 Hello and welcome to NewsClicks show mapping fault lines. In today's show we're going to be talking about a number of developments which have been taking place in various fault lines across the world. First major issue that has happened is the recent US airstrikes on Syria and Iraq. This happened a few days ago. This is the second such round of strikes since Joe Biden assumed office as the president of the United States. A lot of criticism after these airstrikes because the Democrats many organizations in the past had you know he said severely criticized such steps when Trump was in power and Biden came to power saying that you know he would avoid he would bring an end to many of these forever wars but nonetheless airstrikes continuing. So we have with us Prabir Prakash how to talk about this. Of course we know that the strikes were on Syria and Iraq but they were targeted at the militia groups which are part of the popular mobilization front which are part of the Iraqi army and there are strong links between them and the Iranians. So clearly this was not about striking at Syria but a larger geopolitical place so to speak by the United States and this is happening like we discussed last time even as talks are on in Vienna to see if the US can re-enter the deal. So amid this how do we see an attack on these militia groups which are very closely associated with both Iraq and Iran. Well officially they're part of the Iraqi armed forces so you know to say they are close to both actually doesn't bring out the technical nature of the picture here and that's the what is the international law on this. The second is if the strikes took place either in Syria or in Iraq and it seems to have taken place in both places they did not take into account the fact they need the permission of these countries otherwise it's a really an act of war. The third is the Iraqi prime minister was just a few days back with the PMF the militia forces that we're talking about and talked about how they're a part of the Iraqi armed forces and what is the role they have played in fighting against the Al Qaeda ISIS forces. So all of this is also a complete negation of the United States position that they are somehow there by invitation of the Iraqi government which they were once upon a time and this therefore has the sanction of their invitation. The question is it is an independent country they're no longer an occupying power even according to them therefore if they want to carry out military action they need the permission of the Iraqi government which they obviously did not have. The second part of this is that this is against whom essentially to send the signal apparently to the Iranians. Now the Iranians do not control these militias they may have relationship with them they have militarily had close links with them and training them all of that is true because it's true that the Iranian forces fought with the militias with the Iraqi government forces in order to fight back the Al Qaeda forces ISIS forces in Iraq so that's a part of the history and Soleimani was the one who also spearheaded that battle. So given that the argument that this is an attack somehow on Iranian backed militias falls really flat and that's really not the issue. So the question is what is the United States doing? At the moment it seems that Biden is playing by the same playbook that Trump used which is withdraw from the accord and then pressurize Iran to give more and more concessions hoping that at some point Iran would succumb. Now in this case there is a negotiations going on right now in order for the United States to re-enter the JCPOA the Iran nuclear agreement. Now in that are these essentially ploys are they just moves that the US is doing to wind up pressure in Iran? Of course it hurts Iraqis as well as well as Syria but is that the game plan? Is it something to do with what they want to achieve in Syria itself? Which as you know they have backed the Kurdish forces to the north they've also have al-Danaf a small enclave where they're essentially sheltering the remnants of the those forces who fought against Bashar al-Assad's government and of course you're also Turkey in the play. So what is the United States game plan and Syria is also not clear because there is no end objective that we can see coming out of the US intervention except to keep some parts of Syria under occupation with the actual American forces also being there. They're still there in occupation in some parts of Syria and close to the part since they have bombed. So all of this makes the US objective not clear whether it is Iraq Syria or it is Iran. If it is to pressure as Iran then I think they are again going the wrong way. Blinken seems to have also talked about how this nuclear agreement re-entering the JCPOA will continue into missile discussions trying to disarm Iran's missile forces that they have the capabilities they have and also there is also talk about how to get Iran to disengage that's the kind of words that we see from the larger west Asian involvement. Now that means giving up all the foreign policy in you know engagements Iran has in west Asia with Syria with 11 Hezbollah in Lebanon with the Houthis in Yemen essentially therefore to succumb to the United States pressure. So in some sense it seems to be an extension of the Trump line that if you want to re-enter the economic agreements that you earlier had reached you have to surrender both your military prowess or your ability to provide a strategic alternative in the region and you have to also forego all the influence that you have received. So essentially accept defeat without a war and that's an unlikely position with the Riyasi even coming into the president's position in Iran but even without that even under Rouhani this would not have been something which would have been acceptable. So I think what the United States is trying to achieve to negotiations something they have failed through the sanctions and that's a very very unlikely position today. So I don't really understand what this signifies except that it has destabilized Iraq a little more and it has not solved any of the issues of the region and it seems to make the JCPOA return to the JCPOA in the United States coming back a little more difficult and therefore we might see again a strasheting up of sanctions and of course Iran responding with what they're already doing which is gradually abandoning the agreement because they feel that it's not getting them anywhere the US is not returning and the European Union powers, European powers were a part of the agreement are unwilling to do anything in order to lift the sanctions. So this is going to come to a make or break soon and whether in the next three months we'll see a return to JCPOA or we'll see its formal abandonment that's what we'll have to see. Right although it's interesting that the US is getting more entangled in West Asia at a time when the prevailing consensus has been that it is trying to move more towards countering Russia and China and creating some kind and you know it's launched some sort of a new Cold War so to speak many observers have pointed that out so on the one hand the US is trying to Very interesting point that you're raising that Trump also made exactly the same promises if you remember except of course with drawing from the Iran accord the nuclear accord but his promise is bringing back the troops everything was very similar and then he got sucked into the forever wars that the United States has launched in the region including Afghanistan we'll have to see where they lead from here. Right Pramit