Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:06So that our coast remains safe, so that the soil of our country remains safe,
00:00:09so that our island remains safe, our tactical movements
00:00:13are offensive movements. In the name of God, greetings and
00:01:43good evening to our dear and
00:01:46respected viewers of the Iran Time program.
00:01:50We are very happy to be with you
00:01:52for another program today, Saturday, the seventeenth of
00:01:56Mordad, on the 162nd day of the third
00:02:00war, 52 days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the presidents of
00:02:04Iran and America. We are at your service with another program.
00:02:08Wherever you are, I hope you are well and healthy. With me
00:02:12in the studio for tonight's program are Dr. Mehdi Khanalizadeh,
00:02:15university professor, Mr. Vahid Khaza, and Mr. Nima Akbar Khani.
00:02:19Greetings to you, Mr. Khanalizadeh. You are very kind.
00:02:23In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Greetings to you and dear viewers. I am at your service.
00:02:27May you be successful. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I also greet you,
00:02:30Mr. Roula, and dear Mr. Mehdi. I am very happy to have the honor
00:02:33of being with them today, as well as Mr. Nima and all
00:02:37respected viewers. And I am at your service. In the name of
00:02:40God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I greet you, Mr. Seyyed, and also you, Mr. Khanalizadeh.
00:02:43It is a great honor to be at your service, as well as
00:02:47you, Mr. Khaza. I also greet all our dear and
00:02:51respected viewers. As
00:02:54in their field. Well, if I every night, we ask for many prayers first for the mujahideen and
00:02:56fighters, and second for all the Iranian nation, so that
00:03:00by the blessing of these prayers, we can successfully overcome these decisive and
00:03:04war-torn days. Yes, by sending
00:03:07the number 333 to the number 3015, you
00:03:11can become a member of the Iran Time program's messenger channel. The audio file
00:03:15of the program, especially for those who follow the audio file of the program,
00:03:18I receive multiple feedbacks from those who listen to
00:03:21the program, and we are also trying to make the program as understandable
00:03:25as possible for those who are our listeners,
00:03:28and not ambiguous.
00:03:54This is the first time we have the opportunity to be at your service
00:03:57with the Iran Time program. We are in the third
00:04:35imposed war. We are in this war countdown, which of course
00:04:39had many battles, it had the Ramadan battle, it had the
00:04:42Hormuz battle. We still see the situation as warlike, and
00:04:45I think everyone has the same view. We are still in the middle
00:04:48of the war for various reasons. Where do you
00:04:52see the beginning of this war? Why did we essentially
00:04:56enter this third imposed war? Sir.
00:05:00Look, if we want to say it very quickly and clearly,
00:05:03it was a representation of Iran's weakness. That is, history shows
00:05:07that when there was a plan, after the wars in
00:05:10Afghanistan and Iraq, they were supposed
00:05:14to come and continue this domino effect to reach Iran. Despite
00:05:17the fact that Iran at that time was weaker than it is now,
00:05:21the war did not happen. Why? Because at that time,
00:05:24the representation of Iran's power and the actions Iran took disrupted
00:05:28that game. Unfortunately, events
00:05:31happened after the Al-Aqsa storm that
00:05:35the event itself was a very important, correct, and influential event, and it
00:05:39could have paved the way for consolidating Iran's power
00:05:42in the region, but perhaps an inappropriate
00:05:45acting that took place narrated a representation of weakness
00:05:48from Iran. So Iran was not weak,
00:05:52it had a representation of weakness, which made them think
00:05:55that the plan Netanyahu presented on February 11th in the situation room
00:05:58of the White House, saying, "We will assassinate the Iranian leader, strike
00:06:02the commanders, the streets will be chaotic in four days, the Iranian government will be destroyed,"
00:06:06this representation paved the way for
00:06:09war. So. This proposition
00:06:13that we say we did something that caused
00:06:16the war or we did nothing that caused
00:06:20the war. On February 26th, we were having nuclear negotiations,
00:06:23according to many experts, including
00:06:27the political figure, Mr. Busaydi, the Foreign Minister
00:06:30of Oman, Iran had agreed to make unprecedented concessions,
00:06:34and it had been accepted, but two days later, the war begins.
