All right, Alexander, we have the

signature

of the uh memorandum of understanding.

Uh it's official. Trump signed it at the

Versailles, which I find to be very

symbolic. Maybe maybe [laughter] I don't

know if that was if that's what Macaron

was going for. I don't think Trump quite

realized the significance of it all.

Maybe he did, but uh no doubt Macaron

was trying to send some sort of a of a

symbolic message out there. But anyway,

um Trump signed it. Uh Peshkan

signed it on on Iran's uh behalf and uh

the White House published the uhou

>> I believe 14 clauses.

>> 14. Yes. And um and you know the foreign

ministry

they they somehow it leaked the foreign

ministry's copy of the MOU leaked like

three days ago and Iranian media

published it and everyone was saying uh

this is this can't be the the memorandum

of understanding because there's no way

the US would agree to any of these

points. It was pretty much exactly what

was what was uh reported from Iranian

media 3 4 days ago. And the US did sign

it and uh every everyone including

uh Israel, including

um hawks, Iranian hawks, neocons,

uh you name it, they're they're all

saying this this was without a doubt uh

an American uh a Trump administration

uh capitulation, I I guess is the is the

correct word to a retreat

>> or a retreat maybe is a better word to

use.

>> Yes.

>> U

an Iranian win,

US uh loss.

>> I don't think it's it's I don't think

it's over

>> in my opinion. And I believe we were the

one of the first channels, if not the

first uh channel to say that this is

just a memorandum of understanding

>> and what we're looking at is the

beginning of negotiations.

>> Yes. um all this effort that was uh that

was put in place was about getting to

the point where the two sides can begin

negotiations.

>> Yes.

>> And that's where we are 60 days now of

of talks are most likely going to to

begin. But uh but when you go through

the list of uh of the clauses of the

points of theou

Iran pretty much got everything that

that they wanted. Um, but what do you

what are your thoughts?

>> They did get everything they wanted. No,

but I'm going to make one very important

observation. At least I think it's an

important observation and one one should

never ever lose sight of. I think that

if you stop thinking in the way that the

neocons,

the deep state, the Israelis, all that

vast assortment of people who yearn for

war and yearn for um regime change in

Iran, if you put all that to one side,

then objectively this is a good deal for

the United States because it manages to

get the United States out of this mess

in the Middle East or at least it

doesn't manage it because we are not

there yet. And what you're saying is

absolutely correct. We're only at the

start. We're not at the end. All of

these people that we've just been

talking about are going to be working

overtime to try to disrupt and and

destroy it. But uh you know if you don't

believe in regime change wars, if you

don't believe in fact if you oppose

regime change wars, if you oppose all of

these things, if you think that American

interests really are America first and

rebuilding the United States, then in my

opinion, the United States has conceded

nothing. It is conceded nothing that is

affects in any way its own interests. It

on the contrary is a pathway to get out

of these entanglements in the Middle

East. Now I wanted to say that because I

think that's an important thing to

remember. That doesn't mean that I

expect this process to move forward

smoothly or perhaps at all.

>> Well, what you what you said depends on

who you ask. I mean, you if you were if

you were to ask

>> I'm gonna pick a name um like uh Mark

Levin or Ben Shapiro or someone like

that. Absolutely.

>> They would say what are you talking

about?

>> Absolutely. Yeah.

>> This has nothing to do with America

first. Right.

