UK reaffirms commitment to Iran nuclear deal in call with Trump - May's office

[webfact]

UK reaffirms commitment to Iran nuclear deal in call with Trump - May's office

By William James

 

Britain's Prime Minister, Theresa May, arrives at 10 Downing Street in central London, Britain October 9, 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May has reaffirmed Britain's commitment to a 2015 Iran nuclear deal in a telephone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of a key U.S. decision on whether Tehran has stuck to the terms of the pact.

 

Trump has cast doubt on the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which sought to curb Iran's nuclear programme in return for lifting most Western economic sanctions.

 

A senior U.S. administration official said last week that Trump - who has criticised the pact as an "embarrassment" and "the worst deal ever negotiated," - was expected to decertify Iran's compliance ahead of an Oct. 15 deadline.

 

"The (prime minister) reaffirmed the UK's strong commitment to the deal alongside our European partners, saying it was vitally important for regional security," said a statement from May's office following the call on Tuesday evening.

 

"(The prime minister) stressed that it was important that the deal was carefully monitored and properly enforced."

 

In contrast, a White House statement on the phone call said Trump "underscored the need to work together to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its malign and destabilising activities, especially its sponsorship of terrorism and its development of threatening missiles."

 

In a separate statement, Britain's Foreign Office said Iran had upheld its nuclear commitments, adding to international pressure on Trump not to jeopardise security in the region.

 

"The nuclear deal was a crucial agreement that neutralised Iran’s nuclear threat," foreign minister Boris Johnson said.

 

"It was the culmination of 13 years of painstaking diplomacy and has increased security, both in the region and in the UK. It is these security implications that we continue to encourage the US to consider."

 

Johnson spoke by telephone with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Tuesday and will on Wednesday meet the head of Iran's nuclear agency in London to press for continued compliance with the deal.

 

May and Trump also discussed the need for Britain, the United States and others to work together to counter destabilising Iranian activity in the region, May's office said.

 

Britain and the United States are two of eight signatories to the deal, along with Iran, China, France, Russia, Germany and the European Union.

 

China, Russia and the European states have already expressed their continued support for the deal, while Iran has said Trump would not be able to undermine the pact.

 

If Trump declines to certify Iran's compliance, U.S. congressional leaders would have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran suspended under the agreement.

 

Earlier, the White House said Trump would make an announcement later this week on an "overall Iran strategy", including whether to decertify the nuclear deal.

 

May's office said she agreed with Trump that their teams should remain in contact ahead of the decision on recertification.

 

(Reporting by William James; Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-11

[retarius]

This is a lost cause the US is going to attack Iran. The provocation is merely a prelude to the action....the calm before the storm. I think this will cost the US dear.....not in terms of military defeat, but in terms of prestige. The naked aggression of the US comes across loud and clear as does the bad faith negotiating and failure to live up to the treaties they sign. The moral authority of the US is in the dustbin as it is, this will bury its reputation deep in the dustbin.

[Kiwiken]

America will be alone in its rejection of the Iran Deal. The other Parties are satisfied.

[OMGImInPattaya]

45 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

America will be alone in its rejection of the Iran Deal. The other Parties are satisfied.

There're satisfied in that Chamberlain sort of way...we have an agreement so lets bury our heads in the sand to Tehran's violations.

Edited October 11, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 hours ago, retarius said:

This is a lost cause the US is going to attack Iran. The provocation is merely a prelude to the action....the calm before the storm. I think this will cost the US dear.....not in terms of military defeat, but in terms of prestige. The naked aggression of the US comes across loud and clear as does the bad faith negotiating and failure to live up to the treaties they sign. The moral authority of the US is in the dustbin as it is, this will bury its reputation deep in the dustbin.

The United States has lived up to the treaty, which has provisions for withdrawl like all treaties. And just because a treaty exists doesn't mean ipso facto that it's a good one.

[Grouse]

13 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

There're satisfied in that Chamberlain sort of way...we have an agreement so lets bury our heads in the sand to Tehran's violations.

