 Hello and welcome to NewsClick, today we have with us Ambassador Bhadrakumar and we are going to discuss the seizure of the Iranian owned tanker. According to reports, this appears to be the Iranian tanker, it was not a Panama Registry though there are other parties involved in the complex ownership, seems to be Iranian tanker and Iranian oil, though it is fuel oil or it is light oil is still under discussion. How do you see the seizure? Because A, it is not that UK which sees the ship, they have sanctions against export from Iran. In fact, they are explicitly on record saying that they would not like to be a party to the American sanctions. So, how what explains the seizure and the talk about it is that this is a EU sanctions on Syria, but EU does not have sanctions for Syria to receive oil. So, how do you look at this? Yeah, you know this is in terms of international law, this is not justifiable at all. It is an act of piracy? Equivalent. I think you know it is basically what is taking place is that like you know Iranian foreign minister Zarif mentioned once that there is a B team working, you know, B team means Walton, BB that is Netanyahu and the two Bin Salman and Bin Said, you know, so he called it the B team. I think this is all like now another story had come on the drone thing, there was another spy plane going along, so now the picture that is emerging is that it was to simply to, you know, when a thing like this comes, the radastations become alive. So, they wanted to know where the radastations were on the Iranian coast, you know, so they all got lighted up as they say in the technical jargon. So, this immediately the other spy plane monitored, so they know the locations of the radastations on the coast, you know. So, a lot of things, you know, they are setting up a lot of situations to see to what extent Iran will react and I think this is not exactly attributable to Trump. This is more to the attribute to the B team kind of thing like, you know, in Britain for example, the British intelligence has got its own game to play on this Iran question that is in league with the sections of the American security establishment and so on with Israel and all that. I don't know whether we can look for a justification in terms of international law. You correctly said that there is no sanctions against Syria, getting oil, receiving oil and there are no British sanctions against Iran. There are no U.N. sanctions against Iran. It's only that Trump has some sanctions against Iran and there again Trump has only told third countries not to pick up oil from Iran, but Trump has not cared to stop. So, I think in this particular one you see what has happened is, if Iranian oil is stopped at the high seas, what will be the Iranian reaction? Because there are here, you know, these are moving parts today and when if push comes to shove and when the crunch time comes, the Iranian behavioral pattern, this has not been tested before because this sort of a standoff, what will Iran do? It has potential to hit back, will it or will it lose nerve? You know, this is the kind of thing I think that is going on and I have a feeling that this is more to do with intelligence agencies. You know, Mr. Bhadrakumar, irrespective of who within the government does this, the reality is that the governments are responsible. We cannot say that the security establishment, the commando, basically the soldiers from the British army participate in a seizure of a vehicle, of a tanker and that is, we are going to discuss whether it was done with Mr. Hans. You know, I said this because the important point is therefore, let me conclude, is the Iranian reaction to it. The reaction has not come from the political level. The reaction has come from the commander of the IRGC and he has said that Iran will retaliate against a British tanker. That is right. That is what it has done. So, you know, they are trying to see to what extent Iran can be pushed because you know this waterway is actually Iranian water and they have a jurisdiction over the water. So, if they are pushed, will they actually carry out this threat? We talk to the straight of hormones. Straight of hormones, you know. So, this is, so I think this is what is taking place is a kind of a shadow play. You know, ultimately it is Britain which has done it. You cannot say British really has done it. I agree with you, but the point is if the British government felt that the spy agencies had done something which was not really fully justified, this has come to the court in Gibraltar because they have to within three days of seizure. They have to give documents. The Gibraltar court now has given them another 14 days. So, legally that UK has a way to gracefully withdraw from it. Say, we have checked everything and yes, it was not violating the EU sanctions and we let them go. So, they are not doing that and the fact they are not doing that would seem to indicate maybe there is at the moment a lame duck government in UK because the next prime minister has yet to be decided. Or it is a tacit support to what the Americans are asking and therefore, shall we say a step further thinking that Iran can be pushed or if Iran cannot be, if Iran retaliates, then that becomes a cause