'NO NEGOTIATIONS': Professor Marandi Says Iran Is Done Talking

So for The View from Iran, we are now joined by Professor Syed Mohammad Morandi of the University of Tehran.Great to see you again, sir.

Good to see you, sir.Thank you both for inviting me.It's always a great pleasure.

Of course.So we have a fresh Trump truth social for you to react to here.We don't even have the element made yet, so I'll read it to you.It says, responsible in that the Houthis are a surrogate and or proxy of Iran.Major military punishment will be inflicted upon Iran and of course the Houthis themselves who I am very disappointed with in that they have until now acted very professionally and smart.Your reaction to that sir?

Well we are already on Trump's list even as he's waging war against the country.He said that any ship that's hit or even fired upon in the Strait of Hormuz In response, the United States will take out a power plant or a bridge.Well, last night, three ships tried to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without the permission of the Iranian Navy, and one of them was struck and the other two retreated.So far, Trump has not carried out his threat.Of course, the Iranians have said that if he does so, then those countries in the Persian Gulf that are complicit in this war their critical infrastructure will be destroyed.And we know what that would mean in the month of July in the Arabian Peninsula.

That would effectively mean that these countries would have to be evacuated.Now, Ansar Allah has its own grievances, the Yemen, or the Houthis, as they say.the West, the Saudis have led a siege on their country for years, and they see this as the best moment to have leverage because the Strait of Hormuz is closed.So they said we're going to shut the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia until they lift the siege.And the United States waged war against Yemen.The United States did not succeed.

So far, the United States in its war against Iran has not succeeded.If Trump wants to fight two wars simultaneously against these two entities that he could not defeat, I don't think the result will be victory.

Professor, I'm curious for your reaction here about the ongoing diplomatic posture in Tehran.We can put A4 up here on the screen.Your foreign minister put this statement out yesterday.seen you make recently publicly going after many of these Gulf regimes, which are hosts, of course, to our bases.What can we expect if Trump does follow through with this threat of bombing civilian infrastructure, specifically bridges and energy targets around the capital city?Where will likely Iranian retaliation come?

Well, if we go back to the 40 -day war, the Ramadan war, Back then, the Israeli regime and the United States, they began targeting Iranian critical infrastructure.And one strike was on the South Pars gas field, the biggest gas field in Iran, which is a joint field with Qatar.And the Iranian response, because the Iranianshad warned back then that they'd do the same thing, that they would strike back at the critical infrastructure of those countries that are hosting the U .S.,S., that are enabling the U .

S.to attack Iran and the U .S.and Israeli regime.So they struck back very hard, including striking at the Qatari gas facilities.And then Trump right afterwards put up a true social statement saying that this is not going to happen again and Netanyahu is not going to do this anymore.

So that was Iran's deterrence.And a few days ago when the Americans, as you recall, they started bombing Iranian bridges and tunnels, all civilian, and killing people who were on the bridge, including families, women and children.I'm not sure about children, but I do know about women.the Iranians threatened the United States and said that if you continue, we're going to strike back at the infrastructure.And the U .S.

also hit a desalination plant and a hospital in the city of Ahvaz, a children's hospital.So Iran, I'm sure you recall, struck Kuwait's electrical grid and a desalination plant to basically say that, look, take this threat seriously.And since then, the United States has sort of backed off, even though last night they did strike the border between Iran and Iraq, killing two pilgrims, which I don't know why they did that.But in general, the United States has backed off.So the Iranian threat is real.And the Iranians will go and destroy the infrastructure of these countries because they don't have access to U .

S.infrastructure in the United States.So they're going to do it here.Now, if that happens, you both know exactly what that will mean.That will mean that the energy markets will be wrecked permanently, or at least for years to come, because if Iran destroys the critical infrastructurein these countries, which are all deserts, and we're in the month of July, these countries will have to be evacuated.

And that includes Saudi Arabia.The countries will fall apart.And that means that there will be no more energy for months, if not years to come.And that will lead to a global economic depression worse than the 1930s.This is not something that Iran wants.Iran didn't start the war.