>> Absolutely. Completely correct. I mean

I'm talking about my own

I think I can say our perspective of

where American

true American interests are. If you

follow on the contrary the outlook of

the neocons and the

faction within America first that is

closer to the neocons the people who

talk about peace through strength then

obviously this is a defeat it's a

surrender we're going to hear all of

those words I would not call it that I

would on the contrary call it a big step

forward but I do accept this is a this

are, you know, this is my view. I think

I could say this is our view, but I

think it is one that people ought to be

aware of that this is, in my opinion, a

a a lifting of the burden. It is an it

is a way through towards an escape from

the entanglements in the Middle East

which have tied America down. So I

wanted to say that um this is not a

political judgment about where we're

moving forward. I'm going to say on the

contrary that I think that this is going

to be sabotaged and defeated. And in

that respect, this is a little like the

Minsk agreement of 2015, which also

provided a pathway towards peace in

Ukraine and peace in Europe as well,

which as we know perfectly well was

sabotaged and undermined completely. So

this is this is I think more likely the

trajectory that events are going to

follow. But I think we ought to just

remain

keep in mind at the back of our minds

the fact that if you are looking at what

are the best interests of the United

States objectively

then objectively I think this is

a good deal for the United States. it

provides it with a framework through

which it can get out. So that's the

first thing to say. Let's let's turn now

to the agreement itself. Everything that

the Iranians have been demanding they

have got. Now we said back in February

before the conflict began that the whole

objective was to seek regime change in

Iran. This is before the attack began.

Remember, we said that an attack was

coming and that it was certain that

there would be an attack and everything

was building up in that direction. And

Trump spoke at the State of the Union

address. And it's worthwhile, by the

way, going back and reading that State

of the Union address again and seeing

what he has to say about Iran there. And

you could clearly see if you do that at

that point it was regime change in Iran

that they were seeking. And you know,

you had the Israelis talking and all

kinds of other people, the neocons and

all of them talking and their followers

and the media, they were all talking

about regime change in Iran and and

other things. Well, we have now seen all

of that fail. And we said it would fail.

We said that if regime change did not

happen quickly, if after the attack Iran

held together, I think we said we gave

it about 3 weeks. We said that um after

three weeks if there had not been a

collapse in Iran then the balance

would shift increasingly

in Iran's favor. Well, I think you can

now see that that analysis proved to be

completely correct. Um Iran

held together. There was the last throw

which was the sea blockade.

What you I think absolutely correctly

called the waiting game.

The Americans

said to themselves if we can impose this

sea blockade then we will start to crash

the Iranian economy that could

eventually result in regime change in

Iran. I think at some point over the

last few weeks the realization started

to grow in the White House perhaps

amongst some other agencies within the

US government, the commerce department,

who knows who and they realized that

long before there was a crash in Iran

and the problems of the world economy

would grow to the level with that um

there would be a major recession and

that would not be a sustainable position

for the United States And at some point

somebody explained this all to Trump and

that's why we have the deal we have.

>> Uh as far as um you know this this being

in in America's interest, I agree with

you that uh that Trump is making without

a doubt the correct decision.

>> Yes.

>> By signing thisou and hopefully they can

begin to negotiate and they can find a

way out. I agree it's going to be

difficult and I imagine even if they get

through the 60 days of of negotiations,

I still think it's going to be difficult

for for whatever they agree on to to

hold. So I think we're far away from uh

from getting out out of this mess. Very

far away. We are just at the beginning

of of all of this.

>> But saying that, without a doubt, Trump

is making the right decision by signing

this.

>> Yes. Uh he didn't really have much

choice. He boxed himself in.

>> Yes.

>> And he even admitted as much in the

press conference at the G7. He said

>> we were down to four weeks of of oil

reserves.

>> So he blinked. The US blinked. They ran

out of time. Basically saying we ran out

of time.

>> We know they ran out of weapons as well

because that's been very well documented

that they were running low on on all

kinds of of weapons. The THADs, the

interceptors, the tomahawks.

So he he didn't have any other choice

that he he lost the waiting game.

>> Yes. Say

>> saying that signing the deal is very

good for the United States and for the

Trump administration because they maybe

they get out of this mess

>> that he [snorts] himself put the country

in.

>> Yeah.

>> Because he made the terrible decision

and he made it. He's the president. He's

the chief executive now. whether he's

he's really calling the shots or if

there's a group of people that are

calling the shots and he's just rubber

stamping stuff, he he's the president.

So, at the end of the day, the the the

buck stops with him. The blame goes to

him. He went along with this regime

change in two days. Decapitation strikes

and it's going to be just like

Venezuela. He bought into it or whoever

is making the decisions bought into it

or the team around him bought into it,

whatever.

And you can see that Trump now is is

very upset with Netanyahu and he's

taking jabs at Netanyahu

because he's finally understanding that

he messed up.

