Iran Demands TOTAL SURRENDER From Trump On Hormuz

Good morning, everybody.Happy Monday.I have an amazing show for everybody today.What do we have first of all?

Indeed we do.So Trump is low -keying the Iran war now, according to a report from Barak Ravi.Trita Parsi is going to join us with the latest there.We're also taking a look at the continued economic fallout as Americans are being made to humiliate themselves on camera in order to get lower gas prices.Bibi Netanyahu is rejecting the new phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal involving Hamas disarmament.Hamas kind of making a bet there that they were not going to go forward with it.

and they were correct.Mitch McConnell, allegedly back home.No one has seen him.No new photos released, no videos, anything of the sort.We will give you the latest as he prepares to apparently work from home.What is going on there?

It is anybody's guess at this point.And Hillary Clinton has some advice for Abdul El -Sayed on winning Michigan, something she is an expert at not doing.And Obama also called both Abdul and Haley Stevens to check in with them and offer support.So a lot of updates there from that team.

Imagine losing Michigan twice and saying, you know what?I know a lot about that.

Yeah.

You know what?That's Hillary.That's Hillary for you.God love her.All right.Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing to the show.

BreakingPoints .com.We have our free trial going on right now.You can go ahead and take advantage of it.We're actually doing our AMA for subscribers only today, right after the show.Of course, you want to be able to take advantage of that.

Free month trial, on a monthly, on yearly.It applies right at checkout.It's probably the easiest possible way to do it.Not even have to do a promo code.Go ahead and take advantage.Iran.

and as Iran has issued an entire new slate of demands for what it would take for them to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.So with all of that, let's bring in our great friend, Dr. Preeti Parsi of the Quincy Institute to dissect all of this.So, Dr. Parsi, as I just mentioned, Iran has now issued a list of demands for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.Let's put it up here on the screen.I'll read all of them and we'll get your reaction.Iran.

Four, they must pay in full for damages for what they call the two wars of aggression imposed on Iran.Five, lift all U .S.sanctions.Six, unconditionally release frozen and seized Iranian assets.So much of this, sir, to my eye is a basically you have to fulfill all the terms of the memorandum of understanding and some just to get the reopening of Hormuz, not to even potentially get any sort of nuclear talk.

I know there's quite a bit of analysis and others that you can offer how much of this is real or not.So I'm curious for your reaction.

Sure.Look, I had conversations to try to get a clarification on exactly what is intended here.And one of the clear messages that came through is that this is not a demand for the reopening of the streets.This is a demand for restarting direct U .S.talks with Iran.

It has been presented in a manner that is a little bit vague and exaggerated, and that is apparently deliberate.What they say, and I don't know if this is true, But what they say essentially is that last minute in the talks, the U .S.introduced new elements, tried to move the goalposts, and this is an Iranian reaction.to that.If the US is going to put forward wish lists as some sort of a demand, the Iranians are capable of playing that game as well.

Now, that may be it.It may also be something else.It may very well be that this is what the Iranians are doing at this point, because they are deliberately trying to drag this out, because they like to see the pain that Trump is enduring to expand further.And this is not because of some sort of a sadistic inclination.It's because in their analysis, had Trump hurt enough before signing the MOU, he would have stuck to the MOU.But because the Iranians, in their view, in that narrative that exists, agreed to the MOU prematurely, it led to a scenario in which Trump was in the MOU, but while still thinking that he could get better terms by going back to a bombing campaign, which he now has tried, and it has failed miserably.

So in order to avoid repeating that mistake, they would drag it out a little bit further this time around in order to make sure that by the time there is an agreement, there is really a complete conclusion on the American side that there is no other option but that agreement.There is no option of going back to bombing.The only thing that can work is a complete commitment to the agreement and to diplomacy.

Given that landscape, do you think that Iran will find it necessary to escalate in order to increase the pain on Trump, who thinks that today's gas pricesabout four bucks a gallon, not great, but also not a complete and total catastrophe.Trump is out there, as we said before, saying he's going to low -key the Iran conflict.He apparently feels like the status quo is something he can sustain for at least some period of time.So do you think the logic will argue in the direction of Iran escalating and trying to increase that pain to force the sort of capitulation they would need at the negotiating table?

