- 17 minutes ago
- #iran
- #brics
- #informationwar
Seyed Mohammad Marandi joins Think BRICS to expose the reality of Iran BRICS integration, the US Dollar dedollarization process, the New Delhi Declaration, and the global information wars shaping modern geopolitics.
In this in-depth geopolitics analysis, Professor Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran delivers a critical examination of Western hegemony, the shifting dynamics of the global economy, and the emerging Multipolar World. The discussion explores the limitations of Global South diplomacy following the latest BRICS summit, dissecting how international relations are evolving amid increasing economic pressures and the heavy US sanctions impact.
Marandi breaks down the ongoing Western media narrative, contrasting institutional media messaging with the reality of digital censorship in the broader free speech debate. He addresses how the policies championed by Donald Trump and successive US administrations have weakened trust in global agreements, accelerating the push away from dollar dominance. Discover why member nations face diverging strategic priorities regarding dedollarization, how media monopolies control the flow of international information, and what the future holds for non-Western financial networks.
While this discussion provides a comprehensive look at the BRICS summit, Global South diplomacy, and the information wars, it is important to note the specific scope of this interview.
This video does not cover tactical military logistics, battlefield reports, or partisan domestic campaign strategies related to Donald Trump. It does not provide personal financial advice, currency trading recommendations regarding US Dollar dedollarization, or technical investment guides for the global economy. Furthermore, this episode does not delve into detailed clause-by-clause legal analyses of the New Delhi Declaration, nor does it explore the infowars style of sensationalist reporting. It deliberately avoids domestic party politics within Iran, focusing strictly on high-level geopolitics analysis, academic discourse, and structural shifts away from Western hegemony in the Multipolar World.
#Iran #BRICS #informationwar
00:00 – Seyed Mohammad Marandi on Iran, BRICS, and Global Information Wars
00:40 – New Delhi Declaration & UN Failures: Can the BRICS Summit Deliver Justice?
04:13 – Western Media Narrative, Western Hegemony, and the Oligarchy Breakdown
07:23 – The Digital Battlefield: Free Speech Debate and Social Media Censorship
10:41 – Global South Diplomacy: Why BRICS Needs Independent Digital Platforms
14:48 – Multipolar World Dilemma: Why the East Still Relies on Western Sources
16:04 – US Sanctions Impact & Donald Trump: The Reality of Broken International Deals
21:56 – US Dollar Dedollarization & Geopolitics: Is Washington Sabotaging BRICS?
25:26 – The Future of Global Economy and Multipolarity with Think BRICS
🌐 https://thinkbrics.world
🌍 @ThinkBRICS_de | @ThinkBRICS_es | @ThinkBRICS_pt
🎥 @Think
In this in-depth geopolitics analysis, Professor Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran delivers a critical examination of Western hegemony, the shifting dynamics of the global economy, and the emerging Multipolar World. The discussion explores the limitations of Global South diplomacy following the latest BRICS summit, dissecting how international relations are evolving amid increasing economic pressures and the heavy US sanctions impact.
Marandi breaks down the ongoing Western media narrative, contrasting institutional media messaging with the reality of digital censorship in the broader free speech debate. He addresses how the policies championed by Donald Trump and successive US administrations have weakened trust in global agreements, accelerating the push away from dollar dominance. Discover why member nations face diverging strategic priorities regarding dedollarization, how media monopolies control the flow of international information, and what the future holds for non-Western financial networks.
While this discussion provides a comprehensive look at the BRICS summit, Global South diplomacy, and the information wars, it is important to note the specific scope of this interview.
This video does not cover tactical military logistics, battlefield reports, or partisan domestic campaign strategies related to Donald Trump. It does not provide personal financial advice, currency trading recommendations regarding US Dollar dedollarization, or technical investment guides for the global economy. Furthermore, this episode does not delve into detailed clause-by-clause legal analyses of the New Delhi Declaration, nor does it explore the infowars style of sensationalist reporting. It deliberately avoids domestic party politics within Iran, focusing strictly on high-level geopolitics analysis, academic discourse, and structural shifts away from Western hegemony in the Multipolar World.
#Iran #BRICS #informationwar
00:00 – Seyed Mohammad Marandi on Iran, BRICS, and Global Information Wars
00:40 – New Delhi Declaration & UN Failures: Can the BRICS Summit Deliver Justice?