You've still not read the Munich book I recommended. A précis please on my desk at 9 O'Clock tomorrow! ?

[Grouse]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-state-visit-uk-no-queen-visit-working-downgrade-tour-us-president-latest-a7994356.html

 

Trump is too scared to have afternoon tea with Brenda! The ayatollahs are far less scary ?

[ilostmypassword]

 

 

9 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States has lived up to the treaty, which has provisions for withdrawl like all treaties. And just because a treaty exists doesn't mean ipso facto that it's a good one.

First off it's not a treaty.  And secondly, if the US backs out, it's going to be alone. What people like you don't realize is the amazing achievement it was for the Obama administration to get players like China and Russia to agree to the sanctions regime. Not going to happen again. And the EU is not going to put up with it either.  Nor will the UK, in or out of the EU. In fact, pretty much the entire world, with the exception of a few peace promoting Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will not be enforcing sanctions.

[OMGImInPattaya]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 

First off it's not a treaty.  And secondly, if the US backs out, it's going to be alone. What people like you don't realize is the amazing achievement it was for the Obama administration to get players like China and Russia to agree to the sanctions regime. Not going to happen again. And the EU is not going to put up with it either.  Nor will the UK, in or out of the EU. In fact, pretty much the entire world, with the exception of a few peace promoting Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will not be enforcing sanctions.

Yes, you are correct it's not a treaty, because the slippery Obama knew he could never get it past the Senate, so it's an "Agreement" or whatever. The point I made is still correct...namely that it has provisions for parties to withdraw to which the United States is complying with. So the statement that the U.S. is not living up to the agreement is false.

 

One word from the US Treasury that companies or banks doing business with Iran will be subject to American sanctions will stop any business dealings in their tracks. Yep...that's what it means to be a hyperpower.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Yes, you are correct it's not a treaty, because the slippery Obama knew he could never get it past the Senate, so it's an "Agreement" or whatever. The point I made is still correct...namely that it has provisions for parties to withdraw to which the United States is complying with. So the statement that the U.S. is not living up to the agreement is false.

 

One word from the US Treasury that companies or banks doing business with Iran will be subject to American sanctions will stop any business dealings in their tracks. Yep...that's what it means to be a hyperpower...sorry if that really burns you.

 

 

Well, we'll see if your prediction pans out.  Somehow, I think that with virtually every major economic power in the world ranged against it, the USA is not in so much of a position to threaten others. China alone, by some measures already is a greater economic power than the USA. Throw in the EU, Russia, and India, and the USA starts to look positively feeble by comparison. The USA may be a military hyperpower, but economically not so much. Sorry if that burns you.

On the other hand, perhaps the widespread admiration and respect that Donald Trump commands among the nations of the world will sway them his way.

[OMGImInPattaya]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, we'll see if your prediction pans out.  Somehow, I think that with virtually every major economic power in the world ranged against it, the USA is not in so much of a position to threaten others. China alone, by some measures already is a greater economic power than the USA. Throw in the EU, Russia, and India, and the USA starts to look positively feeble by comparison. The USA may be a military hyperpower, but economically not so much. Sorry if that burns you.

On the other hand, perhaps the widespread admiration and respect that Donald Trump commands among the nations of the world will sway them his way.

It doesn't burn me at all. The USA has a 19 TRILLION dollar economy...what are the corresponding figures for Russia, China, India, the EU, and the soon to be liberated UK?

 

If you were a bank or company, for they are the ones who actually conduct business and trade, do you think you would rather have access to a 19T dollar economy or one the size of the tiny state of Maryland (Iranian GDP about 400 billion dollars...Maryland state GSP about 380 billion)?

Edited October 11, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

It doesn't burn me at all. The USA has a 19 TRILLION dollar economy...what are the corresponding figures for Russia, China, India, the EU, and the soon to be liberated UK?

 

If you were a bank or company, do you think you would rather have access to a 19T dollar economy or one the size of the state of Maryland (Iranian GDP about 400 billion dollars...Maryland state GSP about 380 billion)?

