Fearing Trump torpedo, Europe scrambles to save Iran deal

[webfact]

Fearing Trump torpedo, Europe scrambles to save Iran deal

By Noah Barkin and John Irish

 

FILE PHOTO: British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond (2nd R), U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini (L) talk to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as the wait for Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (not pictured) for a group picture at the Vienna International Center in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

 

BERLIN/PARIS (Reuters) - European countries are scrambling to cobble together a package of measures they hope will keep the Iran nuclear deal on track if U.S. President Donald Trump ignores their pleas and decertifies the landmark 2015 agreement this week.

 

The package would include a strong statement backing the deal by European powers, together with efforts to lobby the U.S. Congress and put wider pressure on Iran, officials said.

 

But without strong U.S. support for the deal, senior officials in Berlin, Paris and London say it may be only a matter of time before the pact between Tehran and six world powers unravels, with grave consequences for Middle East security, nonproliferation efforts and transatlantic ties.

 

The two-year-old agreement, under which Iran agreed to freeze its nuclear programme for 15 years in exchange for sanctions relief, is viewed in Europe as a rare triumph of international diplomacy in the Middle East.

 

As tensions over North Korea's nuclear activities risk boiling over into all-out war, any move by the United States to undermine the Iran deal is seen in Europe as utter folly.

 

European capitals have been delivering this message to the White House and Congress in one of the most intense lobbying campaigns in recent memory. In the past weeks, European ambassadors have met dozens of U.S. lawmakers. And on Tuesday, British Prime Minister Theresa May lobbied Trump by phone.

 

Despite this, Trump is expected declare this week that Iran is not complying with the pact. He is also due to unveil a tough new strategy towards Iran - including designating its Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation - that could sink the deal.

 

"If the feeling is the United States no longer supports the agreement then the political reality is that the deal will be in serious jeopardy and its implementation will be very difficult," a senior French diplomat told Reuters.

 

A decision by Trump to decertify would not automatically kill the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The expectation is that Trump would kick the ball to Congress, which would then have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions lifted as part of the JCPOA.

 

THREE-PRONGED RESPONSE

 

European officials said they were preparing a three-pronged strategy if this does occur.

 

First, Berlin, London and Paris would issue statements reaffirming their commitment to the deal.

 

Second, they would redouble efforts to lobby Congress, which appears keen to keep the deal, against any rash moves.

 

And third, they would present measures to pressure Iran over its ballistic missile programme and destabilising policies in the Middle East -- areas that fall outside the narrowly-focused nuclear deal.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron alluded to this at the United Nations last month. Diplomats said the package was still in the works and they had not yet briefed Brussels on it.

 

With the third step, the Europeans hope to build a bridge to Washington while keeping the JCPOA intact. But a German diplomat said ratcheting up pressure on Tehran was like walking a tightrope: push too hard and the whole deal could fall apart.

 

"We all knew the JCPOA wasn't perfect, but by calling its benefits into question I see us only losing," said a senior European diplomat who has been involved in negotiations with Iran since 2003, well before Washington joined the talks under President Barack Obama.

 

If Trump follows through on his threats it will be the second time in four months that he has distanced the United States from a major multilateral agreement despite intense lobbying by partners and members of his own cabinet.

 

But in Europe, the Iran move would be seen as far more damaging than Trump's decision in June to pull out of the Paris climate accord.

 

"The threat from Iran in terms of nuclear proliferation is more immediate. This is far more dangerous," said Elmar Brok, a veteran foreign policy expert in the European Parliament and party ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

 

European officials and analysts fear a breakdown of the JCPOA could lead to an arms race in the Middle East, a military conflict between Iran and Israel and an escalation of regional proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

They fear it would also doom any chances, no matter how slim, for a negotiated deal with North Korea.

 

ALL ABOUT WAR

 

"At the end of the day it's all about the risk of war," said Francois Heisbourg, chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

 

There is also the danger of a further deterioration in transatlantic ties, especially if Washington targets European firms that do business in Iran.

 

Were that to happen, the EU ambassador to Washington, David O'Sullivan, has said Brussels would revert to a 1990s-era law that shields European companies from extraterritorial sanctions.

 

Even if the EU were to take such a step, the senior French diplomat said European companies could think twice about their Iran commitments.

 

Among firms that have announced big deals in Iran since the JCPOA went into force are planemaker Airbus <AIR.PA>, French energy group Total <TOTF.PA> and Germany's Siemens <SIEGn.DE>.

 

"One of the big difficulties of the agreement is ensuring the economic operators have confidence in the system and key to that is confidence in the United States," the diplomat said.