for war, causes melee or whatever it is called in legal terms. You see, Seventh is coming and I saw yesterday Velayati who is a very key figure in the Iranian leadership as advisor to the supreme leader, former foreign minister and all. He has said categorically that the level of enrichment is going to go up. Percentage of enrichment, not only the amount, but the stockpile is there. Stockpile has already exceeded the one which is, there was a ceiling put by the deal. It has exceeded that but now you know the level of enrichment will go up. Of 3.67% which was the limit under the JCPOA, they are going to increase it beyond that. He has said it. So now this is a very big challenge in fact to Trump. So he will have to be acting on this. So I have a feeling that this British action on the Tanger couldn't have been a British action. The Americans would have been certainly behind it. And they would like to know because you know the point is if you run overreacts for example Iranians also would be calculating. If they overreact the other side could come like a ton of bricks. It can be used as a pretext. So you know it's a very dangerous situation because it's basically it is what brings man's ship. It is bring man's ship and always the chances like in the first world war. Nobody wanted that war and it started as a very innocuous issue. And in this particular one it's quite clear now Trump's statements, recent statements if you take it again he has reiterated that he is not, he spoke about Iran in his interview with Fox News after the Osaka G20. There he has said again as far as he is concerned the situation is quite satisfactory the way it is and he is confident that Iranians will be willing to negotiate and we will come to that and all that and he made it very clear that he is not looking for a war. He used that interview in fact to reiterate the point. But the problem that Iran has is that even if the United States doesn't look for a war but they are holding the cards in a non-war like situation because Iran cannot export oil it cannot import oil. No I agree I am not coming to that. So therefore the strangulation of Iran continues unless Iran is able to do so. No that's a different thing Praveer. I was not at all alluding to that. What I am trying to say is that you know that therefore I am not very sure even whether you know this is with Trump's knowledge, this project, this Gibraltar project because there are a number of people, hardliners in the American camp and I am sure some of them are league in, they have their own connections with Britain and so on and Britain has played this sort of dirty role historically you know for the Americans which is where they are called the poodles you know they do this kind of roles and that is to really to precipitate a situation one to know the Iranian reaction and two to sort of push to leave Trump with no alternative but to sanction a kind of a military move. Do you think Iran has a possibility of retaliation either as a further tanker war which is what Iran-Iraq war had at that point created or do you think Iran could actually use the Houthis armed better because they are already in a war against Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates do you think they could actually supply say Houthis with better weapons and essentially with rockets and so on and that would actually be one of the ways they could react. I think the Iranians in this particular one my own judgment is you know that the Iranians in this particular case will not want it to be escalating to one of you know regional dimension or anything like this Britain has done something illegal which has no justification and Britain will pay the price for it and then you know they have a standing that this is not a NATO problem this is not Germany's problem this is not Italy's problem this is Britain's problem and Britain and Iran have dealt with each other for centuries and the Iranians know how to tackle the British you know and at a certain point they know very well that the British will climb down you know when they find that they are all alone in this business because you see they are also overstretched in the Gulf and you don't have to go for Houthis or anything they just next to cross the streets of Hormuz the British are there so anything can happen that is why I said that they are trying to see whether they will hit a British warship for example. The statement from the Iranian side is this that you know that they will be retaliation on a British tanker so it's marked and I think that is going to be the reaction they will not go for a proxy war on this this is done to Iran and Iran will do something to the party which did this to Iran the proxy thing all comes if there is an attack on Iran if there is an attack on Iran Iran has stated that the side which starts a war will not be able to end that war. But coming out to the scenario you would agree that the tanker seizure has actually increased the tension even more so we don't see any countervailing shall we say things happening on the ground I am not talking about what people may be saying as you said President Trump indicated in Fox News that he doesn't really want war but nevertheless situation of the ground anything