 Salaam and welcome to this weekend edition of the Daily Debrief coming to you from our studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddharth Ani and on the show we're discussing a series of U.S. developments against Iran actually that indicate a complete breakdown of dialogue between the two countries and perhaps the creation of a further flashpoint in West Asia. We also talk about the U.S. Supreme Court's possible stance on student loan forgiveness. First up, the Joe Biden administration's reluctance to make any moves towards reviving the Iran nuclear deal was underlined with the U.S. Department of State issuing fresh sanctions against firms from across the globe involved in oil and petrochemical trade with Iran this week. Pabir Burqasar is back in the studio as he was yesterday to discuss the United States' historical record as a treaty breaker as well as the frightening implications of the breakdown of dialogue between Iran on one side and the U.S. and Israel on the other. It was just yesterday when we were discussing at some length the kind of impact that unilateral sanctions being imposed by the U.S. and its allies is having around the world on several countries. One country that we did mention was Iran and the news today, of course, is that a fresh set of sanctions have been imposed. So we want to start there, Pabir, despite sort of widespread critiques, criticisms and also evidence that this way of, it's not a means to any kind of resolution. The evidence exists historically, we've seen it despite that the U.S. continuing down the path that it has chosen and perforce then a lot of its western allies also sticking to the program. How do you see the latest sort of, latest set of sanctions and the kind of impact they'll have? You know, the question of sanctions in Iran is, of course, a much longer one. And it has really been under sanctions of different kinds, right from the Carter regime, Carter's presidency, and it has continued for a very long time. At one point it appeared that we'll have a resolution, it scaled back its nuclear enrichment programs, and there was an agreement that was reached during Obama's time as president, which of course was withdrawn and Trump came into power. And again, the whole thing, instead of sanctions being slowly withdrawn, we saw ratcheting back of the sanctions. So this has been an ongoing war against Iran in terms of financial war, not a physical war. So this is something which it doesn't look like is going to change. In fact, apart from Cuba, this is probably the longest sanction regime that the U.S. has put on any other country. I don't think there's been any other country with such a long period of sanctions which Iran has faced. It appeared that Iran was going to go towards the nuclear weapons because they were enriching uranium to the level that from which a bomb would be rather simple. So enrichment of uranium beyond a certain percentage leads or could lead to nuclear weapons, therefore the kind of sanctions behind which actually the world moralists agreed at that point, partly because at that time the U.S. was still by far the strongest economic, financial and military power in the world. So the hegemonic challenge to the hegemonic power of the U.S. still had not taken place. But now we are in a period where it has been challenged a number of counts. One is, of course, the increasing use of sanctions. The U.S. has used sanctions again and again on a number of countries. Now it's also Russia and China. Now, when you move to countries of the scale of Russia and, of course, China, it's a much bigger economy. Then you are also asking all other countries in the world to follow in your need. And that is quite damaging for a number of countries because Russia, unlike a lot of other countries, also exports a lot of intermediate goods and also agricultural goods, fertilizers and food, which is critical for the world, energy, basically oil and gas. And of course, also metals, steel, various other things. So Russia is not a minor player in all of this. And sanctioning, they're throwing it out of the system, which is what the Soviet system, which is what the U.S. has done. This, while for Iran, was not so difficult for the United States. Do all most countries backed off for trade with Iran because they didn't want to get thrown out of the system. There are banks to be sanctioned, et cetera. But in the case of Russia, people are taking that risk because they can't do without fertilizers, food, as well as, of course, oil and gas. So given that, the scenario is changing. And with China, it's going to change even more because China is today the preeminent trading partner for 80% of the countries in the world. So given all of this, the sanction regime for the United States is not proving to be so simple. And Iran, therefore, is also able to break out of its isolation, which what it faced earlier, because Russia is, of course, a partner. It is also a fellow sanctioned country. Therefore, you already have this kind of links building up, Iran and China. And all of them, if you look at the map, you will see, all of them have an interest in Central Asia. Iran is on the borders of Central Asia. It's very much a player in Central Asia historically. So is Russia and so is China. So given all of that, this is changing the world qualitatively. And the latest sanctions, which are to be lifted, which have not been lifted, have been reimposed, now faces the other issue. Is Iran going to get into bomb-grade uranium? They've already purified uranium to 60% purity. For those who know, from small percentage of uranium, which is present in the ore, centrifuging to 20% itself is the major issue. Once you've done it, then successive purification levels are easier and easier. And once you've come to 60% level, to come to bomb-grade is not a big task. And we know that. Of course, the IAEA inspectors having said that there is one particle of uranium they found, which are 84, 83.7% has been made big news. But the reality of that is, that is something that happens when a new cascade is cut in, a new centrifuge is in cut in, but that's a calibration issue. And it's not their real, they have purified to the 84% to 90% level, except that there has been a, not a uniform grade of uranium output. And therefore this kind of things