He may maybe maybe the New York Times

article is accurate. It's well sourced.

Maybe it is accurate where they say that

Netanyahu was at the White House and and

Rubio was saying don't do it and Vance

was saying don't do it and even Kaine

was saying don't do it but Trump said

let's do it. It's going to be like

Venezuela. We're going to get rid of

Kame. We're going to get rid of the the

leadership and then the people will rise

up and they'll overthrow the government

and you know this will be a huge Trump

peace through strength uh win. That's

what the New York Times essentially

reported about a month ago. He bought

into that

and and now he's he's taking it out on

Netanyahu.

>> Yeah.

>> And he's upset basically telling him,

you know, you you led me down this this

freaking path. So, I mean, [snorts] Iran

is getting stronger from this.

>> Yes.

>> The US is getting weaker from this.

>> Yes.

>> But Trump at the end of the day as

president of the United States, he

listened to Netanyahu if that's the

story that we want to believe from the

New York Times. Uh but he he made the

decision to go down this path and to go

through this this this excursion that he

called it. He called it an excursion.

Right.

>> Exactly. I remember that.

>> And Yeah. And the other day he said it

wasn't about to uh yesterday at the G7

he says it wasn't about regime change at

all. You're not fooling anybody. We we

know it was about regime change. Who

said it was about regime change? But the

admission, the big revelation that I got

yesterday was uh where he said four

weeks of of oil reserves, which

basically is is the the president of the

United States.

>> Yeah.

>> Saying we ran out of time.

>> Exactly. That is exactly what happened.

And that of course brings us back to uh

the points we were just discussing

because it when somebody has been forced

into signing a document and when that

person is the United States and he's

telling you that I was forced into

signing a document, you have to question

the good faith behind the signature. I

said that this is a deal which is

objectively

good for the United States, but Trump

himself probably deep down doesn't think

that.

>> He is probably deeply resentful of the

fact that he was forced into signing it.

And he's going to be very angry. He's

obviously very angry with Netanyahu

and all of that.

And but he's now going to go away saying

to himself, I lost to Iran.

What am I going to do now with Iran? Am

I going to continue with this process?