04:13 – Western Media Narrative, Western Hegemony, and the Oligarchy Breakdown
07:23 – The Digital Battlefield: Free Speech Debate and Social Media Censorship
10:41 – Global South Diplomacy: Why BRICS Needs Independent Digital Platforms
14:48 – Multipolar World Dilemma: Why the East Still Relies on Western Sources
16:04 – US Sanctions Impact & Donald Trump: The Reality of Broken International Deals
21:56 – US Dollar Dedollarization & Geopolitics: Is Washington Sabotaging BRICS?
25:26 – The Future of Global Economy and Multipolarity with Think BRICS
🌐 https://thinkbrics.world
🌍 @ThinkBRICS_de | @ThinkBRICS_es | @ThinkBRICS_pt
🎥 @Think
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00BRICS, Iran, and the Information War.
00:03Our guest is Mohamed Marandi,
00:06professor at the University of Tehran
00:08and former member of Iran's nuclear negotiation team.
00:12He's a recurring guest here at ThinkBriks,
00:15and I already had the pleasure of interviewing him
00:17in Tehran already last year.
00:20Well, let's put some spicy topics on your plate, professor.
00:26Listen, you have said the SCO and BRICS
00:30are stepping in where the United Nations failed
00:34and that an attack on Iran is an attack on the multi-polar world.
00:39But look at the last United Nations General Assembly,
00:43for example, in September.
00:44The most important decisions were negotiated outside the chamber.
00:49The official theme itself admitted that trust has been eroded
00:53and the New Delhi Declaration doesn't name any war.
00:59It condemns unilateral sanctions, yes,
01:03but it doesn't mention the attacks on Iran,
01:06even though Tehran asked for that.
01:09So what makes BRICS a credible alternative today,
01:14even when its own declaration avoids naming the conflict?
01:18Like, that is most.
01:23Well, you're right.
01:24BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
01:27are not a...
01:34they're not platforms that will bring about global justice,
01:39but they are platforms that play a much more constructive role
01:46among member states
01:48because they are much more democratic
01:53in the sense that there's no central core of countries,
01:59a security council, let's say, membership.
02:04And so smaller nations and larger nations sit at the same table
02:08and they discuss the issues.
02:11And both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS,
02:14which were created for different reasons,
02:16but they are gradually, in my opinion,
02:19they're becoming more similar,
02:20though it's different geographies.
02:23but they're broadening the scope of the issues that they deal with.
02:32So for Iran,
02:34if it wants to integrate with Asian countries,
02:38if it wants to integrate economically
02:40with countries across the global south,
02:43these two bodies are the most useful.
02:47The UN has never been of much value to Iran,
02:53and it never will be,
02:55and it's going to get worse.
02:58So it's the difference...
03:01Of course, I'm exaggerating.
03:03I'm not saying it's worthless or useless at all,
03:05but in relative terms, it hasn't done much.
03:08We've been the victim of three wars,
03:10and the UN has never been of much help to us.
03:16When Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons,
03:18which the Europeans and the Americans
03:20helped him obtain and use,
03:23and Arab countries in the Persian Gulf were funding,
03:26the UN didn't do anything about it.
03:28It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwait
03:30that the dynamics changed,
03:33and there were some...
03:35They woke up.
03:37Yeah, suddenly chemical weapons were a bad thing.
03:39But even though chemical weapons
03:42were not used in Kuwait.
03:44But so since...
03:45So in my opinion,
03:49the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Briggs
03:52has more potential
03:53than does the UN for countries like Iraq.
03:58You have said also that...
04:00Practical. Practically speaking.
04:02You have said also
04:03Western media are complicit in genocide,
04:07and that the US media
04:08are controlled by oligarchs.
04:12Last week,
04:13we attended an event
04:15called Dialogue About Fakes
04:17in Moscow,
04:19and we talked about needing
04:20critical thinking first
04:22to beat Western fake news,
04:25not just counter-information.
04:27Do you agree with that?
04:30Yes, I think Western media is useless.
04:36It's irredeemable mainstream media.
04:39And the reason is,
04:41as you pointed out,
04:42that it is controlled
04:44by very powerful individuals.
04:46And those individuals...
04:48I mean, in the West,
04:49they like to speak about
04:49the oligarchs in Russia,
04:52but it's quite ironic
04:54because the oligarchy,
04:57however you may define it,
04:59the plutocracy in the West
05:01is far more...
05:02The power is far more centralized there
05:04than anywhere else.
05:06And you can see
05:07from the big tech companies,
05:08you know the names
05:09of the people
05:10who are effectively
05:13in control
05:14of almost everything.