00:06:38Why? Because that wasn't the issue at all. So, in summary,
00:06:41your answer. The image that was created
00:06:45of Iran between the 12-day war and the beginning
00:06:49of the 40-day war was a representation of weakness. The events that
00:06:52happened paved the way for war against
00:06:56Iran. Now, since some people connect this
00:06:59to the events, that is, it is accepted that a series of events
00:07:03after the Al-Aqsa storm occurred, but they say, why exactly
00:07:07on this specific day and time, at this juncture, after
00:07:10the Al-Aqsa storm? Well, they say, for example, do you want to
00:07:14say that our operations in response to Israel's aggressions
00:07:18against us, the operations, for example, were not as they should have been
00:07:21or anything of that nature, but in the end, they say
00:07:25that those passed, a significant
00:07:28period of time also passed since then, leading to the events of the eighteenth and nineteenth
00:07:32and the internal conditions of the country, and finally, it was here that the
00:07:35enemy thought that now I will come and deliver the final blow,
00:07:39meaning they might believe that it wasn't necessarily related
00:07:42to our representation of weakness, it was a series of events.
00:07:45Look, the assassination of Haniyeh in
00:07:48Tehran, the assassination of Sayyed Hassan
00:07:52Nasrallah, the fall of Syria, all these
00:07:54events happened, and Iran did not take any action that would show
00:07:58that it saw this as a danger to itself, or that it would react to it, which we will
00:08:02talk about its model later. It did not. This
00:08:06inaction was not interpreted as interaction
00:08:09and diplomacy; it was translated as:
00:08:24It intensified after the
00:08:2612-day war, meaning when the 12-day war in Iran happened,
00:08:30Iran won the war, Israel could not achieve its desired result.
00:08:34Again, the process went, the processes of the diplomatic apparatus or
00:08:38Iran's foreign policy actions went in a direction that again
00:08:41represented weakness. Again,
00:08:44this paved the way for them to say that Iran
00:08:47could be defeated. I will give an example because at that time
00:08:51we were involved in the matter because my discussion
00:08:54is about the process and conditions of the diplomatic apparatus's understanding
00:08:57of diplomacy in Iran.
00:09:01One of the events that
00:09:04paved the way for one of the events, let's not say the matter,
00:09:08for the war against Iran was the Venezuela issue.
00:09:12If at that time, our diplomatic
00:09:15apparatus, our foreign policy structure, had done
00:09:19something, 1% of that operation would have been harder to carry
00:09:23out. It has been mentioned many times, both Trump and Netanyahu said in that
00:09:27leaked briefing session, they explicitly said, "Look how easy Venezuela was, we can do this with Iran too." If
00:09:30Iran had played a more active role there, that's why I say if our approach
00:09:34had been different, our reaction to the fall of Syria
00:09:38had been different, our reaction to the assassination
00:09:43had been different, our reaction to the fall
00:09:46of the Venezuelan government and the kidnapping of its president
00:09:49had been different, certainly more
00:09:52obstacles would have been created in the path of military
00:09:56action against us. This is not something we need to debate
00:10:00about; it is an obvious thing that exists
00:10:03and is based on documents they themselves published.
00:10:06Therefore, no, that side says it was a wrong
00:10:10inference by that side that considered Iran's power
00:10:13so weak that you agree that now when it came to
00:10:17the battlefield and attacked us, it saw that it could not. You repeated
00:10:21my words. Iran was not weak; it had a representation of weakness.
00:10:39The current that was creating an image of Iran in the West had nothing to do with us,
00:10:43meaning that current that was rebuilding the image of Iran's opposition
00:10:46to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the West was not created by me. In
00:10:502003, it was a domino effect.
00:10:532001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq, then Iran. They had simply
00:10:56announced it. What prevented the war with Iran?
00:11:00Look at Trump's speech after the assassination of Martyr
00:11:04Soleimani. He says, "This man gave us hell in Iraq. He is the
00:11:08father of roadside bombs. How many Americans did he kill and so on?" Iran
00:11:11took action against the side that wanted to bring the war to
00:11:14Iran. It took action even though Iran was weaker
00:11:18than it is now, but it took action that produced a representation
00:11:21of power. That's why the war did not enter Iran. We
00:11:25did nothing in this regard.
