 Welcome to News Clicks Show Mapping Fault Lines where we discuss major geopolitical issues from around the world. Today our focus is going to be on the Persian Gulf region, specifically on Iran, where the United States has imposed fresh rounds of sanctions. Now there were two rounds of sanctions imposed in the last week alone. One was against certain officials of the Defense Department of the Nuclear Program and the US also said that all existing UN sanctions would be reimposed. And more recently, there was another round imposed on certain officials citing so-called human rights violations. And we have with us Prabir Prakash, so to talk about this. Prabir, so we've discussed this issue before, of course, but the US has imposed the sanctions despite the fact that obviously even its conventional allies have said that it has no right to do so. Secondly, the fact that there is no global framework for it to impose any of these sanctions because it's not even a part of this thing. So are we just seeing, say, an escalate or some rhetoric ahead of the presidential elections where Donald Trump wants to make a point or is this something that is more systemic and likely to continue? You see, first thing is, of course, when you talk about American sanctions, there are two class of sanctions. One which US imposes unilaterally. And they have a huge number of those sanctions that they have imposed unilaterally without really any authority from any international body during the United Nations Security Council. So those are the kind of sanctions anyway that the US has been imposing. We are not talking about those sanctions in this particular instance. What we're talking about is the Pompey's claim, or the US claim, that the United Nations Security Council sanctions are now operating and a snapback has occurred. The snapback is that Iran violated certain conditions of the treaty, which is what we've already talked about earlier in which a nuclear agreement was arrived at. Iran actually dismantled a lot of its centrifuges as well as sent abroad, exported in fact, the fissile material or not, the fissile material as much as the enriched uranium that it had collected. And the enrichment was up to 20%. So certainly it was on weapons, great. But that was sent outside. So they had fulfilled the major part of the agreement very quickly. In fact, that was a surprise for all of us that it was done so quickly by Iran. And therefore they had entered a phase where things were supposedly to go back to normal and slowly all the sanctions on them would be lifted. But the snapback sanctions would have happened if Iran had violated any of the agreement and then if the security council did not give them any relief, then the snapback would automatically take this was the way the agreement had been framed. So effectively any country could veto the lifting of the sanctions if a snapback occurred. That was the whole purpose of this convoluted way it was phrased. So the US though it's no longer a party to the agreement now claims that it has the right to invoke snapback sanctions though it's not a party and no country in the whole agreement, the other parties, which is of course the Germany, France, UK, Russia, China and also the European Union, part of the United States. None of them have said that they agree with the United States. They do not agree. They would like to keep the agreement going and the US is no longer a party. In spite of that, the US believes that they can actually quote unquote have the snapback in operation. So Pompey is not saying that the US is imposing sanctions. It is saying it is implementing the snapback of the sanctions, which is what the United Security Council would automatically have to accept because after all, they have not passed a resolution relaxing this condition. Therefore, automatic snapback has taken place according to Pompey, not according to the United Nations Security Council or any of the other members including the United Nations administrative apparatus, the Secretary General and others. So they have said, we believe that now snapback has occurred. Therefore, under the UN Security Council resolution, we have the right to even stop ships carrying equipment which are under the sanctions list and therefore we have the right to board ships. This kind of rights that they're claiming means that it is possible. They will stop Iranian ships, cargo ships. For instance, if you remember the Iranian cargo ships with tankers carried oil to Venezuela. They can now claim that under UN sanctions, they will now stop such shipments. They can search Iranian ships. These are the powers that they're claiming. So whether they do anything or not, the powers they're claiming seems to be quite dangerous. Now, why would the US claim such powers and would they do something? Now, what people will do is almost impossible to figure out. But why are they claiming this? And as you rightly said, this is really Trump's election stand now that he wants vaccines to be started to be delivered by 1st November. Preferably late October, even if the vaccines have not passed to all the safety trials, he would like some saber rattling in the Persian Gulf to take place, test Iran. Now, if he does stop a ship, a couple of ships, what does Iran do? That's the key question. And can it then spiral into something far more dangerous? So what could possibly be election grandstanding? Unfortunately, he has dangers far beyond the grandstanding. And these are the kind of dangerous situations. If it really goes out of hand, we are likely to see a disaster in the Persian Gulf and disaster for particularly for countries like India, which depend on Persian Gulf oil. So in that sense, I don't see why the world is so quesant, not bothered about what's happening and letting it be something as if it's a bilateral issue between Iran and US only. Exactly. And that's an interesting point because while the US allies, the other countries which did sign