05:16And in the United States,
05:20wealth is...
05:21When you look at Hollywood,
05:24when you look at television,
05:29wealth is...
05:30Being extremely wealthy
05:32is a good thing.
05:35So, for example,
05:36you get the story
05:37of the rich man
05:40who hides his wealth
05:41and he finds
05:42a poor young woman
05:44and they...
05:45You know, or vice versa.
05:47It's...
05:47Cinderella.
05:48Yes, yes, exactly.
05:49It's, you know,
05:50it's Cinderella.
05:51So, but in any case,
05:55I think that
05:56in the world
05:59that we live in today,
06:00in the West at least,
06:02the only place
06:03where you can get
06:03valid information
06:06or let's say
06:07valid analysis,
06:08almost always,
06:09when I say I'm,
06:10of course,
06:10exaggerating a bit,
06:12almost always,
06:12is alternative media.
06:14An alternative...
06:15alternative media
06:16is itself being infiltrated
06:18by the powerful,
06:20by funding
06:23alternative media outlets
06:25and then, of course,
06:26they can decrease your...
06:29I mean, you would know
06:30this far better than I,
06:31but they can decrease
06:32the number of people
06:33who visit your channel,
06:36the number of viewers,
06:38they can demonetize you,
06:39they can get rid of you.
06:41Yeah, they can create
06:42a lot of obstacles.
06:43For example,
06:44let me tell our subscribers
06:46that our own Facebook page
06:50was shut down
06:51just a few days
06:53before the BRICS summit
06:54in New Delhi started.
06:55So, we could not share
06:57any information
06:58with our subscribers
06:59directly from Delhi
07:00because we had not access
07:02to our page.
07:03that was a disaster.
07:06Do you agree
07:07that now media
07:09became a new battlefield,
07:12same important
07:13as a battlefield,
07:14I mean,
07:16in...
07:17No doubt.
07:17No doubt.
07:18And that's why
07:20they are...
07:21And look,
07:23I'm not a...
07:26I'm not an important person,
07:27but I lost my Facebook account
07:29many years ago.
07:30I lost my Instagram account
07:31many years ago.
07:33Why did I lose
07:34my Instagram account?
07:35I put up...
07:35On my Facebook account,
07:37I put up a photo
07:38of a friend of mine,
07:40a commander of mine,
07:41during the war
07:43when Saddam,
07:44which, you know,
07:45which Saddam Hussein
07:46invaded Iran.
07:47He was dying
07:48of chemical...
07:50Because of chemical weapons.
07:51Many years after the war,
07:55the damage done
07:56to his lungs
07:57was getting worse.
07:58And I posted
07:59a picture of him.
08:00I wasn't...
08:00It wasn't a picture
08:01of him in a hospital bed.
08:03It was just a photo
08:04of him in his youth
08:04and I was saying
08:05he is dying
08:06because of chemical weapons
08:08that the Germans
08:09and the West
08:10gave to Saddam Hussein.
08:11They deleted my account
08:13on Facebook.
08:14And they deleted
08:14my account on Instagram
08:16for something
08:16almost the same.
08:18Some...
08:18I don't remember
08:20exactly what the post
08:21was about,
08:22but it was something
08:22like that.
08:23It was like a picture
08:24of me and my friends
08:26in the war.
08:27I said something
08:28about the United States
08:30and their role
08:31and they just deleted
08:32my account.
08:33and so when they can
08:36do that to you,
08:37it changes the way
08:38you talk.
08:38So if you want
08:39to preserve your account
08:40and you've lost
08:41your Facebook account
08:42so you don't want
08:42to lose your Instagram
08:43account,
08:44so now you will
08:45monitor your own language.
08:48I may say something
08:49and then you'll say
08:49to yourself,
08:50oh, he's going
08:50to get us into trouble.
08:52So I have to delete it.
08:53If it's live,
08:54I have to do something
08:55about it.
08:56So...
08:57And then,
08:57for example,
08:58my own students
08:59who have very
09:01diverse views,
09:02but there are certain
09:03things they won't say.
09:04Why?
09:05Because they're worried
09:07that if tomorrow
09:07they want to continue
09:08their education abroad,
09:10that their social media
09:11posts will be monitored.
09:12So they will self-censor.
09:14But they'll say
09:16it's all freedom
09:16in the West.
09:17But when everyone
09:18has to self-censor
09:20because of the West,
09:21then after a few years,
09:23that's the language
09:24that they use.
09:24is they become
09:25a different set of people.