I would see the Iranians escalate if they feel that they are under so much pain that they need to essentially even it out.If that is not the case, I think they will just continue to where they are right now.Keep one thing in mind, just last night they shot at several more ships and there was no bombing response by the United States.If we recall how this whole thing started, it was that the Iranians were shooting at ships that went through the Southern Channel without Iranian notification, which the Iranians believed was a violation of the MOU.And the U .S.

responded by saying it is unacceptable for the Iranians to shoot at these ships.They are still shooting at these ships, but the U .S.is not bombing any longer.So I don't know if it is necessary for them to escape.You raise a very important point, though, which is that despite this level of tension, despite the fact that the straits traffic is down to a trinkle, despite the fact that they're still essentially blockaded in place, the Iranians have not succeeded in really pushing up oil prices.

Now, that is not because oil prices shouldn't be higher.Everyone I've spoken to who follows this much closer are baffled by the success the administration is having in pushing down oil prices artificially.But that is not something that can work in the long run.In the long run, this is going to come back, and you're going to see the paper price of oil and the actual price of oil converge.And that means that oil prices are likely going to go higher.But it seems like the Iranians have kind of either not felt the need or given up on the idea of fighting Trump on the ground.

to this type of artificial interference that he has managed to do in keeping oil prices down.Instead, they're playing the long game on this one.

Right.Yeah.And obviously, the long game will remove the veneer of a lot of the temporary things that the administration has been able to do.One factor in here is the vice president, who has been continually, at least, optimistic publicly about negotiations.He was on Fox News on Saturday saying that this is just, quote, the middle game whenever it comes to an eventual outcome.Let's take a listen.

We'll get your reaction.

Also, of course, talked a lot about Iran and where Iran is today, Kayleigh, is that we're talking to the Iranians, of course.We're trying to maximize the amount of oil and gas that are coming out of the Strait of Hormuz.That's the thing that we're most focused on right now.And you see, I think oil prices dipping around eighty dollars a barrel today, sometimes a little bit lower.So we're just trying to make sure that we get what we need out of this particular conflict.If you go back and remember what it is that we've done here, we've destroyed their nuclear program.

we've destroyed their conventional military, we've radically reduced what you might call their asymmetric military abilities, and right now we're trying to see if they're willing to make the kind of long -term changes that would be necessary to have a better relationship with the United States, and if not, That's fine, too.We're just going to keep on applying the pressure that we can apply and getting as much oil and gas out of the Middle East so that Americans can enjoy lower gas and energy prices.So that's the delicate dance.The final thing I'll say about this, Kayleigh, is I try to remind people that we're really in the middle of the game here.This thing is not over.It's obviously not at the beginning.

We're in the middle of the game, and we're applying a whole host of tools, diplomatic, economic, military tools.They're hurting.big way.They want this thing to be over.The question is whether they're able, their system is able to give the things that are necessary for us to be happy forus to feel like we've gotten what we need out of this particular engagement.

That is still to be determined, but I do think we've made some progress over the last few days.

What do you make of that, sir?He's saying there's progress, no talks as far as we know.There's no, you know, the demands are out there.Sure, the U .S.has not responded.

Are you aware of anything from behind the scenes?

One thing I think we've discussed in the past that I think is important to clarify, and I thought it was interesting that the Vice President said that there's talks going on.He didn't say diplomacy or negotiations.The Iranians are very strict about how they divide these things.They keep on saying that there's no negotiations with the U .S.taking place, and officially there isn't.

because they don't consider exchange of messages, etc. as negotiations.And this seems to be infuriating Trump, who doesn't see any distinction between these different things, and as a result thinks that the Iranians are lying to the media when they're saying that there are no negotiations taking place.But on the issue of, you know, there's been some progress.Look, there has been some progress.There is variations of deals on the table between the two sides.And the two sides that are actually officially negotiating are Iran and Oman.

And that in and of itself is a partial victory for the Iranians.The Iranians are insisting that there are no international waters in the strait.There's only Iranian territorial waters and Omani territorial waters.As a result, whatever the final outcome of this trade is, it has to be determined by the two countries that have territorial waters here.That's why they have made sure that other GCC states are not at the table officially, nor is the U .S.

Now, de facto, the U .S.is absolutely at the table because the Omanis are not negotiating for themselves any longer.They're representing a position that is approved by the U .S.They're not going to put forward a proposal that the U .

S.is not okay with this any longer, but it is not at this point.negotiation. TheThe Vice President also keeps on hinting at this positive image that this could lead to something that brings out a different relationship between the U .S.and Iran.

I find it noteworthy that he keeps on mentioning this, even in interviews with Fox News.There's probably not the most receptive audience to that.Final point, when he says that we're in the middle of it, I think there may be some truth in that.Remember with the NYU, for about two weeks, we kept on hearing, they're close to a deal, they're close to a deal.Nothing happened, and then suddenly it happened.

