negotiation, in one war, or in several wars. It is likely that, given the stalemate that exists, this issue will be prolonged, and the retreat that the Americans, especially Trump, have adopted at this time, I think is not a military tactic, but a failure. It is a strategy because Americans, given the background that Trump himself presents, believe that we are a great power on the world stage. We can do anything globally. When he launched attacks on other countries, he expected Iran to defeat him quickly.

[00:09:27]But on the battlefield, we saw that what the Americans wanted was initially a contradictory approach. This means that the Americans did not prioritize their goals, what they wanted in a conflict with America. Do they want an Iran that was free of nuclear capabilities? If there is such a claim, we saw that during the 12-day attacks, Mr. Trump said that there is no more nuclear capability left in Iran. Yes, the enriched uranium has been destroyed or buried. There is nothing left. So he is returning to the negotiating table and focusing on the issue of Iran's enrichment. This means that we see that it is a war that lacks a strategic plan and is more in favor of other countries, especially the lobbying that it is doing in Israel and is trying to create a fundamental change in the Middle East, a new map in the Middle East. It is more focused on the interests of Israel than on the interests of the United States.

[00:10:24]This is why we observed that not only in the United States but in many countries, the pressure of public opinion and public opinion was greater for the United States, especially Trump, that this war that has no purpose must be ended and not escalated any further.

[00:10:44]Yes, well, in addition to these, the same approach that the United States has in the attacks that it carries out. If we consider Venezuela or Iran or neighboring countries, how much does this approach and so on The action that America is taking is in violation of the principles of international relations and international law.

[00:11:05]Look, when we live in an international order or when political units interact as actors in the international order. All actors are subject to the principles and order that exist in international relations, and if governments defy this order, they will be in a state of anarchy. In other words, the same structure that exists at the level of international relations, some thinkers and researchers of international relations believe that it is more energetic.

[00:11:38]Yes, it is in flux. You can see that efforts are being made to prevent the problem. One of the pillars is that first, there is a principle that when we want to engage in an activism and activism at the table or in the international environment, first, there is a principle that must be respected as the principle of national sovereignty of states. It is a fundamental and fundamental principle in international relations that no state should violate. If it violates it, we will face an order with disorder that no state can have relations with, have economic interaction with, have political and military relations with. So now this disorder has begun. Sovereignty has been broken. Who initiated this disorder and the resulting situation? You can see that I think the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to transform the contemporary international order, but the United States of America is violating this issue. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a supporter of the existing order, but it is not a disruptor of that order either. It is the Americans who are most likely to try to disrupt this order. All sovereignty and sovereignty of governments should be violated. When the sovereignty of governments is violated, we are headed towards anarchy. It is a discussion that what you mentioned in terms of international law, international order, and international relations, we see Americans really in a global mismanagement approach that this issue is more than damaging other governments, as Mr. Khalibaf said that the world today is the South Pole.

[00:13:17]This means that Americans are grateful for the situation in which the power of the superpower it has is decreasing, its authority and position are disappearing, and other powers are at work. I will continue this discussion after the program. Please join us.

[00:13:44]Welcome to the discussion again. Hisham Sahib, there are many reasons why another war was not imposed on Iran and another attack was postponed, and there are other reasons that you mentioned to him. But what reason could there be to attribute this action or this decision to the leaders of Arab countries?

[00:14:10]You see, since the Palestinian resistance was formed, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and some other countries have considered the Palestinian resistance to be a resistance of the Brotherhood, and they are not compatible with the thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they also consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a threat to their sovereignty.

[00:14:37]In view of the fact that the position of the Palestinian resistance has been supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran, in some cases and more cooperation has been provided, they have withdrawn their support for this honorable and courageous resistance.

[00:14:55]In view of the developments in which the enemy burned down the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the numerous crimes that the enemy committed in the Ghali lands, the Arab countries have continued to fall into the lap of America, in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and in Gaza, with the intensification of the Cold War, the Arab countries have become even closer to America. This rapprochement was not a rapprochement that would simply put the Arab countries on the same level as the American enemy, but rather, as a condemned ruler or a dictator, their relations continued in this manner. And all the systems in these Arab countries became American and Western, and the war that the Islamic Republic of Iran had with America or the response it gave to America, the movements that took place, the shootings that took place, and the violent actions that were taken by America, even by the terrorist regime of Israel, were a lesson to the Arab countries. Arab countries put their water, their soil, and even their sky at the service of this enemy. And the greatest response, the most fire that was poured on Arab countries, was the Emirates, which even deployed the Iron Dome system of the enemy, Israel, the tourist, here. The enemy, and many of the centers that were targeted there were centers where MOSS intelligence officers or this criminal gang were there, as well as American officers and finally CIA officers.