09:28It becomes...
09:29It's internalized.
09:31So you have certain views
09:32that you don't repeat it.
09:33You don't say it to others.
09:35That viewpoint
09:35gradually
09:38becomes less common.
09:40And it's also something
09:42that you become
09:43more distant from yourself
09:44because you've refrained
09:46from moving
09:46in that particular direction.
09:49And people,
09:50audience,
09:51by that means,
09:52remain always
09:53in the same information bubble.
09:54Yes.
09:56Because we consume
09:58and the majority
10:00of people,
10:01they consume
10:02what they are given
10:03to consume.
10:05Yes, exactly.
10:05So you can explore
10:07outside
10:08the realm
10:10of mainstream narrative.
10:13But if you push too far,
10:15then you will be punished.
10:17And so you cannot
10:18go too far.
10:19So alternative media
10:20is well-managed
10:23and well-controlled.
10:24Having said that,
10:25though,
10:25it is having a huge impact.
10:27And that's why
10:28I think that
10:29if things continue
10:31as they are,
10:32alternative media
10:33will be
10:35more tightly controlled
10:36in the years ahead.
10:37So if BRICS
10:41or the global majority
10:43in general
10:44build its own
10:46social networks
10:47or a digital platform
10:49as you have suggested
10:51once,
10:51what comes first?
10:53Technology,
10:54funding,
10:55or credibility?
11:00I think all of them.
11:01I can't think of
11:03what is most important.
11:05I think the most important thing,
11:06of course,
11:07is providing
11:08a credible narrative,
11:10an acceptable narrative
11:11that is accurate
11:14and has authenticity to it.
11:16The rest will come with it.
11:18But I think that
11:20in order to,
11:21and I propose this,
11:22but of course,
11:22I don't have any
11:23important position
11:24at all to play.
11:25So it's just
11:26something I threw out
11:27there for people
11:29to discuss.
11:31But I think
11:32that if there was some,
11:34that if BRICS countries
11:36came together
11:36and created
11:38their own
11:39social media platforms
11:41jointly,
11:44that the United States
11:45would no longer
11:46be able to
11:49control the narrative.
11:51And people
11:52would get
11:54options.
11:55to follow this
11:56or follow that.
11:57If I have an option,
11:59I may decide by myself
12:01what to believe
12:03or at least
12:05to know
12:06that there is
12:06other point of view.
12:08right?
12:09So, for example,
12:10your problem
12:11about understanding
12:12me would be
12:14that, let's say,
12:15you get your information
12:16about my country
12:18and myself
12:18largely from
12:19Western sources.
12:21I want to know
12:21about you,
12:22your country,
12:23your society.
12:24Where do I get
12:24my information?
12:25From the same
12:26Western sources.
12:27Bloomberg says,
12:29Reuters says.
12:29And it's not
12:31going to say
12:31anything good,
12:32I promise you,
12:33when it comes to us.
12:34So,
12:35if there was
12:36an alternative,
12:39let's say,
12:41platform,
12:42which was not
12:42controlled,
12:44then,
12:44and of course,
12:45within your
12:45technologies,
12:46many things
12:47could be done.
12:48Now you see,
12:49for example,
12:49when I speak
12:50somewhere,
12:50then you have AI
12:52translated
12:52with the same
12:53voice and the
12:54same tone
12:54and so on.
12:55So you could
12:56create an
12:57alternative
13:01to Western
13:02media
13:03where people
13:05can have
13:06access directly
13:07to one another
13:08rather than
13:09having to
13:10understand each
13:11other through
13:11Western.
13:12So,
13:12for example,
13:13if I want to,
13:13what is China?
13:14China is probably
13:15an authoritarian
13:17state where
13:18there's
13:19human rights
13:20issues
13:20and et cetera.
13:21You know,
13:22when I first
13:23went to,
13:23when I,
13:24I've been to
13:24China often,
13:26it's extremely
13:27different from
13:27what I read
13:30in Western
13:30media.
13:31Most of my
13:32friends are
13:33academics.
13:34Almost all
13:35of my friends
13:35are either
13:36academics or
13:37they are in
13:38think tanks
13:39and we have
13:40long discussions,
13:41we go out
13:42together and
13:44it's not at
13:44all the world
13:45that has
13:48been described
13:49to me
13:50through Western.
13:51It's not a
13:52utopia.
13:52My country
13:53is not a
13:53utopia.
13:53Your country
13:54is not a
13:55utopia.