00:11:28In Tehran, the political leader of Hamas
00:11:32is assassinated. The President himself
00:11:36said that we trusted that the Americans said, "Don't react, we will end the
00:11:39Gaza war." Then they reneged.
00:11:43The Secretary-General of Hezbollah was assassinated. No proportionate action
00:11:46was taken. Syria fell. Nothing happened
00:11:50from Iran's side. All of these became
00:11:53one of the main pillars of that representation
00:11:57that came alongside the narrative of the other side that Iran is vulnerable,
00:12:00and when they came and engaged and saw
00:12:04that it was not the case,
00:12:06they were surprised and retreated, which now leads to
00:12:10subsequent discussions that in fact, when you have now
00:12:13established power, you should not again show a representation
00:12:16of weakness, meaning the same reason that started the war
00:12:20can bring war again.
00:12:23This, in my opinion, is a very crucial issue.
00:12:27Look, in general, are you criticizing the diplomatic apparatus
00:12:31or the Islamic Republic's government? Which
00:12:34part is it? The prevailing view in Iran's
00:12:37diplomacy is that because its expert apparatus is the
00:12:41diplomatic apparatus, it is derived from it. Now,
00:12:44other individuals and other apparatuses also come,
00:12:48but the core of the diplomatic apparatus is diplomacy. For example,
00:12:52we carried out Operation True Promise 2 in a specific way. Is this the fault of the diplomatic
00:12:55apparatus? No, that was one matter. What
00:12:58happened? You say Haniyeh, it's the season, right? No,
00:13:01all events, well, the fall of Syria hasn't happened yet. On the
00:13:05fourth or fifth day, they held the Astana meeting in Doha. One
00:13:09of the regional experts showed the picture and said, "This is not
00:13:13a picture of people making decisions about a country whose three important cities
00:13:17have fallen in two days. They are laughing and having tea and so on,"
00:13:20which later became clear that they had already decided everything and left.
00:13:25And then the diplomatic apparatus came out
00:13:29and said that we had made some promises. We said that this view is not consistent with the current
00:13:32situation, I mean, tomorrow
00:13:35is the beginning of the Syrian war, the internal crisis
00:13:38in Syria. The then president, who had a completely different
00:13:42political view from, for example, the current government, was he not against
00:13:46it at that time? Wasn't he against Iran's intervention? In general, his view on the issue of Western
00:13:50awakening was something else. Yes, yes. Now he called it Islamic awakening, but he
00:13:53called it human awakening. The same view from a different angle.
00:13:57الانم تو یه زاویه دیگه پس من اینو میگم مغز
00:14:00of Iran's foreign policy, a significant part of which
00:14:04is the diplomatic apparatus, essentially does not
00:14:07understand the world, essentially does not
00:14:11understand international relations, and does not understand international
00:14:15developments, and the result is damage to our national interests.
00:14:18For the discussion to move forward, the title of the program you chose
00:14:22is very correct, very attractive. Are we moving towards
00:14:25a second agreement? If we move in this direction,
00:14:29it means America has advanced,
00:14:32meaning America has come and imposed its achievements
00:14:35on us, which we can talk about later, although I'm certainly against it, but now about
00:14:38whether what Mehdi and I were talking about
00:14:42before the program, let me reveal the secrets to our
00:14:45viewers. Our issue was this:
00:14:49I might agree with a general criticism that he is making, and I do agree.
00:14:53That is, I have no criticism on this. Such
00:14:56a criticism is indeed directed at the diplomatic apparatus, but a part of this criticism, we say, is a
00:15:00criticism of the diplomatic apparatus. Well, if it's good in all cases, then in
00:15:04all of the Islamic Republic, there might be a flaw somewhere. Well, yes,
00:15:07there's no problem in addressing it, but to say that this is only the diplomatic apparatus
00:15:11and other parts... Look, if a mistake happens in Iran Time,
00:15:15we say it's the fault of IRIB.
00:15:18Exactly. Well done! Is it related to Naseri Nastaghi?
00:15:21No. If you make a mistake, if I make a mistake,
00:15:25the diplomatic apparatus in the Syrian issue, Mr. Araghchi doesn't want to let Syria
00:15:29fall. What should he do? No, an expert, for instance,
00:15:32I'm saying Mr. Ahmadinejad
00:15:36was against the presence. That is,
00:16:27you are bringing up an argument here, and then you say, the diplomatic apparatus.
00:16:30Where did the Syrian war end? The first war, the civil war, Mr. Khan, two
00:16:34flaws, two flaws. One flaw is that,
00:16:42first of all, you place
00:16:44the entire burden of what you
00:16:48consider wrong in decision-making solely on the diplomatic
00:16:51apparatus. Secondly, in criticizing the diplomatic
00:16:55apparatus, there are statements like, "Our diplomatic apparatus
00:16:58doesn't understand the world at all." These are all-or-nothing
00:17:02statements about the diplomatic apparatus. You can say, "Our diplomatic
00:17:05apparatus was wrong on such-and-such an issue."
00:17:15Everything that is perhaps the product of a set of correct or wrong
00:17:18views of the system, which he refers to, he only attributes to the diplomatic
00:17:22apparatus. He says, "I am an expert in this field only.
00:17:26I can only comment on this," which some say, in our opinion, some
00:17:30of them are not wrong either. I say, assuming that action was wrong
00:17:33or that something could have been done, which His Holiness has also spoken about Syria.
00:17:36I have nothing to say about these, but if it could have been done, only to the diplomatic
00:17:40apparatus. In my opinion, let's not enter Syria, because one of the
00:17:43biggest criticisms is that everyone in Iran talks about everything.
00:17:47If you ask me about economics, I don't know, I don't. I'm talking about
00:17:50my own field. So the first proposition is correct that
00:17:54I should talk about my own field. Whether the military, economic, and political fields
00:17:58have acted correctly or not, it's not my place to talk. I'm talking about the decision-making
00:18:02and influential decision-making bodies in the field of
00:18:05international relations. Well. He protested
00:18:31and went to the field, or did he take the bus and get off? Or should we
00:18:34enter Syria? Book.
00:19:07Let me conclude. Dr. Hadian, who was your guest, is one of the most
00:19:11knowledgeable figures in the field of international
00:19:14relations. He is one of a kind. He is
00:19:16intelligent. He is a knowledgeable,
00:19:19educated, informed, and
00:19:23influential figure on the diplomatic apparatus. Dr.
00:19:26Zarif is an influential figure on our diplomatic apparatus,
00:19:29and the statements made by Mr. Alaghe, the proposition
00:19:33he put forward here and is dominant in the diplomatic apparatus
00:19:37is: Without enmity with
00:19:40America, without enmity with America,
00:19:44one cannot achieve development. This
00:19:47proposition is both factually wrong and inherently wrong.
00:19:51Factually, what does it mean? We have not engaged in enmity.
00:19:54From the beginning of the revolution until now, we have signed at least two written agreements with the Americans.
00:19:58The Algiers Accords, the JCPOA. America has reneged on both
00:20:01of them. And now America has started a war against us.
00:20:05So we have not engaged in enmity. Let's give an example. The reason there are no American
00:20:09cars in the streets of Tehran is Iran or
00:20:13America? America. The primary sanctions
00:20:15are American sanctions. America does not allow the import of goods. Now,
00:20:19this is a brand, a well-known American
00:20:23mobile phone brand. The fact that it doesn't have an official
00:20:26store, is it Tehran's fault or Washington's? The primary
00:20:30sanctions are Washington's primary sanctions. So, first of all, let's reject
00:20:34this proposition that we think we should do something
00:20:38for America to abandon its enmity. Second,
00:20:41the world has changed. The era in which through interaction
00:20:45with America, through giving concessions to America, a country could
00:20:48develop, is over. The transitional
00:20:52period of the international system in Iran has not been understood.
00:20:55You see, Foreign Policy,
00:20:59its appearance is a media outlet, but it is a think tank
00:21:03that influences politics. It says,
00:21:07"The end of many events, the alliance
00:21:09of Israel and America, neoliberalism, I don't know, transatlanticism."
00:21:13These have not been understood yet in our diplomatic apparatus.
00:21:17I interact with friends. Look, when I say,
00:21:20"the dominant spirit and dominant thought," I'm not talking about individuals.
00:21:23There are very capable experts in our diplomatic apparatus,
00:21:27but the process that is going on leads to a point where
00:21:30you say, "Unless you give concessions to America,
00:21:33you cannot develop, you cannot advance
00:21:37your own work." This is instead of many events. From
00:21:40the beginning of the war until now, the diplomatic
00:21:44apparatus says, "We cannot collect tolls
00:21:47from the Strait of Hormuz." What can we
00:21:50collect? We can collect tolls. Friends, please
00:21:53show that Financial Times image.
00:21:56This clearly shows they haven't understood
00:22:00the world. Can the US government
00:22:03kidnap the president of another country?
00:22:06No. The diplomatic apparatus's
00:22:09answer is no, but what is the reality on the ground?
00:22:13It's sophistry. Wait, wait, let me explain the sophistry that can be refuted.
00:22:16The diplomatic apparatus says, "Oh, now." It says,
00:22:20"Territorial integrity is correct. Can the Iranian army,
00:22:24the IRGC, be in the territory of another country?" What does the
00:22:27diplomatic apparatus say? "No, territorial integrity." These
00:22:31are correct. What is the Turkish army doing in northern Iraq?
00:22:34Occupation. We have occupied. Securing national interests,
00:22:38securing national interests. What
00:22:41happened in Syria?
00:22:44Is Golan a terrorist or not? Yes,
00:22:47that's correct, that's correct. Now, Qatar and Turkey
00:22:51and Qatar and so on say, "Are we meeting with a terrorist
00:22:55or a head of state?" Have your national interests been harmed
00:22:58or not? Now, because we should not intervene, the country should
00:23:02respect Syria's territorial integrity. Who says this? This is not understanding
00:23:06the international world. Our diplomatic apparatus,
00:23:09our diplomatic apparatus, let me finish this. Our diplomatic
00:23:12apparatus thinks, along with Vahid
00:23:16Khazab, that it does not understand international discourse.
00:23:20Why do we understand each other now? People understand what
00:23:23we are saying because we are speaking in Persian, with the Persian alphabet. If
00:23:27we speak Chinese, if I speak French,
00:23:30many people might not understand, you won't understand. If you speak Arabic,
00:23:34I might not understand. In the world, if you
00:23:37say, "Hello, President Trump, please let's be friends,"
00:23:40"I'll give you this concession," he doesn't understand
00:23:43it. What does he understand? The discourse of the international
00:23:46system is power.
00:24:24Why did they name their operation "Special Military
00:24:26Operation?" Well, well, it's just a name, right?
00:24:30So it's a fight over a name. Sometimes, I mean, sometimes it seems like, for example,
00:24:34our diplomatic apparatus. Look, sometimes the diplomatic apparatus says, "I
00:24:37cannot and should not collect any financial revenues
00:24:41from the Strait of Hormuz." Amen. Mr. Khanalizadeh's statement is correct. Yes. Sometimes
00:24:44the diplomatic apparatus says, "Please, let's not mention the name
00:24:48'toll' because the costs
00:25:50of tolls cannot be collected. Are you saying that, or is the foreign ministry saying that it cannot be done
00:25:54from here? The fact that it says "according to international law"
00:25:57means it hasn't understood the world. Now, let me tell you two things. The foreign
00:26:01ministry says this. Then let's compare it with
00:26:04America. The foreign ministry says, "According to my statement,
00:26:07the US president also, according to international laws, has no right
00:26:11to kidnap the president of another country." Now you say, in
00:26:14reality, the US president goes and kidnaps the president of another country,
00:26:18and then he says, "In reality, I also do what I want in the Strait of Hormuz."
00:26:22Let's ignore the fact that that action is bad and this action is good.
00:26:25That action is truly criminal, this action is correct, but I want
00:26:28to say the fallacy here is that the foreign ministry has a proposition
00:26:32that says, "According to international law, this is it," and the foreign ministry has a hypothesis
00:26:36that kidnapping the president of another country is criminal because
00:26:40it is an interference in something that the people of that country should decide. They have decided. We say,
00:26:44"You did it to yourself. I have to do something." Now, let me finish my sentence. No, now let
00:26:47me finish my sentence. This statement that we come and say, "The foreign
00:26:51ministry has these criticisms, one, two, three," "You don't understand these parts of the world." Well, it's a correct statement. I'm also
00:26:55saying this. But if we come and say that this part of the foreign ministry's statement
00:26:59also has flaws, for example, if we say, "So-and-so is a person who does this bad thing, this bad thing,
00:27:02and this bad thing," for example, "he also prays Fajr." Well, what do you have to do with that?
