Iran-US peace talks continue into the night

BBC Sounds Music Radio Podcasts Hello and welcome to News Hour from the World Service of the BBC, coming live from London. This is Owen Bennett-Jones. There were some important uncertainties about today's Iran-U.S. talks in Islamabad. Would Iran turn up? It did. Would the two talks talk directly? Again, they did. Would they achieve anything? Well, that's not clear, but there are indications that something may be happening. Lees Dusset is in Islamabad for us, our Chief International Correspondent. We were just speaking a few moments ago, Lees, before we came on air, and it sounds like things may be happening. What have you got? What we're seeing, Owen, is something we've never seen before in the recent years. In fact, any of the years since the 2015 nuclear negotiations, first of all, the high level of the two delegations, the Iranian and the Americans. There was this question, first of all, whether or not the talks would happen at all. Then, at the beginning of the day, there was constant speculation, would the two delegations meet? Would they meet face to face? Would they be in the same room? They have started direct talks, face to face, about seven hours ago, around 5 p.m. It's now just past one o'clock in the morning here in Islamabad, and they are still talking. Not just the high level officials talking, technical teams have also broken up. Experts in maritime, financial assets, legal maritime, they're also having separate meetings, and they're working on specific issues. There had been a suggestion that the talks could go into a second day, and in effect, it is already the second day. It's Sunday now here in Islamabad. This, I have to say, Owen, there are still said to be disagreements, and that's not surprising. But the level of engagement, the level of expertise, how long they've been talking, this is much, much more significant than could have been imagined. Yeah. Now, we've got some truth socials from President Trump. He says, we're now starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz. And I should say that Central Command, the US military Central Command says that two of its warships sailed through the Strait. Now, that seems very significant, because that is at the heart of this. Is it possible that the Iranians would agree to reopen the Strait? There are a number of different stories coming out, and we have to be cautious until we get complete clarity. We have those statements by President Trump. We have the reports that at least two vessels went through today, and the question was whether they were a kind of a test run to see whether they would be stopped by the Iranians, or had been a reporter here today that the Iranians did stop them. And then there's a report only on Al Jazeera so far, the network based in Qatar, and they're quoting the Qatar Transport Authority saying that tomorrow, as of 6 a.m. and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., all maritime traffic will resume through the Strait of Hormuz. So that suddenly has appeared. And then on top of all that, suddenly the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shabas Sharif, who had been playing a role in these talks throughout the day, first of all, meeting individual delegations, and it seems being part of the discussions face to face, has suddenly announced he's going off to Saudi Arabia. And so the speculation is swirling. Is something really important happening here that he has to brief senior Saudi officials about what is going on? Does he not want the Saudis to be surprised? Does he need to get their buy-in if something's going to perhaps affect the Saudis? So again, it just adds to this real sense that the two sides, held by the mediators and perhaps bringing in other players, are really wrestling with some of the main sticking points. It's not possible they'll resolve all of them, but it certainly seems that they're trying to do so. Just quick thought. It's interesting that the Saudis are being consulted, briefed, something. Is Israel involved in this at all? Well, it's possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu is calling up Washington or calling up, I don't think he would be calling up the delegation here. As you know, there's no diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Israel. It's perhaps not a coincidence that Prime Minister Netanyahu has just had quite an angry statement put out. He didn't mention the talks by name, but he made it clear that Israel's battle with Iran isn't over. Now, he exactly said that the battle was not yet over. 13-minute televised address about the war with Iran. And I remember, Owen, in 2015 during the talks there, whenever every round of talks would finish, a senior member of the American delegation would then head straight to Israel to brief them on what has happened. And I doubt it's any different now. Okay. Thanks for that very interesting update. That's a lead to set in Islamabad. We're going to go to Tehran now. And Fareshtey Sadege, who is a freelance journalist based there. Well, what are you making of what you're hearing from Islamabad there? It sounds like there may be maybe signs of movement. Thank you for having me. Actually, what we are hearing from the Iranian delegation and Iranian media groups that they are in Islamabad, they say that for now, there is a sort of deadlock between Iran and the United States over