Um, by the way, there is no way that

we're going to get a final agreement

within 60 days. I mean, that timeline is

impossible. I mean, this is an

incredibly complicated issue. All of the

issues related to um um uranium

enrichment are not going to be solved

within 60 days. And we're we're talking

about months of negotiations. I would

have thought at the very least, not just

60 days. Um so Trump is going to say to

himself, what am I going to do? Am I

going to see this through? Am I going to

engage the Iranians in negotiations

over the long term? doing so now from a

position of weakness where it is the

Iranians who have the advantage over me

or am I going to start working very hard

to find a way to break this very same

agreement which I have so unhappily and

reluctantly signed and prepare for the

next war and that's Trump and you have

to understand that of course Trump

himself is only one party to this

process that all the other people um in

the intelligence services in the deep

state the neocons the friends of Israel

all of those people not just Israel by

the way you know people who for all

kinds of structural reasons in the

United States want to see regime change

in Iran want to see regime change in

Iran because that that's going to crash

the bricks and by the way. I have some

things to say about the bricks and Iran

which I'll say in a moment. But um all

of that all of that group of people who

are um involved in all in all of this

and who wanted more with Iran and the

crashing of the regime. They're not

they're still there. They're still

incredibly powerful. They are going to

treat this exactly as the neocons

treated Minsk as an opportunity to rearm

and prepare. Now the mistake the

Russians made after Minsk is they

thought that Minsk had been entered into

in good faith and that it made absolute

logical sense for the Europeans, the

Germans and all that the others to work

through and enact Minsk. If the Iranians

make that same mistake, they assume that

the United States is fully fully

committed to this memorandum of

understanding, which you're absolutely

right to say again, as you did at the

start of the pro program, is not a final

treaty. It is just a memorandum of

understanding. It is at most a framework

agreement. If the Iranians get lulled

into it in the way that the Russians

were lulled into Minsk and give the

neocons and the Israelis and all of

these people all the time they need to

prepare, you know, violating theou

uh deploying more troops closer to Iran

instead of pulling them back. You notice

this talk about pulling troops and

forces away from Iran. Minsk said

exactly the same that the Ukrainians

would pull their forces away from the

conflict line and they never did and the

Russians never did anything about it

except meet with Steinmeer and Merkel

and all of these people that complain

about this. If the Iranians get lulled

into that and even as the terms of theou

are broken then I'm afraid they're going

to find that they're back in in another

war very soon. probably well I say very

soon perhaps in a few years time only

the attack this time will be much more

powerful and far better organized than

the one we have just seen. So the

Iranians have not won and this is an

important thing to say they have gained

a tactical victory.

They if they're going to

gain from this and benefit from it, they

need to make certain very difficult

decisions. They need to work very very

hard and they need to move forward and

consolidate what they have gained and

they need to be very much on their guard

understanding that in the United States

and in Israel and elsewhere in including

in Europe by the way there are very very

powerful forces that want will want to

reverse this thing. Oh, I would say Iran

has won a battle or a round another

round or or another battle, but the war

is still is still there.

>> War is still ongoing. Until we get a

final agreement and see the terms of

that final agreement implemented,

>> you cannot say that Iran has won.

>> Yeah. Um I don't think Iran will make

the mistake of Russia because the way

Iran went about this war was very very

different than the way Russia goes about

things. I think I think Iran was I I

mean, if you want my my honest take on

on how I'm now now that I'm looking at

at the way Iran went through this

conflict,

>> they took big risks, but those risks

paid off and and their execution was was

very well done. They were very well

prepared.

>> One one of the reasons they're not going

to make the mistakes that the Russians

made was because they're being advised

by the Russians. Now, I I I I I was told

I was told quite a lot about the kind of

communications that took place between

Russia and Iran during the war while I

was in Russia. Um, from a variety of

sources, by the way. And I mean the

Russians, it's absolutely clear to me,

did not just provide intelligence

assistance and drone technology and

those kind of things, but they were

providing the uh Iranians with quite a

lot of advice as well and giving all

kinds of warnings. The Iranians heeded

those that advice.

I have to say this. Um, the Russians are

worried that after these events, the

Iranians

are feeling very euphoric

and um there was an expression that I

heard use dizzy with success

and the the the Russians are telling

them, you know, slow down, you know,

don't don't think this is over. It is

not yet over. So you know there are

these uncertainties

just as the Russians felt

very euphoric after Minsk and that led

them down the wrong path. There is a

faction in Iran that is feeling very

euphoric with thisou and I know that I

mean I have absolutely no doubt about

that. So um but I agree I think in the

end they won't make the same mistakes

that the Russians make. Okay, let's um I

yeah, I agree with that. I think Iran

definitely

>> does war

very differently than than than the

Russians. And when I mean war conflict,

I'm talking about enforcing red lines.

I'm talking about the information war.

>> Yeah.

>> A very different approach than than how

Russia has gone about things, whether it

was Minsk, whether it's the conflict

with Ukraine. But

>> well, I I I I I just want to say I think

they we're talking about completely

different wars. I mean there's never

been there has never been a ground war

and again it was explained to me that

there are fundamental factors that uh uh

make the kind of playing out of the war

completely different but the diplomacy

the diplomacy was different and um again

the there was and I I mean I know this

now I mean there there's no quite doubt

about this there was advice advice given

to Iran which Iran heeded. There are

people within Iran who also wanted to be

much more accommodating with the US than

the people who eventually emerged

in the ascendant. But as I said, the

Iranians overall did listen to the

advice they were given. And when I say

the Iranians listen to advice, there's

no doubt at all that there were people

in Iran also who didn't need that advice

because they already understood what the

Americans uh were going to do.

>> Yeah. Well, I agree. Two different wars,

but when I use the when I talk about u

you know, Iran was taking risks.

>> Yes.

uh that that Russia

comparing it to to Russia and Ukraine

that Russia did not take or was too

worried to take. For example, shutting

down Hormuse.

>> Yes.

>> This has nothing to do with with a

conventional war, ground war, whatever.