[00:16:46]Now that Trump is mentioning these names, what is the reason for this? This is because when these were attacked, public opinion within Arab countries was shaped in such a way that what does being with America mean or what does being allied with America mean in their view? An American who cannot defend himself, yes, an American who is solely and solely engaged in defending you from the terrorist enemy Israel, how can we continue this alliance that we have defined? That is, our thoughts were formed in such a way that instead of America, China would replace America. If Russia is weak, China would replace America. Well, as you can see, agreements are being made between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it is in this direction that a kind of defense should be made from this side. Now, these weapons that were from Arab countries have been destroyed in this war, and the Americans also support the sides in a war where America's interests are, for example, hit there. The Americans support the sides, but where their interests are hit here, they do not support them. For example, the bombing of the headquarters of our Mujahideen brothers in the Islamic resistance movement Hamas in Doha took place. The Americans did not allow the Arab countries to respond. This is where this agreement to sell $86 billion in weapons to the terrorist regime of Israel and the Arab countries stems from the Americans once again ensnaring the Arab countries in their embrace. They should keep it to themselves and use it as their capital, plunder its resources for cheap money and for insignificant support, and have their sky, their soil, and their water at their service. This means that a kind of concern has finally been created for America that these countries can buy some weapons from America.

[00:18:58]Yes, some measures that the Saudis took before these wars to buy some weapons from China, especially air defense weapons, had added to the Americans' concerns. That is, every Arab country cannot be like Turkey, which can buy weapons from Russia and supply some of its weapons needs from NATO and also produce them itself. Well, the Arabs, who lack the idea of ​​producing weapons, and what should we discuss with this production of weapons?

[00:19:33]So Trump comes. First of all, it is an arms sales contract.

[00:19:40]After he listens to this, he tells the Iranians and regional players that we are standing next to you, and we are doing this at your behest, while it is also clear that this ruler who is sitting in the Emirates is a Zionist. Benjamin Netanyahu is the head of a criminal gang, as are other rulers, except for Qatar, which in some cases has supported Islamic movements in some fields. Thank you, sir.

[00:20:19]How prominent and prominent is the role of the Arab countries in the decisions that the United States is going to make? Is it really possible that the United States relies on the words or requests of the leaders of the Arab Gulf countries? And can the concern that was mentioned earlier be the reason that the United States will finally accept these countries and the demands of the Arab countries? Or do you think that the same old series still exists? The United States still has a monopoly on these countries, and these countries have not yet reached a position where they can be their masters against the United States?

[00:20:53]Well, if we examine the parameters of the United States and Mr. Trump's withdrawal from this decision to attack, we come to two factors.

[00:21:05]First, as I mentioned, the issue of violating the sovereignty and sovereignty of the Gulf States and the Persian Gulf countries was continuous in the attacks that the United States carried out.

[00:21:20]Iran, because the base of attacks and bases of attacks are Arab countries, is the Arab countries that have given their territory to the United States to attack Iran. Any attacks that Iran carried out were based on self- defense and legitimate defense. Which he himself defined and justified as one reason that the Arab leaders wanted to be attracted to the attack and then Trump did not attack. This issue was justified. The second discussion is more about diplomacy as a tool in international relations and Mr. Trump himself saw how much the cost of war is and what risks and threats it has faced the United States. The past wars it has had with Iran and still all the potentials and capabilities that they had assessed in Iran based on defeat or surrender have not yet yielded results. Therefore, the first argument is that Arab leaders are trying to attract Iranian attacks by putting pressure on Trump and discussing diplomatic tools. But I believe that the current attention is the same. But I believe that Arab leaders do not have the position of active decision-makers in the war and peace in the Middle East, and especially in the war between Iran and the United States.