13:55Russia is not
13:55a utopia.
13:56But it is not
13:57the dystopia
13:58that they say
13:59and they are
13:59not the
13:59utopia
14:00that they
14:02tell us
14:02that they
14:03are.
14:03In fact,
14:03I would say
14:05they're the
14:06biggest problem
14:08Western elites
14:09on this planet.
14:11So,
14:11if we could
14:13have that
14:13alternative,
14:14then I could
14:14have a better
14:15understanding
14:16of the world
14:17and it actually
14:17helps me
14:18because if I
14:19want to do
14:19business,
14:20I better
14:20understand how
14:21to work with
14:22you.
14:22If I want
14:22to have
14:23academic
14:24exchanges,
14:25I better
14:25understand how
14:26to move
14:26forward with
14:27you.
14:27But as long
14:28as I have
14:29this perception
14:34of you,
14:35that there's
14:36something wrong
14:37with you,
14:37something backward
14:38about,
14:38it impedes
14:40progress,
14:41whether
14:42intellectual
14:43or economic
14:44or anything.
14:47I mean,
14:48in Iran,
14:48the most
14:49famous book
14:50on China
14:51is
14:54Kissinger's
14:54book still.
14:55Oh.
14:57Is that
14:58going to,
14:58so,
14:59why?
15:00Because it's
15:01American,
15:02it's Kissinger,
15:03so most
15:05university
15:06students who
15:06want to study
15:07China,
15:07they'll begin
15:09with Henry
15:11Kissinger.
15:12That's not,
15:13I think,
15:13a very productive
15:14–
15:15Unexpectedly.
15:17Unexpectedly.
15:18Yeah.
15:19Not very
15:19constructive.
15:21Not very
15:22constructive
15:22and definitely
15:24biased.
15:24I'm not saying
15:25you shouldn't
15:26read his book,
15:27but I'm saying
15:28that we're
15:29already,
15:29from day one,
15:31we're being
15:31introduced
15:32through a
15:33Western lens.
15:35Yes.
15:36Yeah,
15:37this is a
15:37problem.
15:40You were
15:41the part
15:42of Iran's
15:43negotiating team
15:44in Islamabad
15:45and you have
15:46said there is
15:46no agreement
15:47with the US.
15:49Yet,
15:50you've also
15:50said the
15:51chances of
15:52a deal
15:53are now
15:53above
15:5450%.
15:57Which one
15:57is correct
15:59right now?
16:01And what
16:01would a real
16:02deal look like
16:03for Iran?
16:04When did I
16:04say this,
16:04though?
16:05Because that's,
16:05you know,
16:06it's been seven
16:07months now.
16:08Yes.
16:09Because we did
16:10have the MOU
16:10ultimately.
16:11Yes.
16:12But the MOU
16:13was signed,
16:14so we had a
16:14deal,
16:15and then Trump
16:16ignored the deal.
16:16Signed,
16:17unsigned,
16:18thrown away,
16:19tad.
16:20But I've
16:21always been
16:22skeptical about
16:22the United States
16:23because I
16:24feel that the
16:24United States
16:24does not
16:25abide by,
16:26that I
16:26don't feel.
16:27The United
16:27States never
16:28abides by
16:28its obligations
16:29if it feels
16:32that it's not
16:33in the
16:34interest of
16:35the regime,
16:37American
16:38regime,
16:38they will not
16:39abide by
16:39commitment.
16:40They're not
16:40like us.
16:41They expect
16:41everyone else
16:42to abide by
16:43their commitment,
16:44but they think
16:44that they are
16:45exceptional and
16:46above the law.
16:46So if they
16:47don't abide by
16:48commitments,
16:48no one in the
16:49United States is
16:50going to say
16:50you're violating
16:51the deal,
16:51but the
16:52Iranians are
16:52not.
16:53No one in
16:54the Western
16:54media is not
16:54going to be
16:55saying that
16:56the White
16:56House is
16:57breaking the
16:58deal,
16:58you've signed
16:59this.
16:59No,
17:00because they
17:01believe that
17:01they have
17:01every right
17:02to violate.
17:03The right of
17:04the strongest.
17:06Yes,
17:06but it's not
17:07just stronger.
17:08They see
17:08themselves as
17:09exceptional,
17:10above the
17:11law.
17:11What was it
17:13Madeleine
17:13Albright once
17:14said?
17:15Something like,
17:15we stand
17:16taller and
17:17we look,
17:18we see
17:19further away.