But

>> this was a move that was very risky.

>> Yes.

>> Very unpredictable.

>> Yes.

>> And

>> Yes. Yes. And and did could and did uh a

lot of of damage to to the Iranian

economy. I mean, it was a big risky

>> uh move for them to shut down Hormuse in

the way that they did. But it it worked.

>> Yes.

>> Where where where Russia and they could

have said no. Iran could have played it

safe and said,

>> "Let's not go down this path. It's too

much. It's it's too heavy of a response.

It's going to lead to all kinds of

unforeseen

>> uh problems and and we should just best

avoid completely shutting down

>> Hormuse. Yeah. I I don't want to get

into a discussion.

>> No, I just want to spend it approach

because because uh again there was I I

heard discussions about the something to

discuss in a program about Russia that

we'll do that in Russia. But the point

that I want to make is these are the

risks that they took.

>> They did take risks. Uh uh they did take

risks and they did respond very

aggressively against American bases. Um

and they did build up their forces. But

most important of all, they stuck to

their position in negotiations

and as you absolutely rightly say, they

won the waiting game. But I they're in

the same position now that the Russians

were in in February 2015. That that's

the point I am making. We are not in a

position yet where there is a final

agreement. So it is what Iran now does

between from this moment where it has

won this tactical success. Russians had

also won a tactical success by February

2015. If they get dizzy with success, if

they think that the battle is won, the

key thing to understand is that it is

not. If they don't capitalize

on the advantage they have gained, then

they are s simply setting themselves up

for a much bigger attack in the future.

>> Yeah. Well, I mean, okay, there there

are

>> there are differences with

>> Yes.

>> with the Minsk and how that came about

and and how this deal came about, but

anyway,

>> uh let's let's leave that to to another

video.

>> Um

>> just to wrap up this video, you you

talked about uh Trump leaving leaving uh

France maybe maybe a bit uh well,

definitely a bit upset.

>> Yeah. feeling as if he was led down the

wrong path. He was led astray, was given

bad advice. Uh Netanyahu uh betrayed

him. Maybe he's feeling betrayal. Maybe

he's feeling as if he was duped. I'm

sure these are natural, you know, human

feelings, if you want to say that. Trump

is probably feeling these things. You

know, I I I I believed that guy. I

trusted that guy. He sold me this this

big victory and look what happened. So,

so you have all these things happening

uh with Trump or with the Trump

administration

and and I go back to Versailles,

the signing of a of a surrender of a

document of capitulation

>> where the one side feels as if as if it

was it was uh duped as if it was it was

uh it was not right what what happened

>> and and where that led to.

>> Yeah. I mean there there there's

interesting not not completely I mean

definitely once again completely two

completely different you know

>> situations and wars and everything but

but there's something in in in Mron and

Trump and signing the document at that

location

which which I think should not be uh

lost on on everyone. You are absolutely

correct and um frankly um I think that

Trump was very ill advised to sign it in

Belai. I I I don't know what again

>> he probably didn't know what was

>> No, he sure he didn't know.

>> But I think Macaron would know.

[laughter]

>> Absolutely. And and that tells us

something again because we've just been

talking about Iran and why Iran needs to

be on its guard and not assume that this

is over because it is not over. Um the

there needs to be a sim there needs to

be a debate

a similar debate in the United States

but from the other side. And this is

where what we were discussing at the

start of this program about how if you

take a step back objectively this is a

good agreement for the United States is

something that people in the United

States important people and there are

such people in the United States they

need to argue about because Minsk

was objectively

a good agreement.

for Germany.

After Minsk, after Minsk, Merkel signed

for Okay, sorry. Yeah, you got me

confused when you said for Germany.

>> For Germany, Minsk was a good deal for

Germany. Germany went away. And for

Ukraine and for Ukraine, they they they

did Nordstream too, if you remember all

of that. They were able to persuade the

Russians to build Nordstream, too. um it

provided a framework for peace in Europe

which Germany massively benefited from.

The problem was that the people who

understood that in Germany and there

were some eventually lost the battle

with the hardliners

and that's why this thing has gone

completely wrong in the United States.