[00:22:46]They are passive, and what the Americans justify to them and what the Americans dictate to them, they constantly follow American views, but they themselves are not the decision-makers in the war.

[00:22:58]And this decision that the Americans think is good. If the interests of the United States of America require that it attack the Islamic Republic of Iran tomorrow, it will attack tomorrow. And if Mohammed bin Salman, if Nahyan, if he asks Qatar's leaders and emirs to stop the problem, they will never be able to prevent the American attack on Iran. And the decision-makers are only the negotiators of Iran, the United States itself, the US cabinet, and those in the US emergency room. They are, but the Arab leaders are more justifying and more subordinate to American policies and policies, and this issue that has taken place is based on the contradictions of America and especially his own approaches that Trump has, because you know that since he started the war with Iran, he has broken the truce he had set with Iran six times. He once announced that he would attack tomorrow and the day after that he announced that he would not attack, attack, attack, and not attack, and on the other hand, and each time with an excuse, and this time the excuse of the Arab leaders, yes, the excuse of the Arab leaders. Therefore, the Arab leaders are mostly presented as an excuse, not as a factor and the main parameter of the decision-maker.

[00:24:14]But if we look at it, after him, Mr. Trump himself said several times after attacking Iran's nuclear centers and nuclear sites that there is no longer any nuclear capability left in Iran.

[00:24:25]We destroyed all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and facilities.

[00:24:31]Now that you have eliminated it, what is the point of negotiating to make Iran great, and what basis is there?

[00:24:37]We see that Mr. Trump himself is putting forward paradoxical and contradictory positions and positions that have no excuses and no priorities in a war that has no purpose, no priorities and no interests, and is mostly for the benefit of the Zionists. He is expanding the war that the Zionists started in Gaza to Lebanon and wants to bring about the same change in the geopolitical reality that Israel and the Zionists want in the Middle East. The Zionists themselves believe that the leaders of Iran must be killed so that the Middle East can be completely safe. However, the issue of uranium enrichment is also one of the key and challenging issues that still exists in the negotiations and is still a point of challenge.

[00:25:26]We will discuss this issue. A pause to continue the discussion. Welcome back, Hisham Sahib.

[00:25:42]Really, this is the same paradox that exists at the same time, both diplomacy and negotiation, and the pressure of war and the threat of continuing pressure, and still, well, Trump is talking about contradictions in another city. There is no doubt about it, but regarding uranium enrichment. Or Iran's pistachio assets, which were once said to have reached a conclusion and achieved the goal, nothing else is left in Iran, but now the new thing is that Iran must be free of nuclear assets and enriched uranium.

[00:26:20]How can this paradox be justified?

[00:26:25]Just as we mentioned before, Trump is forced to lie to his own society in order to justify the costs he incurred in the war.

[00:26:36]And the Americans, who published this news, especially their newspapers and media, understood that Trump was lying to them. And the Iranians, who saw it, well, for the Iranians, except in some cases when Al Jazeera published this news, do not have much power in terms of the media compared to the power of the Western media.

[00:27:08]And so it was that Trump, with his same economic outlook, with his same economic thinking or his same gambling thinking, started this war against Iran, and it was seen again that the claim he made before no longer exists here. It is said that enrichment did not take place, and the sites of existence were dismantled. And Iran's missile production capacity has been destroyed, enriched, and handed over to another country, especially Russia.

[00:27:46]These issues, but the Americans, considering this war and the response they received, especially the occupied territories that were destroyed very, very, very different from the past, especially different from the wars of 1973, and these are the terrorist enemies of Israel and also Trump, came and raised the issue that Iran, which can destroy Israel with this non-nuclear missile, especially this Yafar Ra or Talabi that the enemy has named him, if it becomes a nuclear power, what will it do?

[00:28:34]Considering that the compass of some of the free people of the world is currently Iran, they joined hands in this way so that they could defeat Iran. Considering him, the lies that Netanyahu had woven and in his meeting with Trump convinced him that we can apply heavy pressure in the first hours, the system will collapse, and here many Iranian people are against the system, these people are coming to the streets. And only the initial pressure is by us, the secondary pressure is brought by the people themselves. All this was considered a mistake or miscalculation, or a miscalculation, or something like that.