Iran didn't escalate.Iran didn't threaten to target critical infrastructure.But this is Iran's deterrence.They will do this, but they're saying they will do this so that Trump does not move in that direction.in that direction.

Professor, President Trump has claimed that Iran is begging to talk.I don't think there's any reason to take those claims seriously, but I am curious what the attitude within Iran, as far as you can glean, towards negotiations and diplomacy is at this point.

Well, we all know that he said he was saying this throughout this war.He's been saying it so many times.I don't know how many times exactly, but tens of times.And, you know, in Iran, there's actually a different type of debate.There is a divide in Iran between those who think that the MOU was the right thing to do and those who said that we should not have signed the MOU and we should have just continued until things got worse for the United States.Both sides have an argument to make.

I mean, those who were in favor of the MOU, they said, well, we took advantage of the first few days.We exported tens of millions of barrels of oil and imported critical supplies to prepare ourselves for the next phase because we knew that the United States would not abide by the MOU.And those who opposed it were saying, no, we should have continued, they were in bad shape, and we should have just put more pressure on.The debate is not, let's just negotiate now.No one is saying that.So the debate today is, and I'm not, both sides have arguments to make, and I'm not in any particular camp myself.

I think both have good arguments to make.But the point is that the talk is whether we should have been hitting harder and being more assertive rather than pursuing the policy that we did in the past.No one now is talking about negotiations.

Well, the curious thing, sir, I saw that you had said during the memorandum of understanding period, if you could say that there was some sort of understanding as you were mimicking some of the rhetoric of our vice president, say that you were taking the opportunity to reload.So was this always the course of action that was in the minds of many of these Iranian leaders?And now that we are back in a phase where, you know, some hot war has resumed, what would it take to resume the memorandum of understanding?

The Iranian leaders did not believe that the United States would abide by the MOU.And if they had, the Iranians would have fulfilled their side of the bargain, no doubt.The Iranian intention was there.And that's how it's been in the past with the JCPOA.That's how it was.And it would have been the same today.

But the Iranians knew that, at least those who I know in the different political camps, they all believed that the United States would not abide by its commitments.And it became pretty clear after three, four days.They did not hand over the stolen assets.They did not force the Israeli regime to leave Lebanon.Trump continued to threaten Iranian officials and the Iranian people, which is a violation of the deal.They expanded the sanctions regime, another violation.

They removed the sanctions on oil exports, then reversed that after a few days, another violation.And, of course, they violated the law.Article 5, they went and set up their own parallel corridor in the Strait of Hormuz because in Article 5, Iran was supposed to manage the Strait.So what the Americans were trying to do is to try to take control over the Strait, take away Iran's leverage, and then not carry out its obligations and win a war that they could not win on the battlefield or through siege warfare.So, and then they bombed Iran when Iran ultimately, after a couple of weeks of warning the Saudis and the Emiratis and the Americans not to do this, the Iranians finally struck two or three ships, I think, and then the Americans waged war against Iran again, another violation, and reimposed the siege.So, the Iranians knew that was happening, but the difference between Iran and the United States was that the Iranians were willing to implement the deal.

but not the Americans.But the Iranians, they took that opportunity to import, to export a lot of oil and to import critical supplies to prepare them for the next phase.But I think that ultimately, if the United States, the Iranians are not in the mood for negotiations, but if the United States wants to solve the problem, I think that the MOU will not be enough for Iran.They will demand that the United States first carries out certain things before the Iranians do anything.And they will also be explicit in including Yemen.and Gaza and the negotiations.

That's my guess.

Gaza, too.Very interesting.Retired General Keith Kellogg, who has held a variety of roles, both in the first and the second Trump administrations, took to Fox News to push for a significant escalation.This is A7, guys.Let's go ahead and play this.

Here is a concern I do have for Iran, though.You have played sports.I've played sports.We've watched sports.And you let it go.hang around, a baseball team in the ninth inning or a football team in the fourth quarter, we were clearly the better team.

You should have closed them out in the first quarter, not the fourth or the first inning, not the ninth inning.And as longer they stick around, the more dangerous they become.And that's kind of where we're at right now.And I think the president's going to close it out.He should close it out.There's a few things he should do, I think.