the agreement have made some noises. There's not been any kind of sustained attempt to sort of take the opposition to the next level. It's just been murmurs of protest. And it's interesting also because last month, a couple of months ago when one of the Iranian ships was coming a suit was filed in the US code to seize it. And now there's even more possibilities for that. But in this context, what are the Iranian options really in terms of responses? There's, we've discussed this of course, when Qasem Soleimani was assassinated, there were later issues with sanctions also. So right now, given the geopolitical situation, what is Iran's own? You know, Iran has always played a very deep and long-term game. They have not reacted quickly. They have not provided any visible provocations that the United States can easily do something about. They have really played what is called the deep Persian game. After all, the Persians had their, not their empire, but they had diplomatic sway over a very large region. And that large region included even Central Asia and South Asia. So this kind of cultural politics that Persia has, Iran inherits, is a much older and a deeper one. So they have been relatively sophisticated with the way they have reacted to all the provocations that the US has done. And it's been a very calibrated response they have done. They didn't walk out of the, for instance, the agreement that we are talking about, the Iran agreement. That they didn't walk out of. They said, if you don't do A, then we will do B. And that was actually within the framework of the agreement itself. So all the countries still now accept that Iran has not really broken the agreement. So that has been their tactic. So what will they do here? If physically their ships are stopped, I don't think there is any option. They will have to retaliate in some form or the other militarily. It will be a military confrontation that will take place. Now, what is the way the military confrontation will take place? What will be the nature of that? That's an open question. If you remember when General Soleimani was killed, they retaliated. They retaliated against American bases in Iraq. Now that retaliation was of a nature that actually the US did not then want to take it any further. So essentially, the retaliation took place but did not cross a threshold by which US would have got involved further. So what is that? Is there a threshold here? If you stop a ship, will you fire a couple of missiles? If you fire a couple of missiles, if they retaliate, then will you fire more missiles? So this is the escalatory ladder that exists. That if you stop an Iranian ship, if you board an Iranian ship, which the US might conceivably do, claiming they're imposing the United Nations Security Council sanctions, then what the response of the Iranians would be very difficult at this moment to say. But the question is, once you're on this escalatory ladder, no country individually, both these countries individually, will find it difficult then to stop when they want. So it's not in their hands anymore. So if they stop a ship, what will Iran do? If the Iranians threatens it with some, say, missile boats, frigates, lighter Navy, which they have, which are quite fast-moving, carrying missiles. If they then send it over there, what will the Americans do? If they threaten but don't do anything, will the Americans back off? If the Americans don't back off, will a couple of missiles be fired? So all of it is really up in the air. The point is that this is not a minor issue, that if such a escalatory step is taken, then I think we are in very, very dangerous times. And as you said rightly, I'm shocked at the fact that the world is sort of letting it go, that they think this, to me, it seems like we are now like ostriches. We don't want to see the brutal truth. The United States wants to withdraw from nuclear agreements. We don't want to face the truth. US is virtually saying on the assault, the new start too, that there is really no time and we don't want this path, this kind of agreement. We want a much more comprehensive agreement or nothing at all. So you can't have a comprehensive agreement in five months and nothing at all, it becomes basically the way it will go. Iran or the Iran issue also, the way they are placing themselves at the moment, they're not leaving any room for, shall we say, an agreement or something which Iran can agree to, that's not the intention. The intention is not kept okay, that we made a mistake, we pulled out of the agreement, we haven't got anything. Now let's see whether we can, both sides can say, face and want something. What they're asking is unilateral disarmament, which is something which Iran cannot agree to, because Qaddafi did show that unilateral disarmament can mean later the violation of that agreement and of course intervention. So that's how the Libyan government was overthrown and Qaddafi killed. So everybody has learned that lesson, they don't trust the Americans what they say. Therefore nobody is going to give up military weapons that they possess. In this case, what they're being asked to is to dismantle their entire design system. That it's not the question of nuclear issue, nuclear is only the excuse. The real demand is stop your missile development, actually destroy your missiles, that's the one which is going to come, that you cannot have missiles beyond say, 250 kilometers, 300 kilometers range. And then you cannot intervene in other countries, you must stop your intervention in Syria, Lebanon and other places, which means essentially you must let these countries become our vassal states. So that is the picture they're basically laying down before Iran. So this is essentially disarming Iran, A, hemming it in, B, and C for priming it up for a later overthrow. So that's something that any government is going to accept. So I think that's the issue over here. This has been building up for quite some