 

Any signs that European companies are pulling back could prompt the Iranians to reassess the merits of the nuclear deal.

 

"The agreement with Iran is like a delicate plant," said Omid Nouripour, an Iranian-born lawmaker with the German Greens party, which is expected to be part of Merkel's next coalition government.

 

"It is a sign of what diplomacy can achieve but it is fragile. The American president doesn't appear to believe in diplomacy. He seems intent on crushing this plant."

 

(Writing by Noah Barkin; Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal in Berlin and Robin Emmott in Brussels; Editing by Giles Elgood)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters Full story:

[boomerangutang]

Europe is being compelled to 'go it alone' on maintaining whatever remnants it can of the 'Iran-deal.'   European leaders can no longer reply on any wise decisions from Wash. DC.   Similarly, Europe and the rest of the world are trying to maintain their commitments to the Paris Climate Change accords, despite abandonment by Uncle Sam in the form of anti-science, anti-common-sense, anti-working-with-neighbors Trump.   

 

Thanks Trump voters, for saddling the US and the world with a dangerous dufus. Putin and his hackers really did a number on you.   You were easier to influence than neighborhood barking dogs given a sack of fish heads to shut up.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The feckless Europeans are at it again...reminds me of Chamberlain trying desperately to appease Hitler with his "peace in our time" agreement.

[Caps]

25 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The feckless Europeans are at it again...reminds me of Chamberlain trying desperately to appease Hitler with his "peace in our time" agreement.

I would say there is nothing wrong with a bit off appeasement if it will help stop a nuclear disaster.  It also might be a bit better than the Yank "lets go to war with every f***er on the planet syndrome

Edited October 12, 2017 by Caps

[Grouse]

This is so very serious on so many levels.

 

The Russians and Chinese signed up to this in addition to Europe.

 

We need joint action on NK.

 

I suggest sanctions on the USA or regime change. How long will this F****** M**** stay?

[OMGImInPattaya]

33 minutes ago, Caps said:

I would say there is nothing wrong with a bit off appeasement if it will help stop a nuclear disaster.  It also might be a bit better than the Yank "lets go to war with every f***er on the planet syndrome

Unfortunately history show the falacy of this kind of thinking; and the war that Britain ultimately had to fight was much more devastating than what it would have been if they had intervened earlier. It is the same case with this Korean situation...action should have really been taken years ago.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Unfortunately history show the falacy of this kind of thinking; and the war that Britain ultimately had to fight was much more devastating than what it would have been if they had intervened earlier. It is the same case with this Korean situation...action should have really been taken years ago.

Undoubtedly a war would lead to even greater success than America enjoyed in Iraq.

[Grouse]

15 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Unfortunately history show the falacy of this kind of thinking; and the war that Britain ultimately had to fight was much more devastating than what it would have been if they had intervened earlier. It is the same case with this Korean situation...action should have really been taken years ago.

Are you still banging on about WW2? If so, you are wildly off the mark. May I suggest AJP Taylor?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The feckless Europeans are at it again...reminds me of Chamberlain trying desperately to appease Hitler with his "peace in our time" agreement.

Well, if your comparison to Chamberlain is apt, then it could be Munich redux. Trump could have outright reimposed sanctions himself. Instead he's leaving it to Congress to do that where the prospects are uncertain. And if Congress doesn't act, I'm guessing you'll be blaming Congress and not Trump.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The feckless Europeans are at it again...reminds me of Chamberlain trying desperately to appease Hitler with his "peace in our time" agreement.

Feckless? That's nothing compared to the adjectives it's appropriate to use to describe the abomination of a man-child currently desecrating the WH.

Someone should lead him out behind the WH and end his and our misery but I guess I'll have to wait for the impeachment or a much welcome heart attack.

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Are you still banging on about WW2? If so, you are wildly off the mark. May I suggest AJP Taylor?

My Communist Party membership card has expired so I can't check out any of his books from the library.

Edited October 12, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[wombat]

'If the feeling is the United States no longer supports the agreement'

 

golly gosh, gee wiz, how could they ever get that idea....pmsl

[IAMHERE]

Sounds like the 'Deal' is good for every country except the USA. 

[dunroaming]

4 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Unfortunately history show the falacy of this kind of thinking; and the war that Britain ultimately had to fight was much more devastating than what it would have been if they had intervened earlier. It is the same case with this Korean situation...action should have really been taken years ago.

Unfortunately history shows that the USA are not very good when it comes to wars. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. were all a disaster with thousands of body bags to prove it.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Unfortunately history shows that the USA are not very good when it comes to wars. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. were all a disaster with thousands of body bags to prove it.