the straight of Hormuz. Actually, according to what we are hearing, the Americans, the Trump administration wants to have joint management of the straight of Hormuz with the Iranians. And obviously, Iranians will not accept it. So they say it has turned into a new roadblock in this process. And for now, this is the only thing that we know. We actually know that some technical talks have been held. Parliament has been the head of the Iranian delegation. But Akali Baaf has met face to face with JD Vance, US Vice President, but that's all, nothing more. That is very interesting what you say about joint management and that not being agreed. What other demands would you say? Because we hear a lot about the Western demands, missiles, nuclear, the straight. What are the top Iranian demands? The top Iranian demands number one is that the United States and Israel, both of them, because they are working hand in hand and they are in cahoots. They should stop attacking Iran every six months. Yeah, but can I just ask you about that? Because that has been the top Iranian demand from the beginning. But it is a guarantee that you'll, how can you get a guarantee like that? Because it can be broken. Actually, you know, that's why many in Iran, I mean, inside Iran, in Tehran, when we talk to people, the majority of the people who are following this news and who have been supporting the Islamic Republic through all these 40 days, I mean, since the beginning of the war, they are all pessimistic about the outcome of these talks. Because we know that the United States, when we had the deal, when there was a 2015 nuclear deal, they united the States, we threw from the deal. And then almost nine months ago, they attacked Iran without any reason. And then even back then, President Trump claimed that he has destroyed all the Iranian nuclear, I mean, facilities and everything that was possible for Iran to go toward weaponization. Okay, if they have, if they have destroyed everything, why did they attack again? Yeah, can I just say there's no guarantee about it. Yeah, exactly. Anyway, it is a demand. So, but can I just ask you this, you're saying people in Tehran are skeptical about this. Do they fear? Is there a sense that the negotiators you've got in Islamabad could give too much? No, no, actually, they support the negotiating table. We really trust them. And we know that that they are working hard to get the best outcome. But, you know, we mistrust the United States, even when they agree with something, they come a day later, they back you in the stab. So they stab you, sorry, they stab you in the back. So nobody can trust what the United States says. And another reason for not trusting them is that the strait of Hormuz is located in Iran's territorial waters. So, so long as it is in Iran's territorial waters, why should Iran share its management with any country, especially the United States, which is our treacherous enemy. Thank you very much. That was a Foresh Day, Sadigay, their freelance journalist based in Tehran. Let's speak now to the BBC Persian Service, Sia Vash Adalan joining me live. Well, you've heard, I don't know if you heard all of this, Lise, and the journalist there in Tehran. What have you got to say? What do you think? Well, the freelance journalist you have from Tehran is very much a pro-establishment journalist. So she would mostly be repeating the official narrative. But that probably belies the fact that there is a lot of differences within Iran itself within the pro-establishment hardline camp over negotiation tactics. The head of this Iranian delegation, Mohammad Bader Khalibov, who is the counterpart of JD Vance, the Deputy U.S. President, he himself has in Iran over some of the statements he's made, there is fear among hardliners that the negotiating team might concede too much. So there is a possibility, looking at the composition of this delegation, you've got some very hardline MPs in that delegation. At the same time, you have some moderate and pro-reform figures as well. So a lot depends on what has already been agreed among Iran's themselves in terms of what their red lines are and what is really still going through the negotiating process as we speak. It's very interesting what you say that the system isn't completely unified in Tehran. There's so little information coming out of that and all the security issues with the leadership there. How deep are those divisions? How do you know about them? Are they on traditional lines? What can you tell us about them? They're not deep to the point that it paralyzes the government's decision-making mechanisms. But for example, one of the main points of contention among Iranian pro-establishment groups, when we monitor their internal conversations, is over the issue of enrichment. They all agree about keeping Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, but how much should they insist on keeping the right to nuclear enrichment? Because Iran's losing its dividends for Iran. The fact that Iran is keeping that much enriched uranium effect no longer. Iran feels that with the Strait of Hormuz, they've already found their treasure box. They might as well give up the nuclear issue and get some major concessions on the Strait of Hormuz fronts. Now, I think that has become really the main focal point. But the difference is over how much they should stick their guns in terms of enrichment