[00:29:27]While Trump was previously convinced that we could proceed in this way, as this criminal gang leader says, but when they started the war, there were threats and warnings, bombings, and reciprocal responses. And this is how they proceeded from the time the fire did not reach the result, to the time they did not reach the result they wanted.

[00:29:53]Now, in the present, then what is the point of insisting on war and insisting on something that was once said to have been destroyed and now they say that Iran should be free of nuclear weapons?

[00:30:03]Look, the Americans, who have a strong reputation in the world as a superior orator against the Soviet Union, acted and after the fall of the Soviet Union, they remained as the only orator in the world for now, who did not achieve their goals in this war and also failed.

[00:30:25]Therefore, through this strong political reputation, they want to achieve something at the negotiating table.

[00:30:35]Not being able to win on the battlefield means that this is what the Americans are looking for. They use various tricks.

[00:30:47]If you see these decision-makers in the United States, if we say that all of this is for your service, that they are worse than Satan, it would not be an injustice to them. They know, they know, they can't achieve anything in the field. Through the negotiation table, the media tribune, and the tweets he is posting, he wants to put pressure on the Iranians.

[00:31:14]Iran, under whose watch dozens of regimes in the Middle East have fallen, even in Afghanistan itself, knows what the secret of its success is, and the arrangements that the Iranians have made in the Strait of Hormuz and the arrangements that they have on other axes inside Iran and on the axes of resistance, the Americans are not unaware of this either. This is the reason why they cannot start the war again, considering that the enemy is trying in every way to capture the Iranians and absorb them and eliminate this obstacle in the Middle East.

[00:31:49]However, this obstacle still exists.

[00:31:51]This obstacle still exists and is doing its best against this.

[00:31:55]Thank you, Mafia.

[00:31:59]Is Iran's enriched uranium an excuse or a goal?

[00:32:05]Well, look, the enriched uranium that exists in Iran is far from achieving a nuclear weapon, and Iran's position on this issue has been very clear and unambiguous since 1979, but it was more of a convenient excuse for the Americans than a strategic goal that they were focused on.

[00:32:30]And that is why If this was a goal, the plans are in order so that he can achieve all the strategic goals he has, but it is seen that the war is more of a war that was not fought on the battlefield and that the United States of America has officially lost and the ability of the power to suppress the Iranian leader.

[00:32:52]Iran has defeated the United States with the deterrent power that it has.

[00:32:57]Now it shows that the Americans are more of a search for an excuse, and the excuses are such that they are taking the hot war towards the cold war, taking the power towards the straight side, and they are trying more to bypass the media and tweets and opinions that are unique to Mr. Trump himself and are not credible with his politicians in Congress, in Congress, in the cabinet, in public opinion, the opinions are not credible and do not trust Trump's views.

[00:33:33]Currently, he has turned more to the media war and the social media war, and in my opinion, the discussion of enrichment that is currently taking place, enrichment, for various reasons, Iran will not back down from this discussion and will not step aside. It came because, considering the war that has taken place, even if Iran has not suffered devastating blows, Iran's allies in the Middle East have faced blows that could possibly change the equation of the Middle East peace war in the future and make it more focused on Iran's benefit. This is because the issue of enrichment remains as one of the prominent military, political and diplomatic tools for Iran, and Iran will not let go of this issue anytime soon, and it is an excuse for the United States. It is an excuse for the United States because yes, but now the United States has turned to a media war and wants to somehow pressure Iran, because what was said on the battlefield, they were unable to achieve their goals. Now, how successful can these other propaganda and media fields be for the United States against Iran? Well, as the media and public opinion in America have mobilized against Trump's policies, it is inevitable that Mr. Trump himself will resort to these policies again and will have to justify public opinion again using the tools of public opinion. This is because he is resorting to this issue and it has a domestic use for American society itself. In terms of morality, Trump, America, and Western countries have fallen.

[00:35:09]When we discuss the monopower and superpower status of governments, I do not believe that we are still facing a superpower and monopower status because the existing system is a multi-party system.

[00:35:26]Yes, therefore, these ideas can have more domestic use, that is, they can have domestic use.

[00:35:32]In this era and time, there is an attempt to justify Mr. Trump's ideas in the upcoming elections as a justification for the Republicans, and we will once again restore the lost prestige of the Republicans in the upcoming elections and in future assemblies.