The US military can pretty much successfully attack anyone wherever it wants to thanks to its shiny weapons system. What it can't do so well is occupy territory. That takes boots on the ground as Iraq and Afghanistan have once again demonstrated.  But flesh and blood soldiers aren't nearly so much fun to play with as stealth whatevers.

[OMGImInPattaya]

47 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Unfortunately history shows that the USA are not very good when it comes to wars. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. were all a disaster with thousands of body bags to prove it.

You might want to run that statement by the millions of Viet-Minh and Viet-Cong soldiers that were greased during that conflict vs. the 36k American casualties.  That's a pretty good kill to loss ratio if you ask me. Maybe check with Saddam and his soldiers left as ashes on the Highway of Death how that conflict turned out for them...same with the remnants of the Taliban if you can find any.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You might want to run that statement by the millions of Viet-Minh and Viet-Cong soldiers that were greased during that conflict vs. the 36k American casualties.  That's a pretty good kill to loss ratio if you ask me. Maybe check with Saddam and his soldiers left as ashes on the Highway of Death how that conflict turned out for them...same with the remnants of the Taliban if you can find any.

The reference was to occupation. And the army of the Vietnam War which had a lot more boots to put on the ground , bears virtually no resemblance to the army of today. So thanks for helping me to prove my point. And I can't believe you invoke Iraq as a successful example of US occupation. And if you're not invoking that,  but just the USA's ability to kill soldiers, then you've completely missed the point. Once again, it was about the USA's inability to successfully occupy a country.

And where did you come up with the unfounded notion that the Taliban in Afghanistan consists only of remnants? I think that the USA's military command in Afghanistan would strongly disagree with you. And thanks once again for helping me to prove my point.

[Slain]

6 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Unfortunately history show the falacy of this kind of thinking; and the war that Britain ultimately had to fight was much more devastating than what it would have been if they had intervened earlier. It is the same case with this Korean situation...action should have really been taken years ago.

If Britain had intervened earlier they would have had no chance of changing anything, except probable  total defeat to the by then well organised forces of Germany. Wisely  they waited until others were on-board.

Different with N Korea in many ways

Edited October 12, 2017 by Slain

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Slain said:

If Britain had intervened earlier they would have had no chance of changing anything, except probable  total defeat to the by then well organised forces of Germany. Wisely  they waited until others were on-board.

Different with N Korea in many ways

John Lennon disagrees with you;

"I saw a film today oh boy

The English Army had just won the war..."

[rickudon]

Likening Iran to 1930's Germany or Japan is wrong. Germany and Japan were aggressively occupying neighbouring countries, Iran has not. After the Iranian revolution, very few foreigners were killed by the Iranian government - most of the victims were other Iranians.

 

So what happened next? Iran was attacked by Iraq, and the USA, Russia, France and many Arab countries gave support to Iraq. Up to 800,000 Iranians may have died in the war. And then the US shot down a civilian Airliner, killing all 290 on board. This was shot down in Iranian airspace, by a US destroyer in Iranian territorial waters. Small wonder that the USA is not popular in Iran .....

 

Since then, most Sunni Arab countries have been hostile to them, as they are Shia. With rising Sunni fundamentalism, this has got progressively worse. And remember that Sunni's heavily outnumber Shia's. Is it any surprise that Iran wants nuclear weapons, they are surrounded by enemies. Shia's have not conducted an international terrorism campaign in western countries. We should be boycotting Sunni arab countries, not Shia ones.

 

Unfortunately it all comes down to money .....

[Thaidream]

I really believe Donald Trump is  mad.   Even if he had a point and thought the 'deal' was bad- as President  representing the totality of the American public he must respect an agreement signed by his predecessor as well as other Nations to include allies of America. He is placing America in another adversarial role not only with Iran but also America's European allies. He is also placing the US Defense Department in the  position of having to plan for the possibility of fighting 3 full scale wars in 3 different regions-  Iran; NKorea and in Europe should Russia decide the time is right to seize land.

 

This is not the right time to even consider going after Iran with the situation in Korea brewing. All of Trump's closest advisors  have recommended to Trump to certify the agreement and not cause any type of destabilization in the Middle East. Only a madman would make the decisions Trump is making and I have to believe he is being pushed by the Alt right who are willing to fight to the last US soldier.

 

It really is time for the Vice President and the cabinet to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the Presidency. Trump has lost all credibility with the majority of the US public; the majority of the US Congress and America's allies.

[khunken]

TRump is obviously ignorant of the fact that the US failing to honour an agreement with N Korea in the mid-90s led to NK restarting it's enrichment program leading to yet another nuclear power.

