Transcript of Press TV panel discussion, 19 September

Transcript submitted by a reader

http://www.urmedium.net/c/presstv/134610

Bardia Honardar, PressTV: 0:04
Hello and welcome to “Spotlight”. The UN Security Council has rejected a bid to keep sanctions relief for Iran, paving the way for renewed UN sanctions within days. Iran has slammed the move, calling any attempt by the European trio to reimpose sanctions baseless and a direct assault on international law. Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeedi Ravani, emphasized that in a striking display of hypocrisy, the European trio and the US claim that Tehran must be punished for the reciprocal measures it took years after enduring violations by the other side. The three European countries triggered the snapback process last month, accusing Iran of breaching its obligations under the 2015 nuclear deal. That mechanism will expire on October the 18th.

0:54
And if no deal is reached by September 28th, international sanctions suspended under the nuclear deal will automatically return. Allow me to introduce my guests for tonight’s show. Security and political analyst Avi Rizk, joining us from the Lebanese capital Beirut. And we also have independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow joining us from Brussels.

1:25
Gentlemen, welcome to the program. Let’s start off with Mr. Rizk in Beirut. Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Said Ravani, said today’s action was hasty, unnecessary and unlawful. The Iranian foreign minister also highlighted that the push to revive sanctions lacked consensus and faced serious opposition from several council members. What were your expectations for today’s session, Mr. Risk?

Rizk: 1:51
I think that the expectations were that indeed that this measure wouldn’t pass and that the sanctions are going to be implemented or imposed. In fact, the French president Emmanuel Macron said as much during an interview with Israeli television when he was asked about this topic. He was asked, are you certain, I think, that the sanctions are going to impose? He responded in the affirmative.

So I don’t think it comes as a big surprise. And I think that a lot of it’s related to European animosity towards Iran, specifically over Russia. In other words, there’s a lot of hostility and animosity between the Europeans and the Russians over Ukraine. And we know that Iran has drawn closer to Russia in recent years.

2:41
And so that’s made Iran more of an enemy in Europe’s eyes. I think that is one or possibly the major factor, not the only one, but a major factor behind the European approach to Iran and the fact that they’ve decided to impose these sanctions.

PressTV:
Gilbert Doctorow, Iran’s ambassador to the UN said any attempt by the European trio to reimpose sanctions is baseless and a direct assault on international law and the Council’s credibility. Give us your perspective on this route that the E3 decided to pursue ultimately.

Doctorow: 3:20
I believe that the underlying reasons for this action have nothing to do with Iran. I agree with the remarks of my fellow panelist that they are to be understood in reference to Europe’s positions on Russia. And this action against Iran is in its own way similar to Donald Trump’s attacks on boats in the Caribbean, allegedly coming from Venezuela and carrying narcotics. This is the action of a bully, a cowardly bully, who looks for a weak spot to flex his muscles and show his strength. And that is what the European Troika is doing. They are picking on Iran because they don’t have the guts to go directly after Russia. That’s what it’s all about.

PressTV:
All right, Ali Rizk, China and Russia who backed today’s proposal, they condemned further sanctions on Tehran as counterproductive, illegal and invalid. They also released a joint statement regarding the anti-Iran sanctions. The two countries said that the reinstatement of the sanctions [was] illegal. They will not comply with or abide by these renewed sanctions. So break down the response from China and Russia. What message do you think this sends to the other side, to those who are pushing for the renewal of the sanctions and for cranking up pressure on Iran?

Rizk: 5:01
Well, I think it was very clear during the recent summits which were held in Beijing, if you remember, Chinese President Xi Jinping hosting a number of world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, also Iranian President Masoud Pazhashkian, and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. I think that this show– by the way, another very important development during that summit, perhaps the most important, was the participation of the Indian Prime Minister Modi. I think that was a major, major development.

So I think that that particular summit showed that there’s a emerging block which is taking shape. And the reason why I focused on India is that India’s traditionally seemed to be on the Western or in the Western camp. But what happened in Beijing, I think, proved that something different is taking shape, because I think of Trump’s own policies.

6:02
And I also believe that this also brings me to another important issue. For example, India didn’t commit to the sanctions which were imposed on Russia. That’s why Trump chose to increase the tariffs. But that just goes to tell you that even if the Western camp doesn’t tend to increase the maximum pressure on Iran, a lot of the countries aren’t going to commit to that, regardless of this resolution or regardless of the European intentions to reactivate the snapback mechanism. So China and Russia, yes they won’t commit to it, but I think also countries like India, it’s quite possible that they might not also commit to it.

6:47
So this era of Western hegemony and the West being able to impose its own will, I think that slowly is breaking down. And I think Trump’s policies, by the way, are speeding up the process of it breaking down. So yes, it is considered to be, I think, an escalatory step, but I think that other countries do have their own incentives to try and stop or limit how effective these measures will be, not just for the sake of Iran, I think, but also because they want to prove their own points that there’s a new world order which is emerging, and that the US can no longer use these sanctions in such a way.

