Video: SpaceX rocket booster successfully lands in Texas after test launch

[webfact]

U.S. reimposes Iran sanctions, Tehran decries 'bullying'

By Lesley Wroughton and Parisa Hafezi

 

FILE PHOTO: Iran's President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a news conference on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 26, 2018. REUTERS/Brendan Mcdermid

 

WASHINGTON/DUBAI (Reuters) - The United States on Monday restored sanctions targeting Iran's oil, banking and transportation sectors and threatened more action to stop its "outlaw" policies, steps the Islamic Republic called economic warfare and vowed to defy.

 

The measures are part of a wider effort by U.S. President Donald Trump to curb Tehran's missile and nuclear programs and diminish the Islamic Republic's influence in the Middle East, notably its support for proxies in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.

 

Trump's moves target Iran's main source of revenue - its oil exports - as well as its financial sector, essentially making 50 Iranian banks and their subsidiaries off limits to foreign banks on pain of losing access to the U.S. financial system.

 

The return of the sanctions was triggered by Trump's May 8 decision to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, negotiated with five other world powers during Democratic President Barack Obama's administration. That agreement had removed many U.S. and other economic sanctions from Iran in return for Tehran's commitment to curtail its nuclear programme.

 

Trump denounced the deal because of time limits on some of Iran's nuclear activities, as well as for its failure to address other Iranian activity that the United States does not like.

 

In abandoning the agreement and imposing sanctions that it had lifted as well as adding new ones, the United States is betting the economic pressure will force Iran to change its behaviour and agree to a new, much more restrictive deal.

 

"The Iranian regime has a choice: it can either do a 180-degree turn from its outlaw course of action and act like a normal country, or it can see its economy crumble," U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters.

 

"We hope a new agreement with Iran is possible."

 

Speaking before Pompeo detailed the U.S. sanctions, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani accused the United States of targeting ordinary Iranians and said the Islamic Republic would find a way to "continue to sell our oil ... to break sanctions."

 

"The enemy is targeting our economy ... the main target of sanctions is our people," he said. "This is an economic war against Iran."

 

"BULLYING"

Some analysts are sceptical Iran will knuckle under to U.S. pressure, at least in the short term.

 

"The increasing pressures on Iran will not change the behaviour of the regime any time soon," said Dennis Ross, a former U.S. official now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said U.S. "bullying" was backfiring by making Washington more isolated, a reference to other world powers opposed to the initiative. The other parties to the 2015 nuclear deal, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, have said they will stay in it.

 

The sanctions are designed, in part, to force Iran's main customers to stop buying its oil. However, the United States gave temporary exceptions to eight importers - China, India, Greece, Italy, Taiwan, Japan, Turkey and South Korea - allowing them to keep buying from Iran.

 

Iraq has also been given an exemption, Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, told reporters in a conference call, saying Iraq was working "on reducing Iran's influence and opening Kirkuk, which would be another 200,000 barrels of oil."

 

In June Iran said that Baghdad and Tehran had begun exchanging crude oil.

 

Crude from the Kirkuk field in northern Iraq is being shipped by truck to Iran. Tehran will use the oil in its refineries and will deliver the same amount of oil to Iraq's southern ports, on the Gulf.

 

The sanctions also cover 50 Iranian banks and subsidiaries, more than 200 persons and vessels in its shipping sector, Tehran's national airline, Iran Air, and more than 65 of its aircraft, a U.S. Treasury statement said.

 

The administration said it had toughened the sanctions by roughly 300 new designations on individuals and entities, and targeted more subsidiaries of Iranian companies than before.

 

EUROPEAN OPPOSITION

European powers that continue to back the nuclear deal said they opposed the reapplication of sanctions and major oil buyer China said it regretted the move.

 

Switzerland said it was holding talks with the United States and Iran about launching a humanitarian payment channel to help food and drugs keep flowing to Tehran.

 

U.S. sanctions permit trade in humanitarian goods such as food and pharmaceuticals but measures imposed on banks and trade restrictions could make such items more expensive as well as more difficult to pay for.

 

The United States will allow non-proliferation civil nuclear work at Arak, Bushehr and Fordow in Iran "under the strictest scrutiny," the State Department said on Monday.

 

The Belgium-based SWIFT financial messaging service said it is suspending some unspecified Iranian banks’ access to its messaging system in the interests of the stability and integrity of the global financial system.

 

The head of Iran's Central Bank, Abdolnassr Hemmati, said the country has taken necessary banking measures to continue trade after the U.S. move, Iranian state TV said.