Yeah.Yeah.Scott Besson also had some interesting comments about the Strait of Hormuz and how long it will be relevant.This is 8 -10.Let's listen to that.

On the economic side, we have them by the throat shortly, maybe even today.Tomorrow we are going to see an agreement, a 30 -60 day ceasefire.Strait will be open, energy prices should come down.

There are some who've speculated the Strait will never go back to being the way it was before.

What would you say?I would say, I would take, I think they're saying that in a doomsday sort of way.I would say it in another way.The Strait is never going back to the way it was because the Iranians have used, or tried to use it as a choke point, what we are going to see over the next two years, the strait's going to become irrelevant.It is going to become just another body of water, and I would say that more than 50 or 70 percent of the energy that moves through the strait now is going to go through underground pipelines.

So he says there, in a couple of years, the straight will basically be irrelevant.I saw a lot of people, Trita, taking this as a positive sign that the administration is sort of lowering the bar and lowering the expectations of like, ah, straight hormones, he even needs that anyway, we can just walk away, it'll all be fine.What did you make of these comments?

Well, I mean, that is a positive interpretation of the whole thing.And if the administration is downplaying the importance of the straight, even though that day is not going to come in two years and may come in 10 years.That is nevertheless a way for them to find an agreement in which they will frankly back down to a lot of the demands that the Iranians are making without making too big of a deal of it.And to be frank with you, that is perhaps what they need to do.I wrote a piece on my Substack about the fact that there's a conflation here taking place between what actually is the core interest of the United States and what is a secondary interest.Traditionally, the US interest has been to make sure that there's a free flow of commerce that is non -discriminatory and predictable.

That is the core interest.Whoever controls or manages a specific waterway is a secondary interest.And it's only important to the point in which it impacts the primary interest, which is the free flow.If you have a deal between Iran and Oman that is endorsed by the US and others, that at the end of the day ensures that there is free flow of commerce and it's non -discriminatory, even if there's service fees, et cetera, that is the achievement of the core American interest.The issue of control of it is secondary.And because of this conflation, we're now, again, going to war once more without any positive results in order to achieve a secondary aim, even though the primary aim can be achieved through diplomacy.

Very smart.Let's put A6 on the screen.Curious for your reaction.There was some mainstream media kind of speculation about what this mean.Iran shaking up its security team and appointing a new top security general.The Wall Street Journal and others are saying it's, you know, the old guard maybe entrenching their power.

I know that doesn't necessarily fit entirely with kind of your view of the way the IRGC and the security establishment has reacted, especially after taking so many lawsuits.in the 39 days of the initial war.What do you make of this elevation?

First of all, I just want to say, I think one has to have a tremendous amount of humility in analyzing this because there's so little of the actual processes of the Iranian system right now that is fully known to us.It's always been an opaque system.It's even more opaque now since the war began, since the killing of the previous Supreme Leader.The person who was replaced is old guard.The person that is coming in is also old guard.In fact, they're old friends.

So it seems to be a reshuffling that has more to do with internal factions playing against each other rather than necessarily an indication of policy direction.I frankly do not see a tremendous amount of difference between Zohar and Rezaei on these different issues, but it is a person who has played a very critical role in Iran's decision -making in the past that was kind of pushed out and has now come back in again.But the person who was replaced is also someone who's had a hand in these things for a very long time.So I think it remains to be fully seen exactly what the policy implication of this will be.What I think is clear is that when it comes to some of these factional fights, yes, there appears to be a move by the Supreme Leader that reasserts his control over the process.But that is not necessarily, in and of itself, an indication of where the policy is heading right now.

Got it.

Another important element of this war have been the comments of the neocon media class that Trump, unfortunately, takes seriously and listens to.Mark Levin, right now, very upset over the lack of eagerness among the American public to fight this disastrous war.Let's take a listen to that.

to our society?Where is our can -do -it mentality?I want to talk about the greatest generation versus today's young people, okay?I got to thinking about this over this taco debate on the internet.That's how pathetic things have become.The greatest generation endured the severe economic scarcity of the Great Depression during their youth.

followed by massive global combat and home front mobilization during World War II.Over 16 million Americans served in the military, facing intense physical danger, hundreds of thousands of casualties, strict civilian rationing of food, gas, and clothing.We sit here with a war in Iran against an enemy that has killed thousands of Americans, maimed thousands of Americans.I remember a time when America would say, Let's go.Let's destroy that country, destroy that government.You don't get to kill thousands of our fellow citizens.

We don't even have a draft.Would a draft even work with young people today?I wonder.Could we even fight World War II today?We're whining about a dollar of gasoline.Well, it went up 60 cents.