happen. And it is something which IAEA knows, which Iran also knows. And earlier this would be done much more to consultations and no such big splash being made. But as you know now, this is big news. The US really wants to isolate Iran. Therefore, its news agencies have made it to a big thing. But otherwise a particle of uranium of 83.7% does not mean Iran has violated what itself says 60%. And anyway, Iran is a self-imposed limit. Iran is under no constraint at the moment with the United States having walked out of the agreement that was there. Then they're under no agreement at the moment, except what they have imposed on themselves, what percentage purity they will go up to. And it is clear that if Iran wants to go to weapons grid, there's nothing stopping them. There is no agreement that is stopping them. It's only a self-imposed limit in order to pressurize the United States and others to come and solve the sanctions issue under which Iran has laid for now more than 40 years. Which brings us very nicely probably to the next part of the conversation which is center of JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action also known as the Nuclear Deal. With Iran, a few months ago, or up until a few months ago, even the EU's top diplomat, Joseph Borrell, was at least voicing hopefulness of being able to re-enter that deal. But the United States clearly disinclined to get back to even the discussion table on the subject of the deal with Iran. And really, it's hard to figure out probably what the thought process is behind not having those controls in place that obligates Iran to sort of limit its enrichment program, even if it's to suit US interests in the region. Well, I think the US is what would be called treaty incapable. This is what a lot of countries have said. I think Iran is a classic example where the US is no longer treaty capable. Even if a president, for instance, Obama, did reach an agreement, what you said, JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive, et cetera, et cetera. I'm not going to spell out all the acronym what it stands for. But the JCPOA agreement was withdrawn by Trump. And this has been a pattern for the last 20 years with the United States. Any international agreement which one president reaches, the other president comes in scraps. Now, this is, I'll go down the list if you want, but the two classic or more important ones is of course a global warming treaty which Obama agreed to. It's never been accepted by the Trump administration or even by the Congress. And earlier also, whatever it was called, the Kyoto Protocol, this again, never passed by the Congress in the United States. And George Bush Sr. said, our lifestyles are not open for negotiations. That was the position. So Iran, JCPOA is another agreement for which everybody agreed to, everybody signed onto the dotted line after the long negotiations. Then it was again abandoned by the Trump administration. Biden could have gone back to the deal very early. He had the option as a president, just as Trump had the option as a president to walk out to say, yes, we are back in. And the whole thing could have been reset. But Biden also wanted to extract more out of Iran by saying, we'll get back provided you do ABC. And the ABC meant that Iran should scale down its involvement in West Asian politics, which is something that Iran would obviously not agree to do. And also the Carter Plan, which was the Carter dictum was that West Asia is our exclusive reserve, meaning that any threat to oil reserves over there is a threat to the United States. That is like what they had over their hemispherical demand that no country should have anything to do with North America, South America. That's exclusively their preserve. That is no longer viable today in the world. Forget about their hemisphere. This is also extended to the West Asian because it was a place where oil and gas was there. That is strategically very important for the world. And it's also for the United States. Not so much for the United States now because it's fracking. They have got now more oil than they, they can meet their own demand at least. They're dependent on West Asian oil and gas. So given all of this, the US is treaty incapable. So when you say this issue, you know, there's a Republican majority in the house today. Okay, if that is so, then no agreement which Obama will sign or will get back to will be agreeable to the United States Congress, which will say, no, we don't agree. The house will reject it. So given that, this is a long history of treaties which the US now agrees, negotiates, gets into an agreement. Everybody is supposed to adhere except the United States. And as I said, climate change is the latest in that list. So I think we have to agree that the world has to work out now, a more modest remedy, which leaves the United States out of treaties and see what we need to do in order to solve such problems. But unfortunately, European Union, particularly with the Ukrainian war has essentially surrendered to the United States. So they at the moment do not seem to be players which earlier, at least we could think of them as independent players on Iran. They never really agreed with the Americans for the total line. So that is the JCPOE tragedy that though countries like India, Russia, China and European Union did not agree to US withdrawing but they did not put up any alternative to Iran either because of the fear of financial sanctions. I think that is slowly changing with the Russian and Chinese sanctions. By the way, India has also been threatened mildly about sanctions or buying Russian oil. But that is something which will not probably come into being because the $60 cap which has been set over there which allows India a bit of leeway. So maybe that will not happen. Partly India now plays some kind of a pivotal role even though not a major pivot but at least a pivotal role with the kind of division that is taking place in the world. So I don't see Iran, JCPOE coming back at all and it's a weakness of the American state today that treaties which the signed cannot be, are not done through consensus internally and becomes a part of domestic politics rather than international politics. All right, I think we'll let you leave us on that terrifying note for this weekend. Thanks for your time and hopefully we'll have you back on the show next week at some point. And our second and final story for the day, the ultra-conservative Supreme Court of the United States of America appears poised to force the burden of over $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt back onto tens of millions of workers. The court majority which has already overturned abortion rights and environmental protections seems poised now to rule against student loan forgiveness. Around 43 and a half million people in the US have federal student loans making up over 90% of the collective student debt of about $1.75 trillion US dollars. There's been a moratorium on federal student loan payments since March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic but that is now likely to change. Natalia Marquez is covering the story and joins us from New York via video conference. Thanks for joining us, Natalia, early on a Saturday morning but you're covering an important story for People's Dispatch and the article is up on the website for those of us who are interested to read the details. But what is your sort of take on the situation, Natalia, and why are you sort of inclined to believe that the US Supreme Court is unlikely to vote favorably on student loan forgiveness? Yeah, so just recently on Tuesday, the Supreme Court in the United States heard two separate arguments about against Biden's student loan forgiveness program, just for context, Biden announced that he would be forgiving up to $20,000 in student debt from the most low income students in the US and the right wing quickly moved to shut this down before any money could be rolled out to help anyone with forgiving their student loans. And now it's made its way through the court process and now it's all the way up to the Supreme Court. And so these right wing politicians and donors are funding cases that are arguing against this student loan forgiveness program. And the Supreme Court in the United States right now is very ultra conservative. They've spent decades trying to get the most conservative of Supreme Court justices onto the court. And now there is a six to three, I believe, majority of very conservative Supreme Court justices who are unlikely to rule in favor of the student loan forgiveness program. Just recently, notably, of course, they stripped millions of women of abortion rights federally. They also removed environmental protections. They're slated to do away with policies like affirmative action in the future. So the outlook is very negative for the student loan forgiveness program. And in many ways, Natalia, this is a continuation of Donald Trump's legacy as president, particularly in regard to the Supreme Court and the kind of majority that has been established there. But just taking it to sort of a political spectrum for a minute, so many millions, close to 45 million or so Americans holding student debt, it's obviously an issue that is important to a large chunk of the voter base as well. And we see on the one hand, the US approving billions of dollars in military aid to not just Ukraine and Taiwan, but other countries as well. What is the kind of political fallout that you would imagine or that you're seeing on the ground? Yeah, yeah, I mean, of course, it is definitely the legacy of conservatives like Donald Trump. Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices to the Supreme Court. And so even though he's a four-year president, he, his legacy really lives on in these lifetime appointments. These are for life. So, this is gonna last very long. And Biden has been criticized from the left for not essentially not accomplishing anything in terms of meaningful social spending. So he campaigned on this promise of being a progressive president, of build back better, which was a massive trillion dollar social spending package that would have made preschool free, that would have extended childcare tax credits, that would have allocated money to public housing, these sort of like amazing, unforeseen really social spending initiatives. Of course, this never happened because conservative Democrats from Biden's own party shut the legislation down and it couldn't go to a vote. Biden is unwilling to do away with the filibuster that would make passing any sort of social spending far easier. So people are saying that Biden has had every opportunity to really fight for things like social spending and hasn't for whatever reason. And this student loan failure really represents another such failure, right? Because he rolled out a program that no one benefited from ultimately because it was so lobbied against by conservatives, right? And so, you know, again, Biden has had no issue doing quite reactionary things, right? So he, but there was a bipartisan effort to shut down the rail worker strike. That legislation was passed in a matter of days, whereas any social spending takes months if it's passed at all. And so, Biden also as president while we're sending over $100 billion to Ukraine when people can't even get $20,000 for given off of their student loans, a program that would cost 400 billion over 30 years, right? So the student loan forgiveness program is not as costly as the right wing is making it out to be. And yet at the same time we're spending billions of dollars to a war that ultimately benefits no one, obviously extremely destructive, especially for the people of Ukraine. And so, you know, it's impressive really that there's very little that Biden has accomplished in terms of social spending while at the same time spending exorbitant amounts on defense, but this has been true of almost every US president. Right, thanks very much for putting all of that in perspective and unfortunately in Italy for the next two years perhaps we'll be having many more of these kinds of similar conversations. But thanks for your time today. Yeah, no problem. That brings to an end our coverage on the daily debrief for this week. We'll be back with another show on Monday. Until then we invite you to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org for more details on these stories and all of the other work we do. Don't also forget to follow us on the social media platform of your choice. Thanks once again for watching. We'll be back next week. Until then, goodbye.