Iran issues warning about Trump's Hormuz Strait blockade

to be able to get to the

border. We'll talk about that in a moment. Welcome back to live now from fox. I'm Stephanie Quinney.

Continuing to follow the very latest developments as we take a live look at the marine traffic in the strait of Hormuz. This comes as Iran is now responding to president trump's order for a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's Revolutionary Guards saying that any military

vessels attempting to approach the Strait of Hormuz will be considered a violation of the two-week U.S. ceasefire and be dealt with harshly and decisively. The guards in a statement reported by Iranian state media saying that the strait is under the control and quote smart management of Iran's Navy adding that it is quote open for the safe passage of non-military vessels in accordance with specific regulations. To talk more on this I'm going to bring in the president and CEO of GINSA Michael Makovsky to talk more on this. I'm going to bring in the president and CEO of JINSA, Michael Mikovsky, to talk more on this. And as always, Michael, we appreciate you joining

us here on Live Now from Fox. Thanks for having me. Happy Sunday. Happy Sunday to you too, as well. And I did want to start off with the new development, which is Iran responding to President Trump's announcement that he is directing Navy vessels to create a blockade at the Strait of Hormuz. Iran now saying that they're gonna treat any military vessel as a threat. You know, what can you share with us about the latest statement put out by the IRGC and what this could

potentially mean? Yeah, I think it's worth just reminding everybody that the the purpose that the the ceasefire Was predicated on the idea that the Strait of Hormuz would be open and of course the Iranians immediately Violated that and only allowed ships aligned with them or which apparently were paying them a toll of up to about $2 million a tanker to get through. So they already violated the ceasefire.

So it's kind of amusing to say the least for them to say that if our military ships go through that it would violate the ceasefire when it's just the opposite. But I think President Trump is saying, okay, Iran, if you're not gonna allow ships to go through that you don't approve of, we're not going to allow any of

your ships, your oil to get out and you'll be, won't be getting any of your revenue. And that affects Iran. But we also should understand that it affects China because about 90% of Iranian oil exports are sold to China at a discounted rate so This could there could be a standoff Or the United States could choose to escalate and say, okay, we've been blocking them, but we might actually go after the Karg island, which is where they're most of almost most of Iran's oil exports go through.

Or we could offer, as General Jack Keane on Fox has raised, you know, we're going to take over, we're going to destroy Karg Island if you don't give us access to your nuclear material.

We've often heard the phrase a point of inflection when it comes to what is happening right now, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz. As we see this now escalating, President Trump ordering the blockade there, Iran responding, saying it's going to treat any military vessel as a threat. Are we potentially at another tipping point?

No question. I mean, I think the President Trump made a good faith effort. I mean, we send our vice president to these talks. That's a pretty major thing, development to happen. And they obviously we should. And I think the Iranians, my sense is they're used to US presidents just talking and talking. And well, this will be the first round and they want to drag things out. They keep forgetting, I think, to deal with President Trump, who's different than Biden or Obama. And he says, look, I gave you a chance. And OK, come back to us if you agree to our terms.

And if you don't, which I don't think they will, and I don't think the Iranians are planning to, then there could just be a standoff in our moves. Or as President Trump suggested in his True Social post, that we'll finish the job a bit more, meaning I think we'll hit more Iranian economic targets, maybe more military targets, but more economic targets that hurt the regime and strangle them economically,

and also therefore make it more likely that the people will eventually bring them down. And then the only last question will be, what about the nuclear material?

And let's talk about that because you mentioned Vice President J.D. Vance traveled to Pakistan in good faith to sit down at the table and try and come to some sort of agreement. They spoke for 21 hours. And I was sharing with our viewers

what Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson Shared regarding the red lines and you mentioned one of them You know all of this having to do really with the nuclear program and the enrichment facilities. That's the red line That either side is not willing to give up on is it even realistic to? expect any other future negotiations as Iran is refusing to give this up?

I think it's unlikely. It's possible, of course. I mean, you could say the Iranians will say, OK, well, let's excuse me, we'll let the ships go through the Hormuz. That would be, you know, so let's have another conversation. I can see that as a possibility. But if the fundamentally, as Vice President Vance said, they're not willing to give in on their nuclear program, which means not only do they have to give up

what they've enriched, but they can't have any nuclear program. And that means giving us access, kind of like what we had with Libya, where we're able to extract the nuclear material and destroy the nuclear facilities. It's just hard for me to see that this regime will ever concede on that point. So then the question is, what do we do about it?

