Putin welcomes European efforts to save Iran nuclear deal

[webfact]

Putin welcomes European efforts to save Iran nuclear deal

By Michel Rose and Denis Pinchuk

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks a during a news conference after the talks with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron in St. Petersburg, Russia May 24, 2018. REUTERS/Grigory Dukor

 

ST PETERSBURG (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Russia appreciated efforts by Europe to save the Iran nuclear deal despite the withdrawal of the United States and warned of "lamentable consequences" if it was not preserved.

 

Putin made the comment in a news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, offering some support for the French leader's plan for negotiating a broader agreement with Tehran to cover Iran's ballistics programme and its activities in the Middle East.

 

Macron met Putin seeking to win concessions on Syria, Iran and Ukraine after returning largely empty-handed from a state visit to the United States.

 

"Certainly we can discuss Iran's ballistic missiles. We can discuss Iran's policies in the Middle East and its nuclear activities after 2025," Putin said.

 

"But we cannot make preserving the Iranian nuclear deal dependent on these three parameters because if we do, it means that we too are withdrawing from the accord because the deal that exists foresees no additional conditions."

 

A Macron adviser hailed Putin's comments as a "key" point of convergence between Paris and Moscow as the Trump administration urges its European allies to sever economic ties with Iran.

 

After talks that ran long over schedule, Macron and Trump entered the news conference looking relaxed and smiling. Macron acknowledged Paris and Moscow disagreed on a range of issues but called for "strong multilateralism".

 

Earlier, it was announced French energy major Total would buy a 10 percent stake in a Russian Arctic gas project, showing the Kremlin's ability to find foreign partners despite Western sanctions.

 

"I hope Russia understands France is a credible and trustworthy European partner," Macron said.

 

AT ODDS OVER SYRIA

As Macron spoke at length, Putin's eyes frequently drifted towards the ceiling, his brow slightly furrowed.

 

There were few signs Macron succeeded in shifting Putin's stance over Syria, where Russian and Iranian military support for President Bashar al-Assad over the past three years has allowed Assad to crush the rebel threat to topple him.

 

The two men agreed on creating a coordination mechanism among world powers to push ahead with finding a political solution in Syria, and that the focus should be on a new constitution and setting up elections that would include all Syrians.

 

"We need to be talking about the situation after the war. The key is to build a stable Syria," Macron said.

 

But he won no clear backing from his Russian counterpart for an international body that would attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks.

 

France, together with the United States and Britain conducted a missile attack against the heart of Syria's chemical weapons program in mid-April in retaliation for a suspected poison gas attack a week earlier.

 

Addressing North Korea, both men said they hoped the United States and North Korea would continue working towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula after U.S. President Donald Trump called off a planned summit.

 

Macron said he hoped Trump's move "was just a glitch in a process that should be continued."

 

(Reporting by Denis Pinchuk and Michel Rose; Writing by Richard Lough; editing by John Stonestreet and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-25

[Jingthing]

Of course he welcomes it!

That's a big part of the Putin agenda.

Promoting the divorce of the USA and Europe. 

A big reason he worked so hard (and succeeded) in getting "trump" n office in the first place. 

[nobodysfriend]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course he welcomes it!

That's a big part of the Putin agenda.

Promoting the divorce of the USA and Europe. 

A big reason he worked so hard (and succeeded) in getting "trump" n office in the first place. 

That means he wanted to have sanctions imposed on Russia ...?

[car720]

the word pendulum comes to mind.

[Jingthing]

53 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

That means he wanted to have sanctions imposed on Russia ...?

He never wanted them. When congress passed them, he delayed enforcement. Two separate issues anyway -- what Putin had in mind and the actual "trump" erratic behavior.

 

Quote

Trump keeps acting very strangely about Putin

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15947434/something-weird-donald-trump-russia

[BuaBS]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

After talks that ran long over schedule, Macron and Trump entered the news conference looking relaxed and smiling. Macron acknowledged Paris and Moscow disagreed on a range of issues but called for "strong multilateralism".

Freudian slip by Reuters ? Or was Trump there too ?

[Andaman Al]

I have never heard Rand Paul so lucid, sensible and agreeable. Ignore the tripe youtube title. A good vid.

 

 

[Morch]

@Andaman Al

 

I don't think he makes a great Paul makes a great case, more like Pompeo is too daft and slow countering and calling him out. To be fair, some of the point below cannot be publicly aired by the Secretary of State, for diplomatic reasons.

 

Paul's initial presentation relies on a faux rendition, there this option, and then there's that option etc. - but things are not usually like that. It's rarely a binary, either/or situation. For example, sanctions may producing partial results is a more likely outcome, same goes for Europe buckling under pressure. And it also applies to Iran's reaction - Iran may be, in time, open to negotiate some issues, if not all.