rights, which was, if you remember, the main point of contention that made the talks fail in the past. Well, if those arguments are going on behind the scenes, to what extent are the Iranian negotiators authorized to make significant concessions? I think they're very organ. I mean, it's difficult to say because we don't know really who calls a shot. Iran does have a supreme leader who nominally makes the final decision. But I think they're pretty much, as it goes back to what I said, it depends on whether they've already made some of their decisions before going to Islamabad and whether those decisions have been made among themselves and with the Americans as well. In terms of authorization, senior Iranian officials including the Iranian president, Masr al-Pedashkian has said that Mohammad Kobar Ghulibov, the head of Iran's delegation, completely represents the country and represents the establishment. Okay. Thank you very much indeed for your take on what's going on. That was BBC Persians, C.F.A.S.H. Adalan. You're listening to the World Service of the BBC. Right. Let's get a little more on what's happening in Islamabad now. We've got Alan Ayer on the line. He's a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute and was a core member of the U.S. nuclear negotiating team from 2010 to 2015. So that's the joint comprehensive plan of action we just heard referred to from that journalist in Tehran. So thank you for coming through. I don't know how much of what we are coverage you've heard, but the key thing that seems to have happened is that two American warships have gone through the strait and that is probably the most contentious issue. Has that weakened the Iranian negotiating position, do you think? Hi, Owen. Not at the least. I think that's almost insignificant in that it's a given that the maritime traffic through the strait cannot continue or cannot initiate it and continue without Iranian sufferings because all it takes is a couple of people in a fast attack craft with a RPG, fire off some rounds. That spooks the insurance markets and that's what's keeping ships from presuming passage through the strait. So whether the ships pass through the strait or not, it's not significant. Right. So it's an American sort of show of force, but it doesn't mean much because, yeah, as you say, you have to have Iranian buy-in to make it last. That's your point. Exactly right, Owen. Okay. You've negotiated with the Iranians and can you sense a bit about how much expertise they've had? I'm hearing that they've brought a lot of people to Islamabad to discuss things in real detail. Yeah, they not only brought people with expertise, they brought people with the authority to make key decisions. So they brought their A-team. It's obvious they want to do serious negotiations. I could have told you that before negotiations started just by the size of the delegation they brought and the fact that they've been going non-stop since they started is another indication. So the Iranians are looking to negotiate. We'll see to what extent the United States can do the same. I'm cautiously, I'm not cautiously optimistic, but I'm less pessimistic than I was before this started. Why? Because the talks seem to be getting into real stuff. Yeah, because they're getting into real stuff because evidently they've broken out into political, economic and legal committees. So yeah, I'm pleasantly surprised. Right. But there's still a long way to go. Yeah, so when you sort of stand back from it all, what would you think are the most difficult issues? The strait and what else? Straight and nuclear, but to the extent that Iran now has new, as your previous person was saying, the extent that Iran has found a new Uber leverage with the Strait of Hormuz, they might need nuclear a little less. Plus, the US does not look to do a detailed negotiated document. They want a couple of pages of general principles, a document where ambiguity is the feature and not the bug. And so that could be doable. The US won that, but the Iranians won the opposite. They won absolutely hard and fast guarantees, detailed agreements, right? No, not necessarily. They want two things. They want strategic deterrence to ensure this doesn't happen again. And they've already got that because they now know that they can close the Strait of Hormuz anytime they want to. They also want, as importantly, a source of income to help rebuild everything that's been destroyed. That can either be frozen funds, unfrozen. It could be sanctions released or gotten rid of, or it can be a toll on the Strait of Hormuz. So that is the other main goal of Iran, finding some revenue stream. Very interesting analysis. Thank you very much for giving us your take on what might be happening in Islamabad. That was Alan Eyre, who's been there before negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action back in the 2010s. Now you're listening to the World Service of the BBC. Burgess, McLean, Philby, Kerncross, Blunt, well, countless books have been written about the upper class Cambridge students, British intellectuals, who spied for the Soviet Union and largely got away with it, in part because none of their colleagues in the Foreign Office and in British intelligence could believe that those kind of people were capable of such treachery. The case of the Cambridge Five spies was so shocking you might think there was nothing more to