伊朗称对美拥有新筹码，霍尔木兹海峡博弈加剧

We'll get back to the South Korea move in a moment. Just on the state of play when it comes to Iran. As of today, the 60 day MOU has officially expired. If we were even thinking anyone was still abiding by it in the first place, there is nothing in place to replace it. So where are we and how long can we sustain this current position? Well, the way I think is best explained is, is that there are two clocks going on. There's a clock of how long can the United States sustain oil prices where they are the American consumer, of course, and how much longer can Iran sustain itself if we're continuing with a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz?

And so it's generally thought that's just a big waiting game now. It's a big waiting game. But we may be, or President Trump may be disadvantaged by how much longer it might take for the blockade to actually work. And it might punish him in the midterm elections because, of course, the American consumer might suffer. So I think we have a lot of competing aims right here, and I think that's what the president's probably trying to work through.

I think he's content now because it's very explainable to say that we have a blockade going on and their economy is terrible. But there's a lot more to it than that. What do you make of Wall Street Journal reporting today about Iran girding for something much larger? After we signed the MOU that would have expired today, the president went home to celebrate Iran, started making plans, in fact, gathered hardline leaders to come up with a plan to escalate.

IRGC takes more control of the regular Army. Hardened veterans of the war with Iraq and past internal crackdowns are promoted as we saw last week, expanding domestic counterintelligence operations, ramping up production of missiles and drones. This has just been a warm up act, according to this story. Yeah, I think definitely when you have such a big shattering event as war with the United States and Israel, you're going to think, what do I need to do to re up my own game?

We've done this, Israel did this after October 7th. And I think it's definitely the case that the Iranians are feeling at once we need to rebuild some capability that we lost. But also we have a lot new, not a lot of new leverage that we didn't have prior to this conflict. And so let's figure out how to exercise it to the best of our ability. Let's figure out how we might be able to re establish, if you will, what used to be called the Ring of Fire, which was Iran sort of dominance within the Middle East.

And I think everything that you see listed within that article is part and parcel of the types of things that I believe the national security infrastructure, the IRGC inside of Iran feels like they need to do in the short to medium term to get back up to snuff because they're still in a conflict with us and with Israel. And we're still formidable, even if we're a little lost right now. Well, you mentioned the leverage that Iran feels it has.

That obviously is the Strait of Hormuz. And they've been in talks with Oman to try to figure out a way in which to basically create a map of the Strait in which routes for entry and exit commercial ships can abide by. President Trump today, as that's going on, threatened to bomb the S out of Oman if they get in the United States's way. Is that helpful? I don't think so. I mean, if he has intelligence or actual information maybe that they're totally turning their back on us and agreeing to some sort of toll, well, then maybe they need a steep reprimand from the United States.

I know not like bombs and not necessarily a public warning about it. I think it's more effectively done in private. But I'm not sure exactly what we're accusing them of. If they've turned their back on us, they're deserving at the very least of some sort of diplomatic dressing down. But I I didn't think it was the right sort of it was sort of out of left field this morning on and I guess we're going to learn more about it today.

Is there all the Bloomberg and others begin to unpack what what motivated the president to say that indeed, if if Iran is busy mobilizing, what are we doing? We've been hearing reports of B1 bombers, B52 is being stationed in the UK. We have air to air refuelers that are being added to the region. Are we quietly preparing for the same thing? I think we are. I think the president has to restock sort of the theater, if you will, and still hold out the credible use of force.

It is true. I do believe what experts, of course, have said, which is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that doesn't care about necessarily the economy as much as it affects their people as they ordinary would. But we have to find some combination of economic pressure, and maybe that's the blockade, plus the use of military force that's going to give us the right amount of leverage so that we eventually can get into some sort of diplomatic agreement.

I know it looks bleak now because we haven't made much progress, but we have to think about what exactly are we going to do if we're not going to do a full escort mission? Are we going to try to guide more commercial vessels through the straits? If we're not going to do that, well, then what, what set of military pressure might get the Iranian, the Iranians attention so that we can get out of this? If we could switch gears to South Korea, Michael, and the president today instructing the Defense Secretary to substantially reduce joint military exercises in part on the basis to quote the president directly of his very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea.

Is North Korea really so passive a threat that the US should be considered pulling back in our coordination and presence in South Korea? Are they not currently supporting Russia, for example, in the war with Ukraine and testing their own ICBM? Well, good point. You beat me to it. I mean, here we are. We have this what people call the axis of upheaval. We have North Korea that works with Russia, that works with China and with Iran.

They're sending as many. I saw 50 an estimate of new, new 50,000 troops going to Russia to fight Ukraine. So I'm not sure that we're totally considering the wide breadth of issues that we have against North Korea. And by the way, it's in our interest to do these escort, I'm sorry, these exercises inside of South Korea. We want to establish or keep deterrence on going because it ensures that North Korea doesn't do anything militarily against South Korea.

So it's in our interest to have this sort of presence. And by the way, it's the Trump administration that wants to do more in Asia. So I'm not sure why it's a great idea for us to say, hey, you know what, we're going to take down some of the capability that we would ordinarily exercise with you. And for what reason? I I don't know what they've done that's that deserves it. Well, would this have this have happened if South Korea helped us out in the Strait?

I don't think so. I don't know. But that's what he's kind of pointing us to, I guess. I guess that's what he's saying. But that was a long time. You know, this was weeks ago. And so the whole world sort of told us no, thank you. And and that's because, you know, and look, I, I think the NATO should stand up and help us also. But it is true we didn't exactly give them a heads up on anything. And I remember working legislative affairs in the Bush White House and Congress would say, if you want us there on the landing, we better be there on the take off.

And so, you know, and so I think by now we ought to have worked through all these issues with some of our allies. And I'm not sure it's really in our interest to say we're not going to participate in something that benefits us in order to punish you. Sounds like when our remaining 20 seconds here. You think Pete Hagseth should also be briefing Democrats on Capitol Hill? I think so. Asking for money? I think so. I know we're in the most politicized times

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。