Do you understand that this cuts both ways?

And Wow! That 19 trillion is certainly a real big number! But it's also only about 17 percent of gross world product. As measured by PPP China's economy is already by itself bigger than the USA's. And so is the EU's.

You seem to be living in the 1960's.

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-role-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/#6e9af6f85e9e

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Do you understand that this cuts both ways?

And Wow! That 19 trillion is certainly a real big number! But it's also only about 17 percent of gross world product. As measured by PPP China's economy is already by itself bigger than the USA's. And so is the EU's.

You seem to be living in the 1960's.

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

With the exception of a few brief periods, America’s contribution to the global economy has been falling. In 1960, U.S. GDP represented 40% of global GDP. By 2014, America’s economic contribution had been cut in half. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-role-in-global-economy-declines-nearly-50/#6e9af6f85e9e

 

I know you suffer from an accute case of America Derangement Syndrome but try not to make you look so stupid. Yes, America's share of the global economy has gone down over time, but it's not that America has become poorer or economically enfeabled as you would like, but because the world economy has grown and other countries have become richer (mostly through trade with America by the way). The American economy has grown as well and it's a win-win for all sides.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

I know you suffer from an accute case of America Derangement Syndrome but try not to make you look so stupid. Yes, America's share of the global economy has gone down over time, but it's not that America has become poorer or economically enfeabled as you would like, but because the world economy has grown and other countries have become richer (mostly through trade with America by the way). The American economy has grown as well and it's a win-win for all sides.

But you called the USA the hyperpower. Economically speaking, it's not anymore. And using a big number! like 19 trillion without placing it in context, doesn't qualify as an act of intellectual adequacy.

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I know you suffer from an accute case of America Derangement Syndrome but try not to make you look so stupid. Yes, America's share of the global economy has gone down over time, but it's not that America has become poorer or economically enfeabled as you would like, but because the world economy has grown and other countries have become richer (mostly through trade with America by the way). The American economy has grown as well and it's a win-win for all sides.

EU economy exceeds 20 Trillion USD on PPP basis.

 

So what?

 

Can't we all just play nicely?

Edited October 11, 2017 by Grouse

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

EU economy exceeds 20 Trillion USD on PPP basis. So what?

But 19 trillion is a really really big number! Whereas China's 21.4 trillion GDP for 2016 is quite puny by comparison.

Edited October 11, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[OMGImInPattaya]

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

EU economy exceeds 20 Trillion USD on PPP basis.

 

So what?

 

Can't we all just play nicely?

Isn't that what I said...other countries getter richer is a win-win. It's that other poster who keeps falling flat on his face rooting for the fall of America.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

There're satisfied in that Chamberlain sort of way...we have an agreement so lets bury our heads in the sand to Tehran's violations.

What violations would these be? The things Trump goes on about do not fall under the agreement, and there are already USA sanctions targeting them. The "spirit of the agreement"? The "spirit of the agreement" is that of distrust and arm bending, not kumbaya.

 

Now, it's not that Iran complies 100% with the terms specified. Doubt anyone expected otherwise, even if the Iranian were inclined to. The point is that the accumulated scope of infringement does not seem to merit drastic moves. If Iran's level of compliance was poor, other parties would not by uniform in their rejection of Trump's view. Not the UK and the EU, anyway.

 

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States has lived up to the treaty, which has provisions for withdrawl like all treaties. And just because a treaty exists doesn't mean ipso facto that it's a good one.

 

The USA can withdraw, of course. Just that doing so without solid reasoning and cause reflects badly on the USA, and may effect future deal making with other countries. It also leaves a question mark as to Iran's future obligations.

 

The agreement is not perfect, and it can be even argued that a better result could have been achieved. It is less clear how a new, better agreement can be negotiated if the USA withdraws  - there will be no international cooperation and support, Iran will be less forthcoming, and to top that - there isn't much clarity as to what, precisely,  will be improved or how.