say about it. Lots of books have been written, but a new one is just out and it's called Starlin's Apostles, the Cambridge Five and Making of the Soviet Empire, written by Antonia Sr, who joined me earlier. How did the Cambridge Spies help Starlin create his East European Empire? The first was diplomatically by giving him all the gap between the rhetoric, you know, of Churchill and Roosevelt at the end of the war and their real thoughts about everything that was going on. And the other was by betraying all attempts to send men, money and arms to the partisans of Eastern and Central Europe, who were trying to carve some measure of agency at the end of the war. And they were incredibly useful to Starlin in both respects. I mean, a bit of that has been known, hasn't it? In Albania, wasn't there a terrible thing of partisans being killed as soon as they got there? We have known bits and pieces about of this for years. What we haven't had is as much archival material as we now have. So, Philby's taking part in the Albanian operations has been part of the story for a while. But the Albanian secret police archives, the Sigourmy archives, only began to open up in 2016. So, I was incredibly lucky to have a researcher help me wade my way through those and try and look for traces of his betrayals from the other side. And that hasn't been done before. And that was really exciting. The five were quite different characters. And did some show more doubt than others? None of them showed very much doubt at all, to be honest. And that's one of the things that I found really fascinating about them. They basically all were committed communists. And there was a kind of toxic meeting of firm ideology and total narcissism and arrogance, which kind of propelled them forward. And actually, there were moments where other people who had been recruited by the Soviets did pause. So, when the terror was happening and all the illegal agents who'd recruited men like Philby and Burgess and Blunt and the rest, all of those got kind of caught up in the terror and they were purged. And before they were purged and during they were purging, some of them had massive doubts about the project that they'd been embarked upon, not the Cambridge Five. The other moment was when Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi Soviet Pact. And that was later spun by Stalin as a kind of cunning wheeze to sort of buy time before the inevitable showdown with Hitler. But actually, at the time, nobody saw it like that. Loads of Communist Party members all over the world tore up their Communist Party memberships. A number of the men who had been recruited in the 1930s by Soviet intelligence were so disgusted by the Nazi Soviet Pact that they stopped spying for Stalin, not the Cambridge Five. They doubled down. You're trying to expose the wrongdoings of these five men and objecting to the way that they've been perceived in the UK. And yet, one of the reasons they are so fascinating, isn't it, is that they did come from within the heart of the UK establishment and turned on the establishment. And that is interesting and important. I think if you just keep framing it as posh boys betraying other posh boys, being protected by more posh boys, it's not untrue. It's just it's only one facet of the story and it's a very Anglo-centric facet of the story. And these were really kind of Anglo-centric men, right? When Philby is running the Albanian operations, he says in his memoir that him and his American counterparts never forgot that their Albanian agents had just come down from the trees. These were the men that he was betraying. They weren't worth worrying about because they weren't British, because they weren't establishment. Then Donald MacLean, you know, when he was first looking for a way to serve the revolution, his first idea was to learn English because he kind of thought, well, when the world revolution comes properly, it will be an English vanguarded revolution, not a Soviet. I mean, they were even scathing about the Russians. They thought, you know, the Russians were terrible oaks too. So their kind of British exceptionalism is also reflected in how we tell the stories about them. Antonio Sr. there with a new perspective on the Cambridge Five. You're listening to the World Service of the BBC. We are off to Hungary now to take a look ahead to the presidential vote, big vote tomorrow. In Budapest for NewsHour, we have Rajini Vaidya Narthan and I spoke to her earlier today. You join me from the capital Budapest on the eve of one of the most consequential elections in this country and indeed Europe's recent history. We're on the banks of the river Danube on a glorious sunny Saturday looking out across the river at the country's national assembly. It's a stunning white neo-gothic parliament building. Its turrets and spires were partly modelled on the UK's houses of parliament and on Sunday voters will decide which politicians serve here for another term in a Hungarian election like no other. The outcome of this vote being watched closely, not just here, but in Washington, Moscow and Brussels. Can the country's long-serving prime minister, the far-right populist Viktor Orban, hold on to power after 16 years in the job? His Budapest party is facing a serious challenge from the opposition TISA party led by 45-year-old Peter Majar, who's well ahead in the polls. Well, our Central Europe correspondent Nick Thorpe reports on the campaign. A chill April evening in Somboté in the far west of Hungary, right on the border with Austria. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is due at any moment in Safaria Square and a crowd several thousand strong is impatient. Many carry Hungarian red, white and green flags. Betty, a retired teacher, told me she is combining this political rally with a visit to the hairdresser. Viktor Orban is a very strong leader. He's the best person to stand up for this country, against the headwinds coming from EU leaders in Brussels. He's modernized the hospitals, supported the churches and he's done a lot for families and for pensioners like me. Miklos is the mayor of a nearby village. I support him because he helps families and especially because of the cap he has imposed on utility bills and the cap on fuel prices now. Standing nearby in the crowd, Christina highlighted a theme which has been central to the Orban campaign, keeping Hungary out of the war in neighboring Ukraine. I love his personality, how he stands by people. That's why I'm here for the future of Hungary. Everybody wants peace, not war. In the election campaign Viktor Orban stresses one theme above all. He stands for peace in neighboring Ukraine, he says, while his rival Peter Magyar of the Tysa party would drag Hungary into the war against Russia, with those he calls the war mongers in Brussels. In such a situation we cannot allow a pro-Ukrainian government to replace a national government and send your money to support the war in Ukraine. But in the crowd mixed with the chance of his own supporters with the chance of the opposition. Filthy Fidesz they shouted, a common refrain from those who accuse this government of feathering its own nest. Viktor Orban is fighting for his political life. I've come here to Kishkunlotzhaza just south of Budapest to see Peter Magyar address a Tysa party rally. The crowd is younger, the candidate is 17 years younger than Orban. He speaks calmly to them while Orban bellows into the microphone. And he preaches a message of unity, of an end to the division, the constant search for external and internal enemies of the Orban years. In the crowd I spoke to some of those who'd gathered to hear him at nine o'clock on a spring morning. I really want a big change. Why do you like the Tysa party? Why do you like Peter Magyar? I believe he is a very honest person. He always says the truth. He discovered many bad things that Orban did. There's a big new solidarity among the Hungarians. The people believe in themselves again and we can hardly wait for the election because of the huge corruption of the politicians. They've taken the country in a bad direction. Whatever happens, this government will be out. This nation cannot tolerate them any longer. Driving back to Budapest, I listen to the news on the state radio. It begins with 10 minutes devoted to the Fidesz message with just one minute for the Tysa party. The last weeks have been marked by many scandals. Viktor Orban has long been described as the most pro-Russian leader in the EU. Now a series of taped audio recordings of a phone call between Orban and Vladimir Putin and between the Hungarian and Russian foreign ministers make clear that Budapest does Moscow's bidding. András Tálkeš is former deputy director of Hungarian counterintelligence. Hungary is a key asset for Russia. Hungary is functioning as a Russian agent of influence. And that's the worst point. It is the most efficient way for the Russians to divide the EU, to weaken the EU and to push through the Russian interests. And therefore the Russians do everything to keep Orban in power. And it's not just the Russians. The U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was in Budapest this week to lend Mr. Orban his support. You have stood up to the bureaucrats, you have stood up to the nihilists. And now I wonder, will you do it again? It's strange to see an election splitting NATO, the U.S. with Orban, most other members rooting for the other side. But time is running out for anyone hoping to influence this election. A record turnout is expected on Sunday. Rarely has so much attention from around the world been focused on this small central European country. Nick Thorpe reporting there. Well, as campaigning enters its final hours, there are posters of the two main party leaders everywhere you turn on lamp posts, on bus stops, billboards, and stuck to walls. The energy really does feel like it's building. As we've been saying, this is a vote being watched closely by other countries, not least the United States. President Trump sees Viktor Orban as a political kindred spirit and one of his closest, if not his closest, ally in Europe. And so while the President is trying to secure peace in the Middle East, he's still able to find time on Friday evening to post support for Orban on his Truth Social platform. President Trump offered to use America's full economic might to strengthen Hungary's economy. And as we heard in Nick's report just then, his Vice President, J.D. Vance, was here earlier in the week claiming that Brussels is interfering in this campaign. While the European Union is watching closely too, Viktor Orban's been a thorn in the block side, often disagreeing with European positions, including when it comes to support for Ukraine. And as we heard just then, in recent weeks, there