One is on negotiations.Let's not negotiate.I'm not negotiating with these guys.We're going to dictate the terms of the war, and it is a war that's going on right now.We're going to keep taking out their leadership.The whole policy about decapitation, we need to continue that.

If that means taking out Fahidi or Rachi or anybody else like that, that's fine, because it destabilizes the regime.The other part, because it gives you leverage, is I would take the islands of Karg Island and Lurak Island, which is like, it's further to the east, but it's like the command and control center of the Gulf, and you take them to give the president leverage.Now I own something you don't have anymore.We'll give it back to you at the end of this war if you need it, or we're just going to keep it forever.The other thing I think we should be doing is, look, let's go, and if it takes a presidential finding, or something like that, let's start figuring out how we can help the Iranian people organize the resistance against the theocratic regime.

So, Professor Trump, in addition to that on Fox News, very influential, and this particular individual also very influential, Trump has directly said he plans to attack Pickax Mountain.I'm wondering, from your perspective within Iran, what people are sort of expecting Trump's next move to be.

Well, first of all, I'd like to point out that I'm really surprised that he was a general.I fought in war, but I was just an ordinary volunteer and foot soldier.What strategic value would Hark Island have?How is it a command and control center?It's a flat piece of land which has, I mean, right now Iran is not exporting oil because there's a siege.So if they take it, it's a flat island and the Iranians will just simply start hammering it day and night and kill US troops.

And so is that going to stop Iran?I mean, right now Iran is striking US bases in Jordan.That's like a thousand kilometers away or in the in Western Saudi Arabia.So why does Iran need to be standing alongside the shores of the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz to block ships?This is not like the 18th century.It's not even the 20th century.

This is the 21st century.It's the era of missiles and drones.So if Iran can hit U .S.bases in Jordan and destroy their key assets, or in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, then what purpose would it have for them to carry out this sort of attack?I find it amazing that he ever became a general at all.

But I think the most important thing here for me is that if this war expands, first of all, if the global economy collapses, that means the U .S.economy will collapse.And I think that the United States will have to withdraw, not just from our region, but from across the globe.A global economic depression will mean that we will all lose jobs, jobs will be lost, businesses will collapse, factories will shut down.There won't be money insecurity everywhere.

I don't think he quite comprehends what that means for the globe.Tens of millions of people, perhaps maybe hundreds of millions of people will be on the move.I mean, imagine, let's say, Latin America, people losing jobs.their livelihood.Where are they going to go?I mean, North America may not be any better, but people will still go to North America.

It's sort of like the Grapes of Wrath, where people went to California, moved towards California, even though things weren't all that great over there either.So I don't think they quite comprehend what that means.And there's another factor as well.Yemen is now in the fight.The resistance in Iraq is larger than the resistance in Lebanon.They have way more power.

at least 150 ,000, maybe 200 ,000 people right now prepared to fight, and they're well armed.So you have Iran, you have the resistance in Iraq, you have Yemen.Who does the United States have?It has like, what, Bahrain?It has the Emirates?I mean, do they even have a fighting force?

And now Saudi Arabia is, they can't export oil.These are countries that are literally almost 100 % dependent on oil or gas.They're deserts.And if their critical infrastructure is destroyed, then tens of millions of people will have to leave the Arabian Peninsula.Again, I don't think he quite understands what an all -out war means.And they already tried that anyway with Iran.

I mean, you can't get higher than Ayatollah Khamenei.They martyred him.Nothing.We didn't have a leader for two weeks because the assembly that chooses The leader, in accordance with the Constitution, couldn't gather together for two weeks because of the strikes.So for two weeks, we didn't have a leader.We had a council in accordance with the Constitution.

But still, they fought back.The streets were being cleaned at night.People were going to supermarkets.No one emptied the shelves of supermarkets.So why does he even think that if they try that again, it's going to succeed?The only difference is that if they go after Iran's critical infrastructure this time round, Iran is going to do the same.

and we're going to literally be living in a completely different world if that happens.

Yeah.Well, Professor Morandi, we really appreciate your time.Thank you so much for joining us, sir.

It's always a pleasure.

Thank you 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 .