[00:35:49]The issue of the Afghans' doughy nose is exactly this issue.

[00:35:53]I am grateful to continue this discussion after the short program.

[00:36:09]Welcome to the discussion again, Hisham Sahib. We want to summarize the discussion and talk about the prospects for peace and the future of negotiations or a possible war. What do you imagine?

[00:36:22]If the Americans can bring Europe or their currently shaky allies in NATO with them and arrange some mechanisms, there is a possibility of launching a new war against Iran.

[00:36:40]Considering the oil shock that the world has seen and the severe economic pressure that is currently weighing on the shoulders of the world, the continuation of the current situation is also one of the possible scenarios.

[00:36:57]In addition, a very controlled war that is neither war nor peace, meaning that they do not actually enter into war or reach peace, is also possible.

[00:37:13]Considering that securitization is taking place in some Arab countries because America's anger has been aroused against Iran, which Israel considers its enemy, Israel has more experience in this matter, and some targets in the Persian Gulf countries are being targeted by Qahbadi and these things to securitize a situation, and here, public opinion is also shaped in Arab countries in such a way that another war with Iran is possible. He promised to rid the Middle East of Iran, yes, but considering the existence of Benjamin Netanyahu and his plans, if it is said that Netanyahu dragged the United States into this war and used it in a way, now Netanyahu could be a challenge. So, considering this issue, which of the possibilities you mentioned could be more prominent?

[00:38:13]In addition to the three scenarios that we presented to you earlier, there is another scenario that Netanyahu, due to his madness, launches attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran once again.

[00:38:26]And here, if an attack is launched by this enemy, Israel, and the Americans see that Netanyahu cannot or this criminal gang cannot handle this war, the Americans will be forced to continue to join them, as we witnessed in the 12-day war.

[00:38:44]This is another possible scenario. However, what I see is that this situation of neither war nor year, that is, in the limbo of war and year, this situation may continue, and the Iranians are also in terms of Negotiations are a powerful actor in terms of diplomacy. They are strong people. They are a powerful actor. They have the ability to infiltrate under the nose of the terrorist enemy Israel and ask their allies to challenge the enemy. You see today that despite the ceasefire in place on the Lebanese front, the fire is generally still there, but the enemy is Israel, which considers this Lebanese front to be an exception. Given the firepower of Hezbollah, which uses various and varied tactics against the terrorist enemy Israel, there is a possibility that this war will continue at this level. It is neither war nor peace. However, in any case, the enemy on the Lebanese front is very vulnerable and will be helpless against any tactic it uses against the tactics of Hezbollah. There is also the issue of food, and there are rumors that the enemy will launch a war against Hamas under the pretext that Hamas will not surrender its sovereignty.

[00:40:06]Now, an orange line has been formed there, occupying 65 percent of Gaza and has deployed five mercenary gangs in five provinces. In this way, this securitization of the situation by the enemy, the Israelis, will continue.

[00:40:25]However, whoever uses political rationality and strategic wisdom in their decisions does not think about the Americans. It also has international implications.

[00:40:37]Considering the pressures that the Strait of Hormuz has on all countries, it has these implications. Unfortunately, the world does not have a movement against the United States.

[00:40:49]You see that India is very wary of this region, and the Americans themselves are very wary of this region. And if the Americans do not persuade American public opinion to pull Trump back from this foolish position, the world will conclude that there is a hidden government inside the United States that does not allow for its goals. Sharing with the terrorist enemy Israel sacrifices American interests.

[00:41:19]Thank you, observer.

[00:41:23]How do you evaluate the scenario after the negotiations or the failure of the negotiations? The scenario after failed negotiations, as the Americans themselves said, and that they should have stopped when the attack was postponed, not stopped, and said that if the negotiations do not come to fruition, we are ready to fire and start a war with Iran.

[00:41:45]The discussion of war with Iran or by Israel, by the United States of America, especially under the leadership of Mr. Trump, is an inevitable phenomenon.