17:20I don't
17:21remember the
17:21exact phrase,
17:22but she was
17:22basically saying
17:23that we are
17:23the indispensable
17:26nation.
17:26So what?
17:28So other
17:30nations are
17:31not indispensable
17:32except for the
17:33United States.
17:34That mentality,
17:35which is very
17:37similar to
17:39Zionism, by
17:40the way,
17:40is that it's
17:41a supremacist
17:42worldview.
17:43So if they
17:44invade your
17:45country and
17:45kill a million
17:46people and
17:46then go away
17:47and they
17:48fail to
17:49occupy your
17:50country,
17:50they'll say
17:51that was a
17:51failed policy.
17:53They won't say
17:54that was a
17:54criminal endeavor.
17:56Like it was
17:56in Iran?
17:57Like it was
17:58in Afghanistan?
17:59Yes.
18:00Like it was
18:00in other
18:00countries?
18:01So no one
18:01in Western
18:02mainstream media,
18:03no one's
18:03going to say
18:03we are a
18:04criminal
18:07government,
18:07we have a
18:07criminal government
18:08that carries
18:09out war crimes
18:09across the
18:10world.
18:10No.
18:10They'll say
18:11Afghanistan
18:12was a
18:12failed policy,
18:14but the
18:14Russians,
18:15they created
18:16enormous crimes
18:17in Afghanistan
18:19or the
18:19Iranians,
18:20they are
18:20terrorists and
18:21so on,
18:22but for them
18:22it's all,
18:23you know,
18:24yes,
18:24it was bad.
18:25Why was it
18:25bad?
18:26Because it
18:26was ill-informed.
18:28It was not
18:31carried out
18:32appropriately,
18:33but it's not,
18:34they won't say
18:35it was evil,
18:37because they're
18:38superior to the
18:39rest of us.
18:39that's it.
18:41Yeah.
18:41It's pretty
18:42simple,
18:42I think.
18:46Because they're
18:47the adult,
18:48so they have
18:48special privileges.
18:49You're the
18:50child.
18:51So if your
18:51father sends
18:52you to your
18:53room,
18:54he has the
18:54right to,
18:55because he is
18:56smarter,
18:57he's more
18:58mature,
18:59he knows
19:00better what to
19:01do.
19:01He knows
19:02so if he
19:02spanks you,
19:03if he
19:04punishes you,
19:05that's his
19:06privilege.
19:07Why?
19:07Because he
19:08sees further,
19:09he stands
19:09taller,
19:10he is,
19:11but you are
19:13immature,
19:14you're childish.
19:14That's how
19:15they treat us.
19:16So if they
19:16punish us,
19:17if they kill
19:18us,
19:18it's because
19:19we are a
19:20threat to
19:20global security
19:22or because
19:23we are terrorists
19:24or because
19:25there's something
19:25wrong with us.
19:27Something is not
19:28wrong with them.
19:29You know,
19:30again,
19:31when they go
19:31and attack
19:32Venezuela,
19:33everyone will
19:33say Maduro
19:34is a dictator.
19:35But the
19:36argument will
19:36be should
19:38we attack
19:38or should
19:38we not
19:39attack?
19:39Which one
19:40is better?
19:41It's not
19:41that who
19:42are you
19:43to attack?
19:44What
19:44right do
19:45you have?
19:46Is Maduro
19:47a dictator
19:47or is the
19:48United States
19:48a dictator
19:49regime that
19:51dictates
19:51terms to
19:52the rest
19:52of the world?
19:52That's not
19:52the sort
19:53of language
19:53that they'll
19:54ever use.
19:54So when
19:55they take
19:56Maduro,
19:56the argument
19:57is not
19:58that the
19:58United States
19:59is a
19:59criminal
19:59regime.
20:01The argument
20:01is was
20:02this a good
20:03idea or
20:03a bad
20:03idea?
20:05And I
20:05know for
20:06the
20:06journalists
20:07it was
20:07forbidden
20:07to use
20:08the word
20:08kidnapped.
20:10Yes,
20:10I think
20:11you may
20:12do
20:12everything
20:12but not
20:13kidnapped.
20:14I think
20:14the BBC,
20:15I'm not
20:15quite sure
20:16which one,
20:16but I
20:16saw that
20:17yes,
20:18in the
20:18newsrooms
20:19of some
20:19organizations,
20:20maybe one
20:20of them
20:21was the
20:21BBC,
20:21you don't
20:22use
20:22kidnapped.