 

This is what Trump's ill-advised anti-Iran bigotry is threatening to do with Iran. Iran has all the know-how necessary to join NK as another recent recruit to the nuclear 'club'. What a total deja-vu mess Trump is about to create.

[ilostmypassword]

 

1 minute ago, khunken said:

TRump is obviously ignorant of the fact that the US failing to honour an agreement with N Korea in the mid-90s led to NK restarting it's enrichment program leading to yet another nuclear power.

 

This is what Trump's ill-advised anti-Iran bigotry is threatening to do with Iran. Iran has all the know-how necessary to join NK as another recent recruit to the nuclear 'club'. What a total deja-vu mess Trump is about to create.

Actually, both sides failed to honor the agreement.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You might want to run that statement by the millions of Viet-Minh and Viet-Cong soldiers that were greased during that conflict vs. the 36k American casualties.  That's a pretty good kill to loss ratio if you ask me. Maybe check with Saddam and his soldiers left as ashes on the Highway of Death how that conflict turned out for them...same with the remnants of the Taliban if you can find any.

Lovely word, greased ?

 

58k American (white poor and black) greased

 

250k South Vietnamese soldiers - greased

 

1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers - greased

 

Over 2M Vietnamese civilians on both sides - greased

 

So well done!!

 

And for what???

 

The Americans dropped more bombs on Laos during that period than the total dropped on Germany and Japan in WW2!

 

And for what?

 

Shall I go on?

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Slain said:

If Britain had intervened earlier they would have had no chance of changing anything, except probable  total defeat to the by then well organised forces of Germany. Wisely  they waited until others were on-board.

Different with N Korea in many ways

A person who makes that statement knows nothing about the history of WWII...not even worth replying to such an uninformed post.

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Lovely word, greased ?

 

58k American (white poor and black) greased

 

250k South Vietnamese soldiers - greased

 

1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers - greased

 

Over 2M Vietnamese civilians on both sides - greased

 

So well done!!

 

And for what???

 

The Americans dropped more bombs on Laos during that period than the total dropped on Germany and Japan in WW2!

 

And for what?

 

Shall I go on?

I never said any of these wars was worth anything...the comment was made the Americans can't fight wars anymore...I think those millions of dead would beg to differ.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I never said any of these wars was worth anything...the comment was made the Americans can't fight wars anymore...I think those millions of dead would beg to differ.

They lost

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

A person who makes that statement knows nothing about the history of WWII...not even worth replying to such an uninformed post.

 

Slain is correct.

 

As I have stated, there were many reasons behind appeasement. The most crucial one was buying time to build up our military/industrial machine (Beeverbrook), get Fighter command up to strength, and get radar in place. If The Battle of Britain had been lost, Hitler would not have turned East. Never forget that the war was won with Russian blood, American money and British intelligence! I don't know if we can still help ?

[riclag]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

This is so very serious on so many levels.

 

The Russians and Chinese signed up to this in addition to Europe.

 

We need joint action on NK.

 

I suggest sanctions on the USA or regime change. How long will this F****** M**** stay?

 "European countries are scrambling to cobble together a package of measures they hope will keep the Iran nuclear deal on track if U.S. President Donald Trump ignores their pleas and decertifies the landmark 2015 agreement this week."

 

Twitterman campaigned on  America first .We have to take care of ourselves especially since the Iranian's  threaten us with annihilation. That 2015 agreement is history that nitwit Obama and Kerry gave away 4 billion in cash loaded in cargo planes in the middle of the night under a false pretense of money owed to them from frozen accounts in prior past sanctions,when it actually was ransom money to free 4 prisoners held captive. They and other countries gave billions to the regime that sponsors terrorism.Your going to have to fend for yourselves Europe! 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

 "European countries are scrambling to cobble together a package of measures they hope will keep the Iran nuclear deal on track if U.S. President Donald Trump ignores their pleas and decertifies the landmark 2015 agreement this week."

 

Twitterman campaigned on  America first .We have to take care of ourselves especially since the Iranian's  threaten us with annihilation. That 2015 agreement is history that nitwit Obama and Kerry gave away 4 billion in cash loaded in cargo planes in the middle of the night under a false pretense of money owed to them from frozen accounts in prior past sanctions,when it actually was ransom money to free 4 prisoners held captive. They and other countries gave billions to the regime that sponsors terrorism.Your going to have to fend for yourselves Europe! 

If the threat is truly that serious why doesn't Trump impose the sanctions himself? Instead he's punting the sanctions issue to congress. What a wimp!

 

And what in god's name does "Your going to have to fend for yourselves Europe! " have to do with this issue? Another Pavlovian response.