have been reports that his government's been leaking EU information to Russia. Well, I'm joined now by Zhuzhane Veg, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund, who focuses on Central Europe and Hungary. Great to have you on news hours, Zhuzhane. First of all, let's talk about the rise of Peter Magyar, because it's incredible to think that just two years ago, he wasn't even leading his party. Yes, indeed, he is actually an insider, turned outsider, critic of Viktor Orban. He was a member of Fidesz. He is a conservative person. But two years ago, he defected and started to challenge the governing party, mostly on anti-corruption grounds. And he managed to capitalize on a very widely spread frustration in the society and using the momentum in two years. He put in tremendous work to organize his movement all across the country. It's interesting. We were both at an event last night in support of Magyar and there were thousands of people in Budapest and the theme of getting rid of what they say is Orban's corruption seems to resonate. People of all ages, but what struck me was just how many young people were there. What sort of demographic that's supporting Magyar? Yes, that's very interesting actually, because we see that the youngest generation of voters, people in their 20s, are supporting Magyar in very high numbers. Only about one in 10 person supports Fidesz. So it does suggest that the governing party has completely lost the youngest electorate and also touch with them. And of course, Viktor Orban's been in power for some 16 years. He's got the backing of the US and Russia. Do you think those endorsements will make a difference to some voters? Perhaps not those in the metropolitan areas like here in Budapest, but beyond. I don't think that it really would sway voters and definitely not at this point. This is factored in. It's very widely known that Orban enjoys the support of Trump and also Putin. Why it still matters is because it underlines the importance of the election and it may help with mobilization, but not with broadening the camp. I'm talking about the allegations from both sides of foreign interference in this election. In your view, how consequential is this for Hungary's relationship with the European Union? Because as we said just then, it's not been an easy relationship between Viktor Orban and other European leaders, has it? Yes, this is a very complicated relationship, but these allegations regarding the European Union, we also need to know that are unfounded. The frequent claim that the EU is withholding funds because it hates Orban is not true. The funds are suspended because of the governmental corruption and the interference with the judiciary. I do think that this is also an election which is make or break for the relationship with the European Union. If Orban stays in power, this relationship will further deteriorate, but if Peter Magyar gets the chance to form government, then he may be able to revert to a more pro-European course. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, Susanna, as we of course continue to look out across the Danube and the parliament. And of course, it won't be long until we find out who ends up sitting in that parliament and becoming the prime minister. Both leaders are holding their final rallies as campaigning is in its final sprint. Well, the latest independent polls do suggest a big win for Peter Magyar and his TESA party, but the only poll, of course, that counts is Sundays and we are expecting to get first results on Sunday evening here in Hungary. The foreign minister of Mauritius has vowed to spare no effort to gain sovereignty over the Tegos Islands after Britain shelved plans to hand them over. As far as Mauritius is concerned, this is all about decolonisation. The Tegos Islands were an imperial possession and says Mauritius, it's well past time they were handed back. For the Americans, it's a different issue. For them, it's all about a military base and they want to hang on to it. For the British, it's become a political liability. The government has tried to hand the Tegos Islands to Mauritius and then lease them back. The opposition parties in the UK say that's wrong, why pay for something when you already have it. And now the Americans say they won't allow it and a treaty going back to the 1960s does give them a veto. Well, Stephen Castle is the New York Times London correspondent. Why are the Americans opposing a deal? This deal has been in trouble as you as you suggest since January when President Trump described it as an act of great stupidity. Quite what's going on here is more complicated because last year President Trump appeared to sign off on the agreement when he met Prime Minister Kirsten Stalmer of Britain in Washington DC. Now he appears to have changed his mind and gone very public in January and that was at a time when tensions were extremely high with other NATO allies, including Britain, over American ambitions to take over Greenland. And those tensions have not subsided. In fact, those tensions have probably increased during the conflict in Iran, particularly because the British government has insisted that the US cannot use British bases for offensive strikes against Iran. They've been able to use them for defensive ones, but not for offensive ones. And that I think is another issue why President Trump is unhappy. Presumably any limits