[00:41:55]If the United States of America does not fight today, if it does not fight tomorrow, the conflict between Iran and the United States of America is an inevitable phenomenon, and it seems unlikely that they will reach a conclusion because the difference in demands between the United States of America and Iran is very large, and there is still a possibility that this conflict will exist and start again because the Iranians themselves say that we want a guarantee of non-attack from the Americans, which is one of the demands of the negotiations, yes, but the United States wants Iran to be free of nuclear capability. Nuclear capability that Iran will never back down. I mean by the nuclear discussion, not nuclear capability itself, there is a discussion of other uses of nuclear energy, and it has been mentioned that the United States is in favor of this issue. Considering this The differences in demands and the stalemate that currently exists in the negotiations make the discussion of war an inevitable phenomenon, but if the Americans look at the rationality of their interests and their strategy in the Middle East, it would be more in their interest to move towards negotiations and reach a conclusion through negotiations, which is what most Arab countries see as the main loss in this confrontation.

[00:43:14]Arab countries have always been victims and not decision-makers, and whenever America starts a war, Iran immediately targets these bases, and it is mostly to their detriment. Yes, the war that exists, look, first of all, it does not have only a military dimension. It is a war that Iran or the Americans started. The economic phenomenon and the stock market in the United States have faced a severe decline.

[00:43:38]Currently, the economic discussion and tourism and touring in the Middle East and in Arab countries, especially in the United States, are facing a decline that is unprecedented in history. In Abu Dhabi, in Qatar, in this way, and in Saudi Arabia, in the same way. We see that this is a war that has economic, political, and diplomatic consequences, not only on the gross domestic product of the United States, but also on countries like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

[00:44:13]On the other hand, when Mr. Trump traveled to China and now that we are discussing and negotiating, the negotiation between Putin and Mr. Xi Jinping is likely to take place within the next hour. You see, we do not see these negotiations as separate from today's developments in the US-Iran peace war. Certainly, this issue is influential in the meeting that Mr. Putin is having with Xi Jinping and Mr. Trump, and there must have been discussions there, and I think that one of the factors that prevented the Americans from attacking the Arab leaders was China, not the Arab leaders. Because he has been negotiating and talking with Putin more, he will definitely make the demands lighter.

[00:44:57]Yes, that's what I wanted to ask. Without a doubt, the effects that this Middle East crisis or the war between Iran and the United States has are not limited to the United States and Iran or a few countries, but can affect the entire world. This is where the question arises: when this impasse continues and the negotiations do not reach a conclusion, the demands are too far apart, and in the end, these do not reach a conclusion. Will the world remain silent? How much do you think the other powers that you mentioned, China, Russia, and other countries, can intervene here and ultimately play a role in shortening these negotiations, or at least closing the existing dividing line?

[00:45:40]You have pointed out an interesting point, Adib Sahib. It is a discussion that the world is suffering economically, diplomatically, and militarily from the war that is currently taking place.

[00:45:51]The world should not have been indifferent to this issue.

[00:45:54]Even Europe should not have been indifferent to this issue. However, the attention of the Europeans and NATO to this issue is definitely not through military means and should not have been because the Americans have experienced through military means that whenever we advance through military means and NATO and the Europeans also advance through military means, they ultimately do not reach a conclusion and it further aggravates the situation. You are currently looking at a war that is having very serious economic, political, and military consequences in the world. If NATO and the Europeans were to intervene militarily, the crisis would certainly go beyond the Middle East and would affect other countries. So, regarding the issue that you mentioned that the world should not have been indifferent, we have some consensus at the international level on how it should not have been indifferent.

[00:46:46]If China gets involved in the issue, you will definitely see in every step and initiative of China that it is pursuing its own national interests. If Russia gets involved in the issue, the issue of Ukraine will be raised. It will immediately see its own interests in this war and will act in line with its own interests and play a role. However, one approach that could have been collective, institutional, or individual is that based on the UN Charter, and especially on Chapters Six and Seven of the UN Security Council Charter, these collective actions must be taken in such a way that they reach a conclusion from an official institutional address of the Security Council, a decision where all the powers are present. If the discussion was personal and it was an individual institution, then governments, that is, to whatever extent political units and actors are involved, to the same extent, we will face the complexity of the issue. I thank you for your presence and both of the esteemed guests who are present in this discussion.

[00:47:50]I thank you, esteemed viewers. The transformation program ends here. Have a good time.

[00:47:55]Goodbye.