What are we going to do?Mildred, what are we going to do?I don't know, Frank.It went up a dollar.I don't know.Affordability.

So true to Mark Levin there, looking for a World War II level mobilization for this war.I think accurately perceiving that's not something that the American public has an appetite for.In general, when he's upset, I take that as a positive indicator, though.

Oh, totally.Absolutely.And I think what you're seeing here is the inherent problem you will face when you have started a war of choice.World War II was not a war of choice.These were wars that ultimately was because there was a force out there that was trying to establish global hegemony.And as a result, it was clear to the American people that this was a war that they had to fight to sustain America's own freedom.

a global order that would not be under the command of the Nazis.This is again going back to some of the things that have been said early on that you know Trump never tried to sell the war and it's true he never did try to sell the war because mainly I thought he thought that he could have this war over with within four days.There was no need for him to sell it.It would be over with before people had even noticed it.But notice this language, sell the war.You don't have to sell the war if the war is defensive.

If Mexico had invaded Texas, there would be no need for any government in the United States to sell the war to the American public.The American public would be up in arms because they would understand that the country is under attack and that this is a defensive war.You only need to sell the war when it is a war of choice, when you cannot convince the public of the need to fight a war by them simply just seeing the images or understanding the situation as it is, you have to do something extra.to get them to be on board.And thankfully, the American public is now so resistant to these wars of choice, to these unnecessary fantasies of war, that they are resisting and it's making Mark Levine miserable.And that is quite joyful to see, I have to admit.

Always joyful.

Last thing we want your reaction to was, I mean, potentially a major announcement.We're still not really sure what to make of it.Let's put A7 here on the screen.It is also open to others.The landmark Mecca Joint Defense Agreement by MBS, by Erdogan, and by the Pakistani prime ministers deepening their security cooperation.It's like some sort of, I mean, I wouldn't call it NATO necessarily, but you do have a nuclear armed power here offering a security umbrella of a defensive agreement between the two.

I'm not quite sure what to make of it in the immediate and long term, but I'm curiousfor your reaction.

So a lot of speculation going on right now.A lot of folks in Iran are trying to figure out, is this aimed at them?A lot of Israelis looking at it and thinking, is this ultimately going to be a problem for Israel?The bottom line is this.This is the natural reaction, one of many natural reactions that will be emerging in the region for the next couple of years.as a result of the collapse of the American security umbrella.

No one in the region will rely solely on the American security umbrella, having seen that it's neither effective nor reliable.So there will be a natural search for other type of constellations in order to be able to make up for that.And it will not be done fully.It will be several different layers and variations.None of them will be as strong as the American security umbrella was perceived to be at least at one point, despite the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.The question is which direction it will go from here.

However, if it ends up, if the Iranians, for instance, play their cards badly, it could end up becoming a regional constellation with the same aim as the U .S.had for the last four decades, which was to isolate and contain Iran.Something that previously was driven by American hegemonic desires would now be driven by regional states and their sense of threat and need, seeing the rise of Iran right now.But I don't think that is where they intended to go.I think this ultimately is more targeting Israel, because the American security umbrella has not only shown itself to be ineffective vis -à -vis Iran, but it's also shown itself to be completely ineffective in protecting these countries from Israeli aggression, from Israel bombing Doha to America's inability to sustain and know to Israel when Israel is doing things in the region that are detrimental to the region and detrimental to U .

This requires some sort of a reaction, some sort of a constellation in the region that manages to put up a buffer against it.The second question is, how credible is it?Because all of these different agreements go only as far as their credibility is willing to take them.Is Pakistan willing to go to war with Iran over an attack on Saudi Arabia?It hasn't so far.Pakistan already has an agreement with Saudi Arabia and it was never actually actualized during this war and the Saudis themselves say that they never asked for it to be actualized.

But nevertheless, it raises questions.Will Turkey do it?I find that very unlikely.My hope is, however, that this does not lead into a direction of some form of block formation in the region, but rather that the region understands that the only way to get out of the security dilemma that all of them are faced with right now is to move towards an inclusive security arrangement.This may end up becoming an interim step towards that, but if it ends up becoming the end destination, then I fear that it will be another one of these block formations that tend to create more conflicts than it actually resolves.And the idea that this is purely defensive reminds me too much of the way NATO is describing itself, and we know how that went.

Yes, yes.A lot of parallels between those two.Thank you very much, sir.We appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for having me. and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at breakingpoints .

com.That's right, get the full show, help support the future of independent media at breakingpoints .