 

The European Union, France, Germany and Britain said they regretted the U.S. decision and would seek to protect European companies doing legitimate business with Tehran.

 

Diplomats told Reuters last month that a new EU mechanism to facilitate payments for Iranian oil exports should be legally in place by Nov. 4 but not operational until early next year.

 

Trump told reporters he wanted to impose the oil sanctions slowly so as not to "cause a shock to the market."

 

Oil prices were mixed on Monday after a steep five-day fall. Brent crude LCOc1 futures rose 34 cents to settle at $73.17 a barrel. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude CLc1 futures fell 4 cents to settle at $63.10 a barrel.

 

Prices rallied to near four-year highs in early October on expectations the imposition of sanctions would create a global supply shortage. However, news of the waivers last week sent prices lower as top buyers would continue to import Iranian oil.

 

Graphics

Iran's nuclear programme https://tmsnrt.rs/2D0wdT3 

 

Iran's crude exports 1975-2018

 

Iran's crude exports, production

 

(Writing by William Maclean and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Jon Boyle, Richard Balmforth and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-06

[ezzra]

Had Iran, a know state sponsoring terrorism with active medlings in several countries, would have left alone under the current nuclear control agreement, they would have, in no time, put on the table a workable, ready to launch deadly nuclear device as a forgone conclusion threatening Israel the US and who ever they run foul with a-la N. Korea.. , and the world will be angry with condemnations but the world will also have a N. Korea copycat to deal with...

[dexterm]

The deal that Trump is trying to undermine was working, as all international IAEA  inspections confirmed. The only country reneging on the agreement is the USA.

 

The only regime change I am hoping for is in the White House. Iran can sit it out till then, and the world can return to sanity.

Or if not, and this does lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, just remember that it was Trump who started this whole shemozzle.

[Nyezhov]

Tehran only cries bullying when you hold their feet to the fire. Hopefully the Iranian people will rise up and toss the Mad Mullahs out. Should have had sanctions on them 8 years ago, instead of giving them billions to subsidize terrorism.

[wwest5829]

Don't miss the footnote. U.S. imposes trade sanctions? Yes. U.S. exempts 8 countries, including China from the sanctions? Yes. Trade from these 8 countries continues as they refused to go along with The Donald's unilateral action.....

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

The deal that Trump is trying to undermine was working,

Yes it was working fine, for the Iranians... while the world's conglomerates was making a beeline to sign up lucrative deals with Iran while the latter is continue openly and brazenly to backup, support and arm terror groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and Iraq, while covertly, waking up sleeper cells to execute terror acts in Europe, no matter what Trump or anyone else will do, undisputedly, this have been and still is Iran agenda and narrative, and blaming someone else is just flowed thinking...

[mamypoko]

midterms a la Bolton 

[dexterm]

37 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Yes it was working fine, for the Iranians... while the world's conglomerates was making a beeline to sign up lucrative deals with Iran while the latter is continue openly and brazenly to backup, support and arm terror groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and Iraq, while covertly, waking up sleeper cells to execute terror acts in Europe, no matter what Trump or anyone else will do, undisputedly, this have been and still is Iran agenda and narrative, and blaming someone else is just flowed thinking...

The P5+1 nuclear non proliferation deal that Iran and the USA signed up for was working. Just like Trump you have moved the goalposts (and for the same reasons!) to include other spurious items that could have been negotiated separately without throwing out the baby with bathwater.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump denounced the deal because of time limits on some of Iran's nuclear activities

Now he has removed all time limits.

It is only through continued trade relationships between Iran and its customary trade partners the EU, Turkey and China that Iran will voluntarily continue its denuclearization.

Trump's foreign policies in the Middle east might be termed "boomerang" policies.

[Athens]

US and Israel no other country feel any tread from Iran. 

[Tug]

Donald did this to spite Obama he is jealous that he can never earn the respect and stature president Obama has no matter how many boot licking toadies he surrounds himself with I have a feeling most despise him btw

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ezzra said:

Had Iran, a know state sponsoring terrorism with active medlings in several countries, would have left alone under the current nuclear control agreement, they would have, in no time, put on the table a workable, ready to launch deadly nuclear device as a forgone conclusion threatening Israel the US and who ever they run foul with a-la N. Korea.. , and the world will be angry with condemnations but the world will also have a N. Korea copycat to deal with...

 

Only thing is that most assessments did not conform with your "take" regarding Iran's ability to develop a "workable, ready to launch deadly nuclear device" under the agreement's terms. North Korea was not party to a similar agreement, with regard to inspections regime etc. The lessons learned from NK's case were applied to Iran's.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

The deal that Trump is trying to undermine was working, as all international IAEA  inspections confirmed. The only country reneging on the agreement is the USA.

 

The only regime change I am hoping for is in the White House. Iran can sit it out till then, and the world can return to sanity.

Or if not, and this does lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, just remember that it was Trump who started this whole shemozzle.

 

One reoccurring feature of your posts is the willingness to commit other people to hardship. I doubt you've got a clear handle about whether "Iran can sit it out until then" - especially when the "then" is not a given. Similarly, doubt that you'll have any issues lamenting the economic situation in Iran and it's effect on the populace, while "boldly" advocating the Iranian regime's defiance.

 

As for the standard issue scaremongering - to remind, Iran's activities already contributed to likelihood of a ME nuclear arms race. To assert this started with Trump is misleading, at best.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Tehran only cries bullying when you hold their feet to the fire. Hopefully the Iranian people will rise up and toss the Mad Mullahs out. Should have had sanctions on them 8 years ago, instead of giving them billions to subsidize terrorism.

The USA did not GIVE them billions of USD. It returned money that legally belonged to Iran and that the USA was holding.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

 

http://fortune.com/2016/09/07/us-iran-billion-hostages-arms-deal/

 

Or the 100% real truth about it by Trump read here.

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-right-that-the-US-gave-Iran-150-billion-dollars

[Morch]

4 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Don't miss the footnote. U.S. imposes trade sanctions? Yes. U.S. exempts 8 countries, including China from the sanctions? Yes. Trade from these 8 countries continues as they refused to go along with The Donald's unilateral action.....

 

Them exemptions are temporary, and do not cover all aspects of the sanctions. Sure, a foreign policy based on cooperation and less in-you-face attitude would have meant better cooperation, but then again, such an alternative approach might not have gone the sanctions way to begin with.

 

No one, I think, asserted that the re-imposed sanctions regime would be as effective as the previous, more internationally accepted, instance. On the other hand, it's not quite as ineffective as some claimed it would be.

 

Here are two recent statements:

 

Important European Financial Firm Bows to Trump’s Iran Sanctions

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/dealbook/swift-iran-sanctions.html

 

India's top bank says complying with U.S. sanctions against Iran

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-iran-oil-sbi/indias-top-bank-says-complying-with-u-s-sanctions-against-iran-idUSKCN1NA14Q

 

[billd766]

4 hours ago, ezzra said:

Yes it was working fine, for the Iranians... while the world's conglomerates was making a beeline to sign up lucrative deals with Iran while the latter is continue openly and brazenly to backup, support and arm terror groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and Iraq, while covertly, waking up sleeper cells to execute terror acts in Europe, no matter what Trump or anyone else will do, undisputedly, this have been and still is Iran agenda and narrative, and blaming someone else is just flowed thinking...

Any proof of that? internet links, reports, newspaper articles etc or just speculation.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Now he has removed all time limits.

It is only through continued trade relationships between Iran and its customary trade partners the EU, Turkey and China that Iran will voluntarily continue its denuclearization.

Trump's foreign policies in the Middle east might be termed "boomerang" policies.

 

No, he did not.

The US pulling out of the agreement did not, if fact and in effect, annul the agreement. And unsurprisingly, Iran did not pull out itself, nor did it take any serious steps to renew it's nuclear activities and program. Had they done so, they'd be in breach of the terms vs. other signatories. I doubt such a move wouldn't have led to other parties (especially European governments) not taking retaliatory steps - which would, like it or not, would have placed them on Trump's side of the fence.

 

We have no argument that it would have been better to handle this otherwise - working with allies and through the opportunities and openings represented by the Iran Deal. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Athens said:

US and Israel no other country feel any tread from Iran. 

 

I doubt all of Iran's neighbors would agree with your "informed" comment.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

The USA did not GIVE them billions of USD. It returned money that legally belonged to Iran and that the USA was holding.

Im sure thats a comfort to hostages, dead civilians and victims of Iranian terror. 

 

The Iranian regime is truly evil and needs to go.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Im sure thats a comfort to hostages, dead civilians and victims of Iranian terror. 

 

The Iranian regime is truly evil and needs to go.

Just as I am sure that the US apology gave great comfort to the passengers of the Iran flight that the US navy shot down in anger.

 

Should I mention the 3,xxx odd people who were killed on 9/11, not by Iranians but by the great US ally Saudi Arabia who the US still does business with as money and jobs are at stake. Or even the 10,xxx killed by the US weapons of SA in Yemen? Or don't they matter much to you.

 

The Iranian regime is far less warmongering than the USA.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

The Iranian regime is far less warmongering than the USA.

I know, I know,  the US is bad, the worst, the force of true evil in the world, etc etc *yawn*. Thank god for Iran, maybe they can destroy the Great Satan. Its OK, Im too fat to wear a Burkha and already have a beard. I hear that the clubs are great in Tehran, Bargirls in Burkhas, oh my. ???? ????  ????

 

[billd766]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I know, I know,  the US is bad, the worst, the force of true evil in the world, etc etc *yawn*. Thank god for Iran, maybe they can destroy the Great Satan. Its OK, Im too fat to wear a Burkha and already have a beard. I hear that the clubs are great in Tehran, Bargirls in Burkhas, oh my. ???? ????  ????

 

Thank you for your kind support of the truth.

 

Have a great day.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Im sure thats a comfort to hostages, dead civilians and victims of Iranian terror. 

 

The Iranian regime is truly evil and needs to go.

The vast vast majority of Islamist terrorist incidents in the world are committed by Sunnis. ANd lots of those attacks are against Shiites. In fact, a lot more than there are against the West.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

One reoccurring feature of your posts is the willingness to commit other people to hardship. I doubt you've got a clear handle about whether "Iran can sit it out until then" - especially when the "then" is not a given. Similarly, doubt that you'll have any issues lamenting the economic situation in Iran and it's effect on the populace, while "boldly" advocating the Iranian regime's defiance.

 

As for the standard issue scaremongering - to remind, Iran's activities already contributed to likelihood of a ME nuclear arms race. To assert this started with Trump is misleading, at best.

Seems to me the only people willing to commit other people to hardship on Trumped up pretexts is the USA admin 6,000 miles away against a people who are no threat to the American people.

[Nyezhov]

32 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Seems to me the only people willing to commit other people to hardship on Trumped up pretexts is the USA admin 6,000 miles away against a people who are no threat to the American people.

In your opinion. Others dont share your rosy view of the evil Mullahs and their revanchist ideology.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

In your opinion. Others dont share your rosy view of the evil Mullahs and their revanchist ideology.

Others don't share my view...well, they wouldn't would they? They have their own agenda to besmirch Iran however they can.
Iran is no threat to USA.

But it is a threat to the states that have gotten USA into mountains of self imposed trouble, some of them nuclear powers that have no intention of subjecting themselves to the same stringent inspections as Iran is prepared to undergo. The Trump hypocrisy is astounding.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, dexterm said:

Seems to me the only people willing to commit other people to hardship on Trumped up pretexts is the USA admin 6,000 miles away against a people who are no threat to the American people.

 

Considering your post advocated Iranian defiance of the US, at the expense of the population, I think it's safe to label you as "willing to commit other people to hardship". Being thousands of miles away and all that as well. I don't think there was anything said about the "people" being a threat - the attempted spin is dully recognized.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, dexterm said:

Others don't share my view...well, they wouldn't would they? They have their own agenda to besmirch Iran however they can.
Iran is no threat to USA.

But it is a threat to the states that have gotten USA into mountains of self imposed trouble, some of them nuclear powers that have no intention of subjecting themselves to the same stringent inspections as Iran is prepared to undergo. The Trump hypocrisy is astounding.

 

Out comes the "besmirch". Because, the Iranian regime is actually really great, if misunderstood. Pull the other one. And, of course, any view that isn't in line with your nonsense is obviously lodged in some nefarious machinations, and has no basis in reality. Good luck with that attitude. 

 

Iran is a threat to US interests. That you wish to deny that, or the legitimacy of the US having interests doesn't change facts and reality.

 

And as usual, being pretty much a one-issue poster, it all comes down for you, to the same thing. Those not completely obsessed with such would recognize that quite a few of Iran's neighbors aren't too happy with its ways and agenda. Then, of course, there's them pesky Europeans - which regardless of expected spins, were on-board with regard to previous rounds of sanctions and the ongoing inspections regime. 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been reported and removed. 

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Those not completely obsessed with such would recognize that quite a few of Iran's neighbors aren't too happy with its ways and agenda.

Then of course there's neighbors (and not so neighbors) whose ways and agenda for the Middle East have threatened Iran.

So how much of Iran's reaction is quid pro quo?