which looks at. What is apparent today is this that attention has now we began discussing this aspect this has become the centerpiece of the discussion the tanker thing but this is not the centerpiece we know well that is what Iran is going to do on the 7th because effectively it will be walking out of the nuclear deal correct and then what is it that Trump can do you see and Iran's position is that under the deal there is a provision which says that if all parties do not observe this their commitments and their fulfill their commitments then Iran is free to exercise its options. So what Iran does is perfectly justifiable Europeans are not fulfilling Americans are walked out and now this deal is unilaterally Iran should fulfill this deal. So Iran is justified in doing that and then secondly Iran also says that the moment those other parties start fulfilling their obligations they will reverse this they will revert and the status quo and you would be restored. In fact they have said but given you 60 weeks show us 60 days in fact it started I think may last year may last year Trump and Trump pulled out we have given you so many more than a year to keep your side of the bargain we put you on the notice that if you don't do it in X number of days 60 days then we will be pulling out of the tree we will pulling out of those provisions of the treaty which we had written the treaty itself we had said Iran's position is if nuclear related sanctions takes place then we will not observe this limits. So this is their in fact that is a treaty. So you know what I was saying is that you know that this operation in Gibraltar can as well be seen this way that it is a big distraction the now the talk is about a particular incident which has taken place not the bigger issue not the bigger issue because on the bigger issue I was actually waiting to see what is going to be the American reaction to it or the European reaction to it. Now if you remember Angela Merkel Macron and Theresa May they had written jointly a letter to the Iranians warning them not to do this that if they do this there will be serious consequences they have said that they are going to do it and I have no doubt in my mind they are going to do it day after tomorrow. Now if they have done it then what do they do because they have no local stand in this you know the Europeans are observing the US sanctions absolutely this is the whole issue that the so-called in-stecks transaction mechanism which they have created bypassing swift has not transacted anything so effectively they are not buying oil and they are not selling goods so this is this is the issue exactly that they they want one sided or unilateral observance of the JCPOA way by Iran while they do not observe they do not observe and I think also that Iran is going Trump has used the word Iran is playing with fire you know that is what he has said exactly what Iran is going to do day after tomorrow if Iran is playing with fire day after tomorrow then what is Trump going to do I do not think there is anybody is going to buy it that this is a justification for him to order an attack on Iran and then Iran will incrementally keep on increasing this. This is if you remember when the Bush administration was saying this history repeating it was in fact it started centrifuges you know for 100 centrifuges I think that is all they had yeah and said 20,000 it came to finally will we are willing to freeze and they said no you have to stop completely and then it became as you said 3,000 5,000 to it about 19,000 centrifuges yeah 20,000 centrifuges they had at the time of the deal you know and also they upgraded the quality you know and also let us not forget that 10,000 kgs of enriched uranium at the point with the sense to Russia only they retained only 200, 300 kgs essentially 2% of that. You see the situation more I see it now the thing is Trump is you know like we began saying that you know Trump said you know that he can wait and all that but I have a feeling that he is going to lose face in this because if Iran does not negotiate he is unable to force them to negotiate and then on the other hand as you said very rightly he is putting a lot of pressure on the Iranians their economy is in trouble and they feel the pain so they will keep counter-escalatory measures. They have no other issue. They have no other thing and now again that puts pressure on Trump because he is going to face an election and when this counter-escalatory pressures now you know for instance this Fox News interview I said there you know he has said that he is disclosed that without Americans never openly said this that from a troop level of 16,000 in Afghanistan he said I have brought it down already to 9,000 and he said you know at one sentence he said I just want to get out I am through with this war you know this is a kind of mode in which he is so in the upcoming campaign time if this flayers up on some front he will be in trouble so I have a feeling that he is also really worried. I don't know the Iran that I knew is an Iran which is very pragmatic and they should see that you know from the way that he has handled North Korea the way that he is pulling out troops from Afghanistan that this man has certain