PressTV: 7:31
And Mr. Doctorow, about the reactions and responses coming in following the UN Security Council session, if you’d like to add anything to China and Russia’s response. Also, Pakistan said invoking snapback complicates the situation. Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA could be an area which gets complicated.

Doctorow:
I subscribe completely to the remarks of my fellow panelist. We respect the positions of China and Russia on the snapback. I just remember that going back 10 years, the Russians and other countries that had been subjected to sanctions went along with the dictat coming from the United States and its allies to impose sanctions on a country X, Y, and Z. That game is over, and it has been declared invalid from the highest possible point, that is Russia and China.

8:39
And for that reason, the notion that a Gemini is unraveled, or has unraveled already, and cannot be put back in place is a very important development to which we are witnesses. Having said that, of course I appreciate that imposing or reimposing sanctions on Iran will be very painful for your country. And I am hopeful that understanding in places like Russia and China will enable mitigation of the pain that the troika in Europe intend to impose.

Let us also consider that they’re acting in the hope, one more action in the hope of currying favor with Donald Trump. Trump, of course, is much tougher on Iran than he dares to be on Russia. So this is a situation in which Iran is an unwilling victim and a innocent victim, one can say. It is being punched for the simple reason that those who are imposing these sanctions believe that they can do to Iran what they cannot do to a country like Russia. And then that is sad.

PressTV:
So Mr. Rizk, Gilbert Doctorow believes that the trail leads back to Russia. Iran’s foreign minister, however, he has accused the European Troika, France, Germany and the UK of colluding with Israel and the United States to maliciously pressure the Iranian people. Your reaction to that accusation, and do you agree with the Iranian foreign minister?

Rizk: 10:34
I think that part of it is about the United States, but again, I think the Europeans have their own hostility towards Iran, which is separate than the issue of the United States. And it wouldn’t be the first time, by the way. If you go back to when Obama wanted to reach the agreement or when he did reach the agreement with Iran, France objected strongly initially. It was the most hawkish player out of all of the G5-plus-1.

And at the initial phase, it obstructed the American efforts, Obama’s efforts to reach an agreement. This time around, I think that the European stance is even more hawkish, as I said, due to the developments that have taken place between Iran and Russia. By that, I mean the closer ties between the two countries. But regarding Israel, I think that’s an interesting point. And this brings me to the issue of the European intentions to recognize a Palestinian state. And we hear now about potential European sanctions against Israel.

11:36
Now I think possibly, possibly, the Europeans, in order to satisfy the Israelis, they might be following the strategy in such a way, in the following way, that we recognize a Palestinian state, we might sanction some Israeli right-wing figures, but at the same time, we impose sanctions against Iran. That way, they might make up for Israel.

So they take some anti-Israeli measures on the one hand, but they make up for that by escalating against Iran. And I think many Western countries do pursue these kinds of policies in order to gain the satisfaction of Israel, because Israel still, I think, wields enormous influence over political decision making in the West.

PressTV: 12:25
Gilbert Doctorow, along the lines of the same issue, a guest that we spoke to earlier here following today’s UN Security Council session said that there is a constant effort to undermine Iran at every turn. Please tell us whether you agree with that or not; and who benefits from this?

Doctorow:
Well the beneficiary of course is Israel. Any restrictions on Iran that cause economic harm, any restrictions that cause a weakening of some sort in the military capabilities of Iran all serve the purposes of Israel.

As regards Israeli influence on this decision, I’m rather skeptical. The decision to reimpose or use this snapback, I’m rather skeptical that they played any significant role. I still say the issues are more on the United States, currying favor with the United States, and doing to Iran what they would like to do to Russia, but don’t have the ability or the force of will to do.

PressTV: 13:40
Sure. And Ali Rizk, just chronologically looking at everything that led up to the situation we are right now, the E3, they also severely failed in carrying out their obligations under the JCPOA. So what about all of Europe’s shortcomings in the implementation of the nuclear deal? And why did Iran have to do all the heavy lifting all these years? Why has Iran always been the one to shoulder the responsibility of keeping the JCPOA afloat?

Rizk:
Well, I think that’s been the issue all along. I have to emphasize here, I must slightly disagree with my colleague. I still think Israel wields enormous influence over the West, and I think this goes a long way in giving an answer to what you just asked.

PressTV:
Absolutely.

Rizk:
Israel is viewed as a natural ally of the West, of Europe and of the United States, and as a result of Israel being viewed as this natural ally, that leads to these double standards which you just referred to. The Europeans weren’t able to live up to their own pledges of the deal simply because Trump introduced this mechanism of secondary sanctions, meaning that if the EU were to continue with business deals with Iran after the US withdrew under Trump, they would be subject to sanctions. And I think the EU economies are just too weak to withstand that.

But again, I think the major, the basic point is that Israel continues to be viewed despite everything which is happening and the horrors of Gaza, it’s still viewed as a natural Western ally, and that’s translated into these policies which appear to be illogical and place all of the onus on Iran without looking at how other parties have not lived up to their commitments or pledges.