 

Another point is that Iran going back to enriching Uranium etc. is a violation of the agreement, which I doubt European signatories would be thrilled with. China and Russia might let it go, but don't really see Europe able to ignore it and carry on. As this would also validate Trump's point of view, maybe not the best choice for Iran.

 

The rest of the clip is based on the false assertions, (a) that the US is supposed to be free of regional interests in order to deal with Iran, (b) that this is a negotiation on equal terms, and (c) that Iran legitimately constitutes a "side" with regard to all regional conflicts it is involved in.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Morch

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[Srikcir]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

Another point is that Iran going back to enriching Uranium etc. is a violation of the agreement,

Iran is under the nuclear deal allowed to enrich U-235 for existing nuclear electrical energy purposes, ie., 3-5% purity, which is done by centrifuges. It is not under the nuclear deal allowed to enrich U-235 to weapon grade, ie., minimum 20% purity, which is also done by centrifuges.

 

The interesting thing is that if Iran can stockpile 5% U-235 excess to its nuclear energy production (assuming a stockpile is allowed by the nuclear deal-I don't recall). If Iran decides then to consider the G5 nuclear deal null and void, its effort to enrich 5% U-235 to 20%+ for weapons is only about 20% of the effort required to enrich to 5%. In other words (assuming a stockpile surplus of 5% U-235), Iran can more quickly produce 20% U-235 by a factor of 5 times for what it took to reach the original 5% purity. As such some scientists predict Iran can produce nuclear weapons within one year sufficient for testing.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Iran is under the nuclear deal allowed to enrich U-235 for existing nuclear electrical energy purposes, ie., 3-5% purity, which is done by centrifuges. It is not under the nuclear deal allowed to enrich U-235 to weapon grade, ie., minimum 20% purity, which is also done by centrifuges.

 

The interesting thing is that if Iran can stockpile 5% U-235 excess to its nuclear energy production (assuming a stockpile is allowed by the nuclear deal-I don't recall). If Iran decides then to consider the G5 nuclear deal null and void, its effort to enrich 5% U-235 to 20%+ for weapons is only about 20% of the effort required to enrich to 5%. In other words (assuming a stockpile surplus of 5% U-235), Iran can more quickly produce 20% U-235 by a factor of 5 times for what it took to reach the original 5% purity. As such some scientists predict Iran can produce nuclear weapons within one year sufficient for testing.

 

As far as I recall, this angle (stockpiling) is covered in the agreement. And even if it wasn't Iran's stock of Uranium is supposedly monitored, so such actions would raise questions. The time frame required for having the resources to produce a weapons, actually producing one and testing seems short, but isn't - not considering Iran being under rather tight surveillance and monitoring. Most of the actions involved could be construed as violations, possibly triggering a reaction (whether by the US alone, or other signatories as well, is another matter).

 

Not saying that Iran couldn't - but it would be very hard to pull off, and carry a whole lot of risk. Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the replies. 

[spidermike007]

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Of course he welcomes it!

That's a big part of the Putin agenda.

Promoting the divorce of the USA and Europe. 

A big reason he worked so hard (and succeeded) in getting "trump" n office in the first place. 

True that. But the one who is really encouraging the divorce is Tiny Don. He has done everything in his power to alienate Europe. And he is getting outplayed yet again. Hopefully, Putin and the European leaders, will be successful in holding this treaty together, and they will do it without the participation of the US. By the day, Tiny Don is making America not only less great, but also less relevant. And that is probably a good thing. The US has had horrific foreign policy for at least the past 20 years, and they should be less relevant. As an American, I can say that I am hoping the Europeans are able to save the treaty, and make the most dangerous and unstable man on earth, less relevant in the process. Most of us already realize how incompetent, and how illiterate Tiny D. is. The Europeans have known that from the beginning. 

 

Donald - the art of I cannot make a deal to save my life.

 

No need to worry. He will be gone from the scene within 12 months. Mueller is going to bury this charlatan huckster.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

@Andaman Al

 

I don't think he makes a great Paul makes a great case, more like Pompeo is too daft and slow countering and calling him out. To be fair, some of the point below cannot be publicly aired by the Secretary of State, for diplomatic reasons.

 

Paul's initial presentation relies on a faux rendition, there this option, and then there's that option etc. - but things are not usually like that. It's rarely a binary, either/or situation. For example, sanctions may producing partial results is a more likely outcome, same goes for Europe buckling under pressure. And it also applies to Iran's reaction - Iran may be, in time, open to negotiate some issues, if not all.

 

Another point is that Iran going back to enriching Uranium etc. is a violation of the agreement, which I doubt European signatories would be thrilled with. China and Russia might let it go, but don't really see Europe able to ignore it and carry on. As this would also validate Trump's point of view, maybe not the best choice for Iran.

 

The rest of the clip is based on the false assertions, (a) that the US is supposed to be free of regional interests in order to deal with Iran, (b) that this is a negotiation on equal terms, and (c) that Iran legitimately constitutes a "side" with regard to all regional conflicts it is involved in.

 

 

The administration’s case is based on the ‘faux’ assertion that the Iran deal is failing.

 

Pompeo, Trump and now Bolton are constructing their whole Iran policy on foundations sinking into the swamp Trump himself created.

 

Once again the US acts without builing an international consensus and once again the reputation of the US as a trusted international partner is deminished.

 

The arguments put forward by Paul Rand speak to the duplicity of this, and past, US policy in the region.

 

a) The US assumes sovereign right to determine its own regional interests.

b) The sovereign rights of Iran are assumed unequal to those of the US.

c) Iran shall not be permitted legitimacy in its own determination of where Iran’s regional interests lie (Refer a, and b for the justification there of).

 

 

[Srikcir]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The administration’s case

Remember Trump's speech before the UN in 2017 whose centerpiece was the idea that every nation is best served by embracing its own independence:

• “As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first,”
• “Strong sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny,”

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/19/16332770/trump-unga-speech-north-korea-iran

But like many of Trump's policies, he turns them around and inside out. There's no consistency that any nation can rely upon to understand or support.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Remember Trump's speech before the UN in 2017 whose centerpiece was the idea that every nation is best served by embracing its own independence:

• “As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first,”
• “Strong sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny,”

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/19/16332770/trump-unga-speech-north-korea-iran

But like many of Trump's policies, he turns them around and inside out. There's no consistency that any nation can rely upon to understand or support.

It's worse than that.

 

The duplicity which Rand Paul speaks to does not go unnoticed and is frequently used by groups fighting against US allies/interests as justification for their cause and/or as a recruitment call. 

 

Repeatedly enacting policies with such overt biases and failing to understand how these are perceived is one form of idiocy, failing to understand the power of those perceptions in the hands of your enemies is quite something else. 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I recall, this angle (stockpiling) is covered in the agreement. And even if it wasn't Iran's stock of Uranium is supposedly monitored, so such actions would raise questions. The time frame required for having the resources to produce a weapons, actually producing one and testing seems short, but isn't - not considering Iran being under rather tight surveillance and monitoring. Most of the actions involved could be construed as violations, possibly triggering a reaction (whether by the US alone, or other signatories as well, is another matter).

 

Not saying that Iran couldn't - but it would be very hard to pull off, and carry a whole lot of risk. Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move.

Morch, you turn up here on ThaiVisa and say "Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move."

Why don't you just come out and say it ?  Look, the deal done by Obama was the best way to improve peace in the Middle East. What we are seeing right now, stuff being done by the White House, is disastrous and catastrophic. We all know this. Trump's advisors in the White House are trying to start World War Three, a war between America and Islam.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The administration’s case is based on the ‘faux’ assertion that the Iran deal is failing.

 

Pompeo, Trump and now Bolton are constructing their whole Iran policy on foundations sinking into the swamp Trump himself created.

 

Once again the US acts without builing an international consensus and once again the reputation of the US as a trusted international partner is deminished.

 

The arguments put forward by Paul Rand speak to the duplicity of this, and past, US policy in the region.

 

a) The US assumes sovereign right to determine its own regional interests.

b) The sovereign rights of Iran are assumed unequal to those of the US.

c) Iran shall not be permitted legitimacy in its own determination of where Iran’s regional interests lie (Refer a, and b for the justification there of).

 

 

 

You'll find it hard to find a post where I support withdrawing from the Iran Deal, barking up the wrong tree.

 

That doesn't mean I think the Iran Deal is the best things since sliced bread. It's the best that could have been achieved at the time. Could it, in theory, been better? Yeah, but theory and practice are different things.

 

I don't think Trump's move will improve things, and if he was after getting further concessions and applying more limitations, this would have been better served by negotiating. Not the ticket he was running on, not what his base wants, and no taking down of yet another Obama legacy, so no go.

 

The arguments put forth by Paul Rand are daft. The US is responsible for its own interests, and the interests of its allies. Iran's interests, as far as the US go, are neither a priority, nor equal to those of the US. Where US and Iran interests clash, the US is not required to prefer Iran's interests.

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you turn up here on ThaiVisa and say "Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move."

Why don't you just come out and say it ?  Look, the deal done by Obama was the best way to improve peace in the Middle East. What we are seeing right now, stuff being done by the White House, is disastrous and catastrophic. We all know this. Trump's advisors in the White House are trying to start World War Three, a war between America and Islam.

 

I'm not obliged to post what you'd like me to post. Or to agree with your views. Certainly not with your propaganda and trolling nonsense.

 

The Iran Deal is not the best thing since sliced bread. It doesn't need to be worshiped. Better than what Trump is doing? Sure. But that ain't saying a whole lot.

 

Once more, you do not speak for any "we", nor is it certain that you "know". I don't think Trump and his advisors are trying to start WWIII, other in some nonsense posts such as yours.