 

The current situation is that there is an agreement, which even if imperfect, gives a framework of control (and worth mentioning, an unprecedented  one) and monitoring. Without a clear alternative, what would be the point of scraping this inspection regime? Pretty much the same scenario that unfolded with the failed scrapping of Obamacare. There are no signs of an interim plan, and no clear realistic goal.

 

You are correct with regard to the USA's economic clout. Even under current conditions, countries and companies are weary of committing themselves. Sure there are deals, there are investments, there's a lot of talk. But overall, the rate at which things are changing for Iran is slower than expected. If the USA was to withdraw from the agreement (while  reapplying previous sanctions) or stay the course (while introducing further sanctions and economic measures directed at other Iranian activities) it would not be shrugged off, or ignored.

 

Pushing Iran this way is not necessarily a good idea, and the same goes for straining the already strained USA's relations with its allies.

[OMGImInPattaya]

44 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But you called the USA the hyperpower. Economically speaking, it's not anymore. And using a big number! like 19 trillion without placing it in context, doesn't qualify as an act of intellectual adequacy.

In what context isn't it a big number? What other country even comes close?

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

But 19 trillion is a really really big number! Whereas China's 21.4 trillion GDP for 2016 is quite puny by comparison.

Google much ??????

 

 

Oh...there's America way down there at a puny 18.6 trillion ???

Edited October 11, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

In what context isn't it a big number? What other country even comes close?

China at 21.4 trillion isn't close enough for you?

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

China at 21.4 trillion isn't close enough for you?

There's this search engine called Google...you should check it out.

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

There's this search engine called Google...you should check it out.

Why should I bother to check it out? Are you saying I should doubt the results that I got from Google? Do you recommend the Breitbart search engine?

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Why should I bother to check it out? Are you saying I should doubt the results that I got from Google? Do you recommend the Breitbart search engine?

No...just keep using the sites that gave you all those good election predictions.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

No...just keep using the sites that gave you all those good election predictions.

However, we are not talking predictions here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

[Morch]

 

Regardless of the above mine-is-bigger exchange - it doesn't really matter if the USA is first, second or third. Even the existing sanctions and the uncertainty over USA sticking with the deal are enough to effect economic considerations regarding doing business with Iran. If the USA was to impose further sanctions unrelated to the nuclear agreement, and/or withdraw from the agreement and reapply former sanctions - it will certainly won't be ignored. Not by the World and not by Iran. That these may not have the same effect as the former sanction regime is a given, but discounting such sanctions as ineffectual is a mistake, IMO.

[Slip]

Trump is just trying to do to the world what he is trying to do with everything in the US.  Time for him to go to international court soon if he want's to keep it up.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Regardless of the above mine-is-bigger exchange - it doesn't really matter if the USA is first, second or third. Even the existing sanctions and the uncertainty over USA sticking with the deal are enough to effect economic considerations regarding doing business with Iran. If the USA was to impose further sanctions unrelated to the nuclear agreement, and/or withdraw from the agreement and reapply former sanctions - it will certainly won't be ignored. Not by the World and not by Iran. That these may not have the same effect as the former sanction regime is a given, but discounting such sanctions as ineffectual is a mistake, IMO.

Its effect actually depends on how many nations respect the sanctions or allow their companies to respect the sanctions. If enough nations actively disregard sanctions, the effects would be worse for the USA than for its intended target.

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Regardless of the above mine-is-bigger exchange - it doesn't really matter if the USA is first, second or third. Even the existing sanctions and the uncertainty over USA sticking with the deal are enough to effect economic considerations regarding doing business with Iran. If the USA was to impose further sanctions unrelated to the nuclear agreement, and/or withdraw from the agreement and reapply former sanctions - it will certainly won't be ignored. Not by the World and not by Iran. That these may not have the same effect as the former sanction regime is a given, but discounting such sanctions as ineffectual is a mistake, IMO.

And perhaps to the economically illiterate, the relative decline of the US economy is not germane to this issue at hand. Others might consider it extremely pertinent.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

In what context isn't it a big number? What other country even comes close?

China