PressTV: 15:42
Mr. Doctorow, would you like to respond to that?

Doctorow:
Well, if we look at this old question of the smaller devil and the bigger devil, the smaller devil being Israel and the bigger devil being the United States, I put my money on the bigger devil. This is– what we are now engaged in, my fellow panelists and myself, is a debate over whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog or whether the head is wagging the tail. I opt for the head wagging the tail.

Israel does what the United States wants. And it’s not because Israel dominates the United States, but because the United States dominates, or can dominate Israel, if and when, at any moment, it wants to. Everyone knows full well that the moment the United States pulls the plug on its economic support to Israel, Israel will fold. So the situation is a bit different from my perspective from the presentation that Israel is calling the shots and the United States falls into line.

PressTV:
All right, and staying with you, Mr. Doctorow, Iran has been calling out a serious double standard here, where Tehran has demonstrated its peaceful intentions, pointing to years of cooperation with the IAEA and the transparency it has shown under the NPT. But Israel, which is carrying out a genocide as we speak, it possesses nuclear weapons without scrutiny, and Iran here is being punished for its civilian nuclear technology.

Doctorow: 17:24
Well, unfortunately, the world we’re living in has more than double standards to worry about. It is very sad that the Gulf states have done nothing to save the Palestinians and to put pressure, military pressure, as well as political pressure, on Israel to desist.

That is the world we live in. It’s a much more complicated world than we have been discussing till now. And it is regrettable that none of the great powers can move in. It’s logical they can’t move in if the neighbors of Israel and Palestine are doing nothing other than Iran. Iran is very active. The Houthis are very active. But the rest of the region is quiet.

PressTV:
And same question to you Mr. Rizk about this double standard and hypocrisy that we’re seeing with regards to the Israeli regime.

Rizk: 18:25
If you just give me a minute to respond to that point, I know we’re going off script here, but I have to emphasize that the recent strike on Doha, Qatar, the Israeli attack, I think that proves in my humble opinion beyond any doubt that it’s Israel which directs US policy in the way it wishes more than the other way around. I’m not saying it dominates or it always decides, but it does have significant influence.

Look at the pro-Israeli lobby, look at the evangelicals, and the US, it can, if it pulls the plug on economic aid to Israel, yes, Israel wouldn’t survive. But I don’t think that there’s any US president who has the political will to do so, because of the dangers that would expose. The strike on Qatar, you’re talking about Centcom, the base of Centcom. Now how that strike serves American interests, I fail to see.

19:22
Regarding the double standards, look, again, this is standard Western policy. There are certain players which are signified as national allies. [4 sec. no sound] And that’s the way the policies are pursued, despite the fact that this sometimes is contradictory to Western interests, but they continue to pursue that. And it seems to want to be rather illogical, not based on any strategic or rational calculations.

PressTV: 19:56
Gilbert Doctorow, let’s talk about the credibility of the United Nations Security Council in its entirety as well. Do you think that the Security Council is a body for peace, or is it the exact opposite? Because we have to also allude to the constant resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza that have been vetoed at the Security Council.

Doctorow:
There’s no question that the UN Security Council is not functioning as designed. But it was always from the very beginning intended to be a place of dispute and failure to resolve issues. That was foreseen when the veto was given to the permanent members.

So I don’t see a very great deterioration in the efficacy of UN resolutions or in the actions of the Security Council itself. The Security Council is a talking body. And it is a place where some debates of importance take place, which can be useful for informing the broad public across the world. However, when matters are critical, as they are in the Palestinian issue, on the issue of Iran today, we can expect that the various interests work against any effective resolution. That’s where we are today. And I’ll say the issue is in the region, and the region is doing nothing.

PressTV: 21:45
Okay, final question to Mr. Rizk. Same issue about the United Nations Security Council. Do you think there’s a big question mark over the credibility of the likes of the UNSC? Is it a force for good or is it a force to stifle good?

Rizk:
I’m not sure if we can say it’s a force for good or a force for evil. The UN Security Council, it’s a result of World War Two, basically, whereby you have the most powerful countries that emerge after World War II, which have veto power. Each country, yesterday for example, it turned out to be a force of sheer evil when the US used that veto against the resolution regarding genocide, which is taking place in [Gaza]. So there are certain powers who exercise their own domination if you would like, in order to push through their own policies. And I think that more and more we’re approaching the law of the jungle, if you would like, outside the framework of the UN.

One very good example of that is not only the genocide in Gaza, but also what the guests referred to, the current US campaign against Venezuela, the attack on boats and fishermen, which is happening. Also how the George Bush administration launched the war on terror without going back to the Security Council. So I think that quite some time, the UN Security Council has been only able to do so much.

PressTV: 23:16
All right, thank you, gentlemen. We’re going to leave it there. Security and political analyst Avi Rizk, joining us from Beirut. And independent international affairs analyst Gilbert Doctorow, joining us from Brussels. Than you, gentlemen, and a special thanks to you our viewers for staying with us on tonight’s edition of “Spotlight”. It’s good night for now. We’ll see you next time.