20:23It was
20:23nothing
20:23but a
20:24kidnapping.
20:25Exactly.
20:26And we
20:26now know
20:27that the
20:29boats that
20:29were bombed,
20:30that they
20:31were indeed
20:32fishing boats.
20:34And some
20:34of the
20:34survivors
20:35were killed
20:36and those
20:38who were
20:39investigating,
20:39one of
20:40them was
20:40also killed.
20:42But to
20:43blame are
20:44always others.
20:46But bad
20:46guys in the
20:47United States
20:47is always
20:48on the top
20:49of the
20:49pyramid.
20:51And if you
20:51say too
20:52much,
20:52you become
20:52a hard
20:53liner or
20:53an extremist
20:54or,
20:56you know,
20:56they'll label
20:57you in a way
20:58to make sure
20:58you remain
20:59in the margins.
21:00So that's
21:01how freedom
21:02of speech
21:02works in
21:05the American
21:05interpretation.
21:07That's why
21:07I say that
21:10BRICS or
21:10the Shanghai
21:11Cooperation
21:11Organizations
21:12or other
21:13entities have
21:13to find a
21:14way in
21:15which there
21:16is the
21:18ability for
21:19people to
21:20produce
21:20alternative
21:23knowledge
21:24without
21:25feeling
21:26threatened
21:26that they
21:27will be
21:27removed
21:28from that
21:30platform.
21:31It has to
21:31be independent
21:32of the
21:32United States
21:33because I
21:34believe that
21:34ultimately all
21:35of the
21:35American social
21:37media platforms
21:37are going to
21:38become increasingly
21:42narrow in the
21:43scope in which
21:45they allow
21:47discourse to
21:48to be
21:52produced.
21:55The next one
21:56I have to
21:57introduce
21:57the question
21:58a bit longer.
22:01You have said
22:02once that
22:03an attack
22:04on Iran
22:05is an attack
22:06on the
22:06whole
22:07multipolar world.
22:09Look
22:09now at
22:10fertilizer front.
22:13A third
22:13of global
22:14fertilizer trade
22:15passes
22:16through
22:16Strait
22:17of
22:17Hormuz
22:18and both
22:19Brazil
22:19and India
22:20are exposed
22:21because India
22:23imports about
22:2450% of its
22:26fertilizers
22:26through the
22:27Gulf.
22:29Yes.
22:30And its
22:30sulfur imports
22:31from the
22:32Middle East
22:32dropped 26%
22:34year on year
22:36between
22:36January and
22:37May of
22:38the current
22:38year.
22:40Then
22:40Iran
22:41proposed
22:42seven-day
22:43ceasefire
22:43and
22:45offered to
22:46reopen
22:47the
22:48Strait of
22:48Hormuz
22:48from
22:49projected
22:50and told
22:51his staff
22:52he expects
22:52new US
22:53attacks
22:54on Iran
22:55after
22:55November
22:56midterm.
22:58So on
22:59top of
23:00that
23:00Washington
23:01moved to
23:02shut down
23:02Iranian
23:03airlines
23:04worldwide
23:05and
23:06China's
23:06foreign
23:06ministry
23:07called the
23:08sanctions
23:08illegal
23:09and
23:09refused
23:10to comply
23:11obviously.
23:13So
23:13three fronts
23:16one target
23:19is the
23:19US
23:20deliberately
23:21trying to
23:22break
23:22bricks
23:22by choking
23:23its members
23:24and if
23:26so
23:27why is
23:28the response
23:28still
23:29fragmented?
23:32Well
23:35I think
23:36there's no doubt
23:36that the
23:37United States
23:37would like to
23:38make sure
23:38that bricks
23:38does not
23:39get anywhere
23:40and the
23:41same is
23:41true with
23:41the Shanghai
23:42Cooperation
23:42Organization
23:43because they're
23:44not a part
23:44of it
23:45and they
23:46cannot
23:46control it.
23:48Obviously
23:49they would
23:49want to
23:50make sure
23:51that trade
23:52is not
23:53carried out
23:53in a
23:54substantial
23:55way
23:55in any
23:56other currency
23:57than the
23:58US dollar
23:58or by any
23:59other means
24:00than the
24:00US
24:01dominated
24:03system.
24:06And
24:06different
24:07countries
24:07have
24:07different
24:09priorities
24:10and
24:12so
24:13for
24:13example
24:13for
24:14Iran
24:14an
24:15alternative
24:16system
24:16is
24:17very
24:17important
24:18because
24:18we're
24:19under
24:19sanctions
24:19but for
24:20India
24:21sanctions
24:21look further
24:22away
24:22than
24:23they do
24:24in
24:24Europe
24:24maybe
24:25as they
24:26increase
24:26against
24:27Russia
24:27and Iran
24:28and then
24:28they become
24:29more worried
24:29that
24:30Americans
24:31are blocking
24:32all of
24:32our
24:33means
24:34for
24:35economic
24:36growth
24:37but
24:38still
24:39for
24:40a country
24:41like India
24:41or Pakistan
24:44they view
24:45the threat
24:46of the US dollar
24:47differently
24:48than do
24:49the Iranians
24:50and the Russians
24:51so
24:53it's
24:55something that
24:56the Iranians
24:56and the Russians
24:57continue to
24:58pursue
24:59they want
25:00the BRICS
25:00to move
25:00forward
25:01but
25:02I think
25:03we shouldn't
25:04have
25:04as I said
25:05at the
25:05beginning
25:06we shouldn't
25:06have
25:06too many
25:07expectations
25:08of BRICS
25:10because
25:10as I said
25:11different
25:11countries
25:12have
25:13differing
25:13priorities
25:15many of
25:16them are
25:16afraid of
25:16the United
25:17States
25:17they're worried
25:17about the
25:18United States
25:18they're worried
25:19about being
25:20punished by
25:21the United
25:21States
25:22and we
25:23have to
25:24live with
25:24that reality
25:24but I do
25:26think that
25:26change is
25:28going to
25:28happen
25:28it is
25:29taking place
25:29it is
25:30inevitable
25:31the new
25:32technologies
25:36will assist
25:38governments
25:39to move
25:40in that
25:41direction
25:41I mean
25:41the example
25:42that I gave
25:43that right
25:44now
25:44with the
25:45new
25:45technologies
25:47you can
25:48translate
25:49my words
25:49into
25:50Italian
25:51and then
25:52with my
25:52own voice
25:53and I
25:54can sound
25:54like an
25:55Italian
25:55and
25:56Italians
25:58can hear
25:59as if I'm
25:59speaking in
26:00Italian
26:00so
26:02when you
26:03and that's
26:04just simple
26:04technology
26:05so if you
26:06want to
26:08trade in
26:09something other
26:10than the
26:10US dollar
26:11and use
26:12financial systems
26:14that are
26:15not controlled
26:16by the
26:16West
26:17every
26:17day
26:18becomes
26:18easier
26:19but there
26:20is a
26:20political
26:20will
26:20that
26:21has
26:21to
26:21accompany
26:22it
26:22and
26:23different
26:23countries
26:24have
26:24different
26:25priorities
26:26in my
26:27opinion
26:27it's
26:28best for
26:28all countries
26:29to move
26:29in that
26:30direction
26:30more
26:30swiftly
26:30but
26:31then
26:32they would
26:32say
26:32well
26:32you're
26:33an Iranian
26:33so
26:34obviously
26:34you would
26:35say that
26:35but in
26:36any case
26:36I think
26:37that we
26:37are still
26:37going to
26:38be moving
26:38in that
26:39direction
26:39perhaps
26:40not so
26:40rapidly
26:40perhaps
26:41it will
26:42not be
26:42a Briggs
26:43breakthrough
26:43but I
26:44think the
26:45world is
26:45moving in
26:45that
26:46direction
26:47because the
26:47multipolarity
26:48is not
26:49what we
26:49expect
26:51in nearest
26:52future
26:52multipolarity
26:53exists
26:54already
26:55nowadays
26:56and it's
26:57not something
26:58very clear
26:58cut
26:59it's not
26:59like
26:59here is
27:01black
27:01here is
27:01white
27:02there are
27:03these
27:03different
27:05areas
27:08overlapping
27:11interests
27:11but it's
27:13not as
27:14if they're
27:14like
27:14three
27:15four
27:15blocks
27:16and
27:17you can
27:19easily
27:19define
27:19them
27:21by comparing
27:22them
27:22to one
27:22another
27:24thank you
27:25so much
27:26thank you
27:26so much
27:26for your
27:27time
27:27for your
27:28discussion
27:28for your
27:29opinion
27:29our
27:30viewers
27:31always
27:31appreciate
27:32your
27:32take
27:33on
27:33the
27:33situation
27:34in
27:35the
27:35world
27:36today
27:36thank you
27:37so much
27:37stay
27:37with
27:38Thinkbricks
Comments