so as you said so what we're looking at is a very dangerous scenario where the nuclear deal itself is under threat either party might walk out in the next few months for different reasons like you pointed out but returning to the issue I just raised in terms of the new Cold War sort of building up between the US on one hand and Russia and China or rather the US actions precipitating this we saw another example a few a few days ago when a British ship entered into the waters of Crimea and according to the British it was a freedom of navigation operation which is seems to be the common excuse used by the US and its allies across the world and of course the Russians had to take some steps they they did not of course engage the ship directly in any way but they did fire some warning shots the British of course claiming that this was all innocent and it was you know at some level they were of course reasserting their freedom of navigation but how do we see this kind of a provocation at a time when things are already extremely tense everyone knows what the situation in the region is in the Black Sea region of course so how do we see this kind of a provocation at this point of time you know the UK warship going into the waters which is where the issue really rises and what that means in terms of international law law of cease we can examine but the bigger picture is that the Black Sea has now become an area where you have also the NATO naval maneuvers that are slated are going on so you are already seeing NATO forces naval forces moving into Black Sea now are they going to as a formation test the what the Russians have said about Crimea and the limits they have put on it what is called right of innocent passage now in territorial waters that's really the issue here so that is something that we'll have to see the backdrop really is the fact that the Black Sea is increasingly becoming something of a theater of contention if we will if not a theater of war at the moment and the fact that there are these plans to move in navies of other countries NATO forces going there that means can this was this testing the waters in this case literally so that you know we know what they will know what the Russian response is likely to be you know but there are two things that are interesting over here when a warship passes close to a tenetry in this case Sevastopol is the Russian port over there which they have that's a warm water base for their Navy so when it does that it also maps the defense of the naval defenses because then you see the radar swing into action you see what is happening so these are territorial waters when you pass to the territorial waters which are contested in this particular way and I'll come to the legal part of it that's also simply to map out what are the defense forces that are there on the shore and what are the kind of radars that are there so that that exercise is why you have this passage as well because all of it gets that activated alerted so that's the information that you gather and that is why when you talk of innocent passage that you are not going to do this is something that then is what is being asked of that you will not do a certain set of measures which can lead to this information which is essentially a spying action so it's an intelligence operation under the guise of innocent passage so that is the other part of it that innocent passage this was not because the way it happened it was clearly they wanted to test the defenses that were there not in terms of war but in terms of finding out what these defenses are now here is the issue they have said that this is this territorial waters belongs to Ukraine and therefore they had taken permission of the ukrainian government therefore they had the right of innocent passage because ukraine has given them this right now the international law on this is quite clear that at the moment according to NATO according to uk according to all their allies this is the clear Crimea is occupied territory and if it is occupied territory this is the rebellious resolution they have moved in the united nations as well this is that what they're claiming from all pulpits if that is so then it's not the law of cease that operate then it is the law of war that operates because Russia is now an occupying power the question is can as an occupying power can Russia declare what are the zones within which they will not let warships come in and this is something which has been done by the United States for instance in Iraq there are enough instances of this of course if you take for instance what Israel does in Gaza there is of course a bigger issue over there are they conceiving themselves occupying power therefore not allowing ships to enter the territorial waters of Gaza are or they're blocking Gaza because they're a they consider it to be a state of war they have between themselves and Hamas Israel has never clarified this but all these blockades or territorial waters that you say you occupy the occupying power has legal rights over it follows from the fact that if you occupy the land the territorial waters are also considered under occupation and that is so either way whether Crimea belongs to Russia you recognize their in their what the citizens have been done to a referendum or not all you consider is as an occupying power either way the Russian authorities have the right to forbid in this case innocent passage of warships all passage of warships they can forbid of countries without taking their permission and as I said this by all means was not innocent passage so the both counts whether it's international law or whether the intent of the act was just passing some ships through some waters this doesn't qualify and we now have the famous map which BBC made public that there's a debate within the British government whether this should be done or not two routes were identified and the fact that the choice this route was in within they had some differences within the government finally they chose this route of course the story of this vital documents being found in a bus stop it I don't know how credible this information is because I don't think BBC would have aired this without taking permission from the government so it does see within the British government there were some differences on the risks in that would be taken by doing this but I think the larger issue really is that the United Kingdom is willing to test the waters as in this particular case of Crimea and also make the situation for Russia and European Union much tougher because as you know large sections of the European Union would like some kind of normalcy to return with Russia and United Kingdom of course being just a little bit of an island of the coast there they have no such stake in the larger duration economy of which the European Union is a part and they have been walked out of European Union makes it even more simple for them to say we are interested really in partnership with the United States we are interested in our financial services we offer to the world and therefore we really are not interested in the Eurasian landmass we are now a truly an Atlantic power and that's the Atlantic that they're looking to or across the Atlantic they're looking to for their lands so in this case it's quite possible UK is acting as a spoiler in the European Union's relationship with Russia and China which is still on the edge but still exists and economically it's still a growing of growing importance to the European Union. Thank you so much Pramil for talking to us that's all your time for today keep watching NewsClip.