Right, and I did want to share this. This is from Fox News correspondent Trey Yinks, saying no US negotiators remain in Pakistan following 21 hours of talks. Iran still unwilling to make key concessions on enriched uranium and the Strait of Hormuz.

So Michael, as we look ahead, really, we're kind of at a standstill here. Where does the United States go from here?

Yeah, so there are a few options. We can maintain a blockade of the Hormuz, which means eventually, you know, making sure that no Iranian oil gets out while clearing the Hormuz of any mines and so on. We could then move forward and say we've cleared out the Strait of

Hormuz, you know, and now Saudi and Emirati oil could get out, but we're not allowing the Iranian oil to get out. I may add that my organization, JINSA, we recommended early January that we should blockade the Iranians and strangle the regime economically. So I'm glad to see the administration is doing that now. Again, we could go further and say, we'll either take over or destroy Karg Island, which is where like 90% of Iranian oil exports go through, where they're piped to and then unloaded from. We could do that. And that would be real lasting damage on this regime because then they'll be completely undermined economically. They wouldn't be able to pay for almost anything

after that. But it also could hobble any post-regime government. So that's the risk. We could take out more, as President Trump suggested, more economic and energy facilities inside Iran, again to strangle the regime. And then I think we could do more against the ballistic missiles, which we didn't finish completely. And then I think the ultimate issue is the nuclear. And that I don't have, obviously, I don't have intelligence of that.

But it's certainly the most risky thing we would do, which would be to go to where we think, where we believe they have stored nuclear enrichment material. Maybe that's under rubble that we bombed in June and, you know, secure that perimeter and take that out. But it's certainly risky. And if we and I sense that President Trump is obviously wary of doing something like that, but we could do that, and there is a plan to do that. I just don't know whether that would be something, obviously, we would do with our Israeli partners. I just don't know. If we don't do that, we could end the war and, you know, keep the blockade on and just say, you know, you do anything with on the nuclear

front, we're going to come in and destroy you.. You know we're talking about Iran but Iran is also continuing to use its proxies as part of this ongoing war. Hamas, Hezbollah, even the Houthis and I did want to share this live look right here of Beirut, Lebanon. This also comes as Israel and Lebanon are expected to sit down at the negotiating table in Washington on Tuesday to talk about peace and also scale backstrikes against Hezbollah, really looking towards cementing a lasting peace between the two

nations. You know, what can you share with us about these talks and what might be discussed?

Yeah, if I may add, so I think Hezbollah, which is a proxy of the Iranians, they made a couple mistakes. They attacked Israel on October 8th of 2023 after Hamas did, which led eventually to their severe degradation and all the killing of all their top leaders. And then they recently attacked again, giving the Israelis, you know, another reason to go in and really weaken Hezbollah. You have this interesting dynamic here where it's clear that the Lebanese government wants

Hezbollah to go, because they know there's only war. You know, the main reason why their country has been engulfed in war now is because of this Iranian proxy that is starting this fight with Israel. So you could see where, in a way, you have an alignment of interest between Israel and the Lebanese government.

They both want Hezbollah to be decimated and gone. So you know, could be that this could be a great moment. There could be a moment here possibly for, you know, some sort of normalization, but with the Lebanese. But ultimately that's going to depend on Israel really weakening Hezbollah even more.

Michael before we let you go I mean there are many different aspects that we're continuing to monitor and keep a very close eye on. Are there any particular details or events that you're looking ahead to that you would wanna share with our viewers?

Yeah, no, thank you. I think, first of all, I think the Israelis, keep watching Lebanon, obviously, the ceasefire or the so-called ceasefire with Iran is giving the Israelis military a bit of a break so they can focus more on Lebanon.

To me, the issue is on Hormuz, does things escalate as we talked about? And then does the United States decide to use this to resume the war? Because they only did a ceasefire, it's a pause, and the Iranians haven't honored it.

So maybe that if the US and Israel resume their, you know, bombardment of Iranian conventional military facilities, and then will we go after some of their more other economic facilities? And then the big question to me to pay attention to is the nuclear. Do we try to extract the nuclear material and destroy something that doesn't get a lot of press attention, which is Pickax Mountain, which is a relatively new facility, which was not bombed in June

because it's more deeply buried under a mountain than Fordow, and has not been inspected by international inspectors. Do we try to go after that, or do we say, say look we're just going to watch it. And if the Iranians do anything we're going to go after them. I think that's the thing to focus on pickaxe mound in the nuclear

material. And then of course the straighter her moves. All right Michael as always we appreciate you taking the time to material. And then of course the straighter her moves. All right Michael as always we appreciate you taking the time to join us here on life now from Fox. Thank you. Have a good day.