the British could put on American use of the Diego Garcia base would apply whether it's under this lease arrangement with Mauritius or whether the Brits are still in complete control? I mean, yes, I don't think really that that is the central issue because the British approach here was that they wanted to provide legal certainty over the future of Diego Garcia under international law. And the reason for that is that Britain lost a case in the International Court of Justice in 2019. And while that was really only advisory, it's increased diplomatic pressure on Britain to resolve the sovereignty issue of the Chey Goss. Now, the concept of international law is extremely important, obviously to Kirstammer, he's a former human rights lawyer, but it appears to at the moment weigh less heavily in Washington, particularly in this case. And is China a factor in this? Do you know any Chinese relationship with Mauritius that would be worrying the Americans? Well, I think it is noticeable that the tensions have ratcheted up at a time of great power rivalry. And there is a fear that China has ambitions over Diego Garcia in this particular part of the world, but India, of course, is another rising power. And I think from the perspective of the United States, probably there is no real advantage in having a lease deal, which at least opens up the possibility that at some point in the future, this is going to be open to negotiation. And that was Stephen Castle, the New York Times London correspondent. Now, going to get a bit more on the US Iran talks just before we go. The US military has said it has started setting conditions for clearing mines in the strait of Hummers, that is, with the two US warships passing through the waterway as part of a broader mission to ensure the strait is fully clear of sea mines previously led by, laid by Iran. Now then, before that, Donald Trump posted on social media, we're starting the process of clearing out the strait and all 28 of Iran's mine dropper boats are lying at the bottom of the sea. He's just been talking live on TV saying, I think, much the same, repeating those talking points. Well, Dr. Emma Salisbury is a maritime war for expert in the national security program at the US think tank, the foreign policy research institute in Philadelphia. She was on news hour a couple of weeks ago and there's nothing she doesn't know about minesweeping. So Dr. Salisbury, with your knowledge, are these American claims that they're beginning to clear the strait serious? Well, I think what we've seen with those two destroyers passing through the strait was them following the shipping channel that has been used by the few commercial ships that have been allowed through. So that's a route that doesn't have any mines in it. I assume that this was done to kind of gauge what the Iranian response would be, but neither of those ships have minesweeping capabilities. So if there were to be any future minesweeping operations, there would have to be different ships than the two we saw. Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons we've asked you back on is because last time I remember you very clearly you said, it's going to be very difficult. I think you said, yeah, it's not possible for the Americans to clear the mines. And is that still your view? Absolutely. So the ships that the US has available to do this are very, very few in number. I believe there is one currently in Bahrain and another returning from maintenance in Malaysia. But I don't know how far back to the goal that ship has got. But those are really the only two ships that would be available to do that mission. And clearing a strait of water as big as the strait of Hornbees will take a very, very long time with only two ships. Now then Iran, apparently, I don't know what you think of these reports, is not entirely sure where all the mines are? No, I am not sure what exactly they mean by that. So under international convention, if you lay a minefield, you are supposed to keep a record of where all those mines are. If Iran is saying it doesn't know where they are, that either means that they are lying and they do know where they are, that those mines have drifted, or that the mines were laid by elements of the IRGC who either were not very careful or have not told where they are. So if you don't know where mines are in a particular strait of water, that obviously makes the job of finding them much more difficult. So to summarise all this, you are basically saying that despite the sort of positive noises coming out of Islamabad, and I don't know if I would ever do that, it is obviously something happening in Islamabad. But at the end of it, the strait remains closed. Absolutely. And the other factor we have to remember is that Iran has thousands of mines in storage. So even if the US were to start clearing mines, the Iranians could very easily lay more. I know that Trump said in his post that the mine laying ships are currently at the bottom of the sea, but that is also not true, because those mines can be laid off the back of a speedboat. So the IRGC or the Iranian military could very easily lay more. Okay, well thank you very much for clearing all that up for us and helping us understand what's going on. That was Emma Salisbury and she brings us to an end of this edition of NewsR. So thanks very much for listening and from Owen Bennett Jones here in London. Goodbye.