time, but Trump did not perhaps want to go the full military route because he also is a risk averse, that he makes all this noises, but he has been risk averse. But what happens is when your elections are nearing and you have a really not in a good position, then you start thinking, okay, let us take some risks. If I win the election, then we will see. So this is where we are at. They have, for the first time, we have aircraft carriers back in Persian Gulf. We didn't have it for the last, I think 10 months. It does not just one Persian, it's not one aircraft carrier. It's also other vessels which are there. They're also, of course, as you know, an aircraft carrier is equivalent to a floating island. So it has, of course, a lot of aircrafts. It's a really a huge force projection. So this force projection back in the States of Hormuz, just before the elections, and the fact that Pompeo is making all this noises about snapping back up sanctions, I think we are in a much more dangerous position that we realize. And, you know, as I always have said, we can predict larger forces. We are talking really of two people, it seems. Pompeo and Trump. Pompeo believes in the rapture that if certain set of events takes place, then of course, you know, all the believers will be lifted up into heaven. So he doesn't have too much of a worry on Armageddon, it seems, okay? It seems it might be that Armageddon might actually be useful to him in a very personal sense. That's what, at least that's what the public response to his evangelical position has been. And of course, we have Trump, who doesn't believe in anything except the fact that he wants to be president again. So with this, we are at very dangerous, we are in a very dangerous state, mainly because we have unpredictable individuals. We don't seem to see that much of check-checks and balances in the US anymore. And therefore trusting the United States not to do something foolhardy, which can precipitate a war, which can precipitate a very dangerous situation is something we can't really talk about. You know, as I said, okay, we can understand what's happening in the United States. There's really, where the United States is going on lots of issues are really extremely dangerous, extremely to our understanding, extremely foolish, the way they have dealt with the pandemic, not that we have dealt with it much better. But what surprises me is if such a war breaks out in the Persian Gulf, states of Hormuz, then we'll cease to exist as a transit corridor. So what happens to the entire oil that has to come out of Persian Gulf areas, which might be under pandemic is not that important, but already transport has started picking up. Air lines will start to operating increasingly. So what happens to all of that without oil, the global economy ceases up. And at least for South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia, it's going to be a disaster. So what is the calculation that the US has? We don't know. Only if that happens, also for Europe, it's a disaster. Is it their understanding that let all the other continents go to the dogs, at least the US is safe because after all, we have shale oil which can again continue to pump out, the prices will go up, so we are okay. Is that their understanding? I really have no idea about this, honestly, because I think we are faced with an irrational order which now the United States has become. So what you're seeing is a rogue state which is really under nobody's control and international agreements, international bodies no longer seem to have any tempering effect on this player in the United States. And it seems to be believing that it can live by its own rules while every other country has to obey two sets of rules. One is international law and other is US law or whatever the US says is the law. So this is the situation we are in today. Absolutely. And it's interesting you mentioned that because this week saw the 75th anniversary commemorations of the United Nations General Assembly. There was an anti-key theme was multilateralism which leaders across the world stressed on some of them even took digs at the US but there probably hasn't been any time in the history of the UN when multilateralism has been so completely thrown to the wind so to speak. Yes, I think that's the interesting point that we are talking about the multilateralism in an age where multilateralism has virtually ceased to exist. All the multilateral agreements, particularly in arms control have been now dismantled. When you talk about any of these issues whatever agreements have been reached they have been dismantled. Iran agreement being another one. Then if you look at trade agreements even the World Trade Organization which actually benefited the US and the European Union considerably. Now the US says it doesn't fulfill its purposes therefore it's not willing to let the dispute tribunal work which means WTO is effectively defined. Then we have seen the trade and tech war. We are basically seeing the unraveling of the internet because all the technologies which underline it were interoperable. They will no longer be so but that's what the US has started talking about. So all of this is a major turning point in the world and I don't think we are really prepared or the global citizens or the global intellectual bodies are equipped to analyze that this is something which is qualitatively different from what we have seen earlier. And this is the United States facing its weakening over the global system particularly what it had after the Second World War now deciding that naked power is how it will shore up its economy, its international position and that is I think increasingly what we are likely to see and that's why multilateralism may be what in the United Nations discusses but that's not something which is on American agenda at the moment. I understand. Thank you so much for talking to us. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching.