 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. On January 14th, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, three of the signatories to the JCPOA or the Iran Nuclear Deal activated the conflict resolution mechanism of the deal against Iran. What this means in practical terms is just in just over 65 days, U.N. sanctions will be imposed on Iran once again. To talk more about this, we have with us Prabir Purgatis. Hello Prabir. Prabir just gives some context to the U.S. in mid-2018 withdrew from the deal. And after that they imposed heavy sanctions on Iran and there has been an escalation of hostility, the most recent example being the assassination of General Qasem Soleiman. And during all this time, we saw that the European countries kept paying lip service to the fact that they wanted the deal to continue. They did, they formed instex of payment mechanism and they kept saying that Iran should confirm to the deal. But now we have seen them actually activate claws of the deal which could basically mean the complete end of the deal. So what was the motivation probably behind these countries doing this? Let's see the broader context. I don't think we should narrowly look at the legalistic issues of the JCPOA. Because if we get into that, of course, then we get into the realm of national law, the way the sanctions were structured, the way the snapback of the sanctions would take place, what you are talking about. Let's look at what is broadly happening. The United States pulls out of the deal and has been ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, essentially asking it to submit. So this is in fact an undeclared war. In fact, if you look at the economic sanctions, these are really acts of war, what would be called international law terms also, violations of what would be the international law against taking these kinds of actions. So economic war is already being waged by the United States. To keep the deal alive, the European powers have really done nothing. As you said, paid lip service, the instax mechanism had hardly seen any transactions. And anyway, the major earner for Iran, which is oil, the oil exports do not come at the instax. So therefore, to say that they have done their bit on the doesn't stand water. But I think the bigger issue is where is it heading to? And I think it's clearly heading to not only confrontation with Iran, but a possible war with Iran, which is what really at the moment it seems Trump wants. Let's also look at what we already know about the Soleimani assassination. It's now clear that the decision to assassinate Soleimani had been taken quite some time back. The issue was only when and whether this opportunity or this particular window is the right one. That was the only discussion that was taking place. So it is not that it was suddenly a spur of the moment decision, as it has been portrayed and not that it was something that Trump actually did on his own, which is the other theory that is doing rounds that he was given a set of options. This is the only extreme option and this is not what something that the military establishment wanted and so on. The issue is that they were looking for a particular opportunity. It is also clear now that within the United States State Department itself, the various versions that have come up, it's very clear again that there is no question of imminent danger. The Soleimani was going planning to attack foreign embassies. They themselves have controverted these statements. So I think it's a clear pushing Iran towards war and the complete surrender of the European powers in front of the United States. So what we now have is completely abandoning of international law and the United States imposing whatever it assumes is its laws as the international law and expecting the global committee of nations to either follow it or stay neutral in it, which is where it seems to be heading. So I am looking at facing impeachment as he is, that I think that essentially Trump is looking for an October war or September October war, which is a time when it will really elections will heat up in the United States and that might ensure his reelection. And as we know, all presidents think a short war is a good war. Whether it will be a short war, it will be another quagmire, will it sink the entire region into disaster and probably the global economy needs to be seen. But how does it matter if Trump wins the reelection? So we could be looking at a scenario like that and not look at the larger international law implications of the nuclear deal, what is written in the fine print and the fact that the snapback provisions can be easily actuated if there is no will to keep to the deal, which is what the European nations, the U3 are saying. So the other aspect is that Russia and China have strongly continued to support this deal and like you pointed out, while the Europeans activated this mechanism now, they basically had nearly a year and a half of actually not sticking to the deal. So would Russia and China be in a position for instance to actually continue to support Iran's economy through their trading acts or will this activation of these sanctions make it difficult for them also? See, we are seeing unilateral war in economic terms on Russia, which has been sanctioned earlier. We are seeing economic trade war with China in which there is an agreement for a certain kind of truce but we do not know what the fine print of this is going to be. There is a threat that United States would like to disengage from China and keep it out of the global economy as far as it can. So we are not looking at only one war, which is the Iran war. You are really looking at multiple war fronts that United States seem to have opened. In this, can three of them come together to fight this war? Is that feasible? Given the fact that each of them have different economic interests. So that is also the issue. China is a net importer of energy. In fact, large quantities of energy and Russia and Iran both depend on exporter of energy. So there is a synergy over there but there is a whole lot of other things that China is engaged with and without the western economy that also becomes a problem for them. And if we divide the world completely economically, as the United States seems to be wanting to do, then that may not vote so well for also the Chinese economy. So yes, it can lead to destruction of the global economy but that doesn't help China either. So we are I think seeing very difficult times ahead for the global economy and for all countries. But I don't see that China and Russia have much of an option but to support Iran on this. Having said that, the problem that they have is the United Nations, the Security Council resolution had provisions by which virtually a snap snapping back of the original sanctions would take place. If there is even if the United States vetoes the decision that the JCPOA is actually okay and Iran is not transgressing it, even if Iran once it comes in the Security Council, even if Iran vetoes it, sorry United States vetoes it, there is even then there is a possibility of snapping back of the sanctions because you have to give relief every time this issue comes up. So if the understanding of the Iran Accord was that the US has agreed then obviously they have a stake in the peace. What the world didn't count on was that you have US actually acts like a wrong nation does not keep any agreement and therefore it can walk out of the agreement it has itself reached. Since this has happened a number of times in the past we don't have to dwell on this but having done that the snapping back of the sanctions in international law using United Security Council resolution is a possibility but yes Russia and China are big enough to say we don't agree with this and they can also veto any resolution that comes out. What the legal status that's why I was not getting into it, the legal status is really complicated for non-international law experts in the and studying of the UN date all the i's and t's have to be dotted and crossed before we understand the whole thing. So I think politically yes it is true that they can come together but can they really pull this off how much of the world should support them and if there is a war in October all this becomes a good point because lot of it will depend on what happens in the war and if there is a war on Iran it's a possibility at some point the Iran will have to seek peace and at that time this whole discussion then becomes about the post-war scenario not about what's happened what's happening now. So I would read this the UN UN is only one theater the basic issue is the European powers while paying lip service to the agreement has succumbed to the American pressure actually to go to war with Iran and all the pretends these are all pretends to that effect and I think we are looking at a very very dangerous situation. Unfortunately, Zarif is now in India at the moment that is rising a dialogues going on, India is actually completely a bystander in all of this and 80 percent as we have said again and again in this in this discussions here 80 percent of India's oil comes from West Asia any war over there as the United States seem to be shaping up really destructive for India also for China unfortunately the US unfortunately because in this case everybody else would be it except in the US they have enough fracking oil other oil sources at the moment so they're not going to be affected but the global economy and particularly India China Eastern East Asia will be very badly affected if any war takes place in West Asia but I think the way it's looking that that is the goal that Trump has because of his reelection if nothing else. Thank you so much for being that's all we have time for today keep watching NewsClick