virtues and the sensitive doesn't want a war so why not strike a deal I don't know what is going on. But you know the problem that you have already raised Trump after having walked out from the deal what is the deal you see you cannot get a better deal than what you had as I said centrifuges dismantled bulk of the centrifuges the dismantled inventory brought down brought down from 10,000 kg to 300 kg so what else is left also don't forget dismantling of the reactors so you took out all bomb making capability and Iran readily agreed because they had escalated only because you are not willing to negotiate now after that they are actually asking Trump's as well as Bolton's they are actually asking the demands are dismantle all enrichment nothing can't even make your what is it medical isotopes which you need for various purposes or cancer treatment. Dispantle or rocket making capability no missile or rocket making capability. Nobody can if you want to be a player in the region and you don't want to be bashed by Israel in the morning and Saudis in the evening of course you will have to keep capabilities and their capabilities their entire air force and everything is far weaker than Saudis or even UAE in terms of the defense budget missile strength the aircraft and so on and then the third is you must withdraw all your support to Syria to Hezbollah and all of that now that is not a demand for negotiation that's a demand for surrender absolutely no Iran no Iran that's a whole point what you said is a whole point that's why it's a jam you know in the in the sense that you know this man is Trump is blundered into the situation in my opinion so that's why I keep on saying that you know irrespective of the wishes of the individuals but the actions are what matters and in this case he took a hammer sledgehammer to the deal which in my opinion Iran cannot go beyond that they had extracted the maximum the United States is extracted the maximum clearly clearly and therefore to ask for them to give up rockets missiles is basically to ask it to surrender because there is no there is nothing there can be no two opinions on that you know the the realistic way should have been to keep this and Iran was fulfilling the terms of the deal absolutely the 15 impeccable report impeccable performance may 31st report which is the last report also see all along I think there is a point of view in America now and which is a very significant body of opinion that Iran is possible to constructively engage Iran you know this you see in the in the in our understanding of the Iranian Revolution credit goes to Indira Gandhi right from that time you know that we understood that you know that they are open to constructive engagement you know all these things you know the rhetoric is very very bad on Kashmir when I was in the division in the MEA in the early 90s you know when it was a very bad situation there so once we did an analysis to know whether there is any Iranian role there we came up with a finding zero you know this is the Iranian and Chechnya if you look at it Iran had no role there it is the Wahhabis and others you know who were active there and in Central Asia and Turkey and Turkey and Central Asia if you take for example the Iranian role is absolutely everything in terms of state-to-state relations people-to-people relationships you know but nothing in terms of subversive activity you know this you have a Shia population in India they don't mess around I like what you can say about the Saudi yeah so you see the thing is it was possible to constructively engage the Iranians that is where the United States has essentially shall be said has a straight jacket in its thinking that Iran is the main enemy after destruction of Iraq partial destruction of Libya I mean of Syria and of course the destruction of Libya they see Iran as the key shall we say resistance in the region and for them it's not that you become or ally or you give up it's basically either you surrender or will destroy you and this is the kind of policies because they're not they're not really going to be able to control Iran but they can substantially destroy it and that seems to be the policy that at least explains the last 20 years of American engagement in the in the region you know one way of looking at it is that you can say Trump blundered into it you know but you know he's under enormous he's under the influence of very wealthy Jewish billionaires yeah yeah and the Sheldon and others you know so you see the Americans have written themselves have written about this that it is because of this kind of irresistible pressure from those quarters that he was pushed into this but that's my prop that's my proposition that we look at countries we have to separate them from the individuals at the end of it because ultimately the country's policies are the country's policies thank you very much a master being with us and we hope that we'll engage you with this and other issues particularly at the moment because the West Asian scenario is very tense and I think we'll have to keep our eye on it for the time being it's my pleasure thank you thank you this is all the time we have for news click today do keep watching news click and visit our website