They need to have that same discussion.

The people who

objectively understand that this is a

good deal for the United States and

there are such people. I know there are.

They need to be much more forceful than

the supporters of Minsk were in Germany.

And they need to make very strongly the

case in the United States that this is

this really is the fork in the road that

the United States must work in good

faith to secure this deal to make a

long-term treaty with Iran that will

stick and which will enable the United

States to disengage and to free itself

from all of these entanglements in the

Middle East. The risk is that just that

just as in Germany it was the hardliners

who eventually won so that we've ended

up with mass and all of these

extraordinary people in Germany in

control. We could see exactly the same

thing happen in the United States, in

which case not only will we get back

into a war, but the United States will

find itself again in much more

prolonged, far more difficult wars in

the Middle East, which inevitably sooner

or later are going to have to lead to

the deployment of ground troops by the

United States. if the United States is

going to prevail in that war against not

just Iran but against the very powerful

forces across the Middle East that have

been on Iran's side in this conflict. So

the United States is also at a major

fork in the road. The Iranians need to

be on their guard. The Americans need to

start working in good faith in good

faith towards achieving peace. And that

means that those who support peace in

the Middle East need to win the

political battle in the United States to

make sure that that is what happens. Uh

just a final question, is there a

parallel that could also be uh brought

up with uh the Versail treaty in World

War I and how it led to World War II in

the signing of this document as well?

is is Macron aiming at

>> I mean all all the symbolism of I just

find it weird that they couldn't wait

till Friday decided in Switzerland. They

had to sign it there and and obviously

Macaron and the Europeans, they they

want this to happen because they want

that the optics of it all. Right. Uh

Iran is over now. We could focus on

Ukraine and here we all are as the G7.

We're in this thing together, united.

And Macaron is talking about sending

French ships to Hormuse

>> and and all of this stuff. Uh but I mean

you the the another good point to make

is is that you can't have the the end of

this conflict lead to a a bigger

conflict down the road.

>> That is exactly what Macroy is up to.

That is why he held he had it signed in

Versailles. Um he he wants to make it he

wants this conflict to be a staging post

towards the next bigger conflict. Uh um

Ma Mron whatever whatever we we may

think about Mron knows his history at

least he has his own version of history

but he knows exactly what ma uh what

Vansai was all about. Um he he [snorts]

basically set this thing up both in some

ways to humiliate Trump in ways that I

don't think Trump understood, but also

in order to box the US in so that that

leads on to the next big war in the

Middle East and elsewhere and at the

same time to give Trump's adversaries

in the United States an iconic image

that they could play with. So the the

again it's very unfortunate that Trump

isn't properly advised about these

things and himself doesn't have that

sense of history to understand what the

Europeans are doing. But that is exactly

what that was all about. I mean,

this is not

a decided a resolved conflict. Not by

any means. And I get to say this as of

now. I would say that the adversaries,

the opponents of peace with Iran

continue to be much stronger in the

United States, in Israel, of course, and

in Europe than those who want a

long-term peace in the Middle East.

Because and this is a key thing to

understand for the Europeans

it's keeping the United States

continuing its neocon foreign policy

line which keeps the US in the Middle

East. It keeps the US in Europe. It

prevents the US achieving

reconciliations

with countries like Russia, Iran,

wherever, which are not objectively

American enemies or really threats to

the United States, but which the

Europeans, the Israelis, all of these

people want the United States to remain

in permanent confrontation with. So, um,

this game is at its start and as of now,

the opponents of long-term peace remain

much stronger, better organized,

understanding what they are doing than

those who are the supporters of peace.

The fact that they were able to maneuver

Trump into signing this thing in Vai is

a case in point.

>> All right, we will end the video there.

the duran.locals.com. We're on X. We're

on Rumble. We're on Telegram. Go to

Duran Shop, pick up some merch. We are

also on Substack as well. All those

links in the description box down below

and go to Duran shop, pick up

>> some uh some merch. I think I said that,

but we do have a special on the Duran

shop. Uh 25% off or 20% off on all

merchandise.

>> So, definitely check that out. Take

care.