00:27:06Focus on his bad deeds, so that we say, for example, I say, "Muhyi,"
00:27:10because if we say, "I have criticisms about four
00:27:14decisions of the foreign ministry," no, no,
00:27:17we say, "I also have criticisms about its core software, I have criticisms about a macro
00:27:20prevailing view," but to say, "He understands nothing of
00:27:24the world," no, no, I didn't say that. I said,
00:27:27"at least," well, two, "we haven't understood international
00:27:31developments." Look, can the world
00:27:35after 2008 and before 2008 be compared?
00:27:38If someone analyzes 2006
00:27:41and 2016 with thought and knowledge,
00:27:44they would say they haven't noticed that change. Well, then you are talking about
00:27:47a turning point in the international world and around us.
00:27:51Our diplomatic apparatus is
00:27:54stuck in the post-Cold
00:27:57War era, especially at the peak of American hegemonic supremacy.
00:28:01It is frozen. It has remained frozen.
00:28:04That's why when you read Dr. Zarif's notes
00:28:08and Dr. Hadian's speeches, I was a student of
00:28:11Dr. Hadian. I believe he is one of the few
00:28:15knowledgeable professors. I have been a student of very knowledgeable professors
00:28:18at the university, but because they haven't understood
00:28:21this change, they are still living in that world. Yes,
00:28:25that's why the solution they are proposing is like,
00:28:29well, everyone says we have a common part, and you are focusing on
00:28:33a part that has no flaws. Wait a minute,
00:28:36let me say this amicably. This makes me criticize you. I think there are three criticisms
00:28:40that apply. If I tell you, and you look at yourself, or Nima, who is watching
00:28:43from outside, says, "Yes, it applies," and I tell you a fourth one that doesn't apply at all, you will also put your hand
00:28:47on that and say, "Look, it applies for these reasons." Look, I am an expert.
00:28:51From my perspective, it applies. Maybe someone like your cameramen are very professional
00:28:56now come and criticize their cinematography, they will say, "I'm an expert, you
00:29:00are not." From my perspective, as an expert
00:29:02in international relations, when we have gatherings, we chat, we discuss, we talk with international
00:29:06experts, we communicate, in our opinion, the flaw is present.
00:29:10This is not a bad thing, and stating it is not a bad thing either. If
00:29:13our statement is also bad, that's a flaw. But when I say, "Look, this
00:29:16statement of such-and-such a foreign minister, this action
00:29:20of such-and-such," we gave an example, right? The Astana meeting
00:29:23during those 10-15 days leading up to the fall of Syria
00:29:26was wrong. The behavior, the action
00:29:29was wrong. This, in my opinion. I will open the question about
00:29:38America and the issue of development a bit more. Look, what is the claim?
00:29:41It says, if you come and enter into a hostile
00:29:45and abnormal relationship with America,
00:29:49you cannot develop. Excuse me, let me just say this. One
00:29:52of the propositions was: The flaws of the world, a trap.
00:29:55The war from the beginning before the war. Let me
00:29:59complete my question. Mr. says, if I enter into enmity with
00:30:03America, I can no longer develop. This is the claim, meaning
00:30:07people like Dr. Hadian and others, one perspective is that they say, "If you don't
00:30:11normalize your relationship with America, you won't
00:30:14develop." Do you pay
00:30:16attention? He doesn't say that if you have a friendly relationship
00:30:20with America, you will definitely develop. He says,
00:30:24"The necessary condition for development is
00:30:27not hostility with America." China is an example. He says China
00:30:31will not enter into a normal relationship with you because of the much larger relationships it
00:30:34has with America, and when it wants to sit with you, it always considers its reservations about what
00:30:38to do with the sanctions and so on. This statement is wrong.
00:30:42You. One. 1979.
00:30:46Iran, Egypt. They chose two paths. Yes.
00:30:49Confrontation with America. As friends say, Camp David.
00:30:53Cooperation with America. 47 years have passed. Where is Iran? Where
00:30:57is Egypt? Yes.