Pompeo warns Russia, China against ignoring move to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran

[webfact]

Pompeo warns Russia, China against ignoring move to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran

By Andrea Shalal

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo holds a joint news conference with Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg in Vienna, Austria, August 14, 2020. REUTERS/Lisi Niesner/Pool

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Russia and China not to disregard the reimposition of all United Nations sanctions on Iran, which President Donald Trump has directed him to trigger at the U.N. Security Council in New York on Thursday.

 

Pompeo will meet with Indonesia's U.N. Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani - council president for August - to submit a complaint about Iran's non-compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal, even though Washington quit the accord in 2018.

 

The nuclear deal between Iran, Russia, China, Germany, Britain, France and the United States aimed to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief. That accord is enshrined in a 2015 Security Council resolution.

 

In response to what the United States calls its "maximum pressure" campaign of unilateral sanctions - a bid to get Iran to negotiate a new deal - Tehran has breached central limits of the 2015 pact, including on its stock of enriched uranium.

 

Diplomats say the so-called sanctions snapback process will be messy as Russia, China and other countries question the legality of the U.S. move given that Washington itself is no longer complying with what Trump called the "worst deal ever."

 

Given questions over the U.S. move, diplomats said Russia, China and other countries are likely to simply ignore it and not reimpose the sanctions on Iran.

 

When asked if the United States would target Russia and China with sanctions if they refuse to reimpose the U.N. measures on Iran, Pompeo told Fox News on Wednesday: "Absolutely."

 

"We have already done that, where we have seen any country violate ... the current American sanctions, we've held every nation accountable for that. We'll do the same thing with respect to the broader U.N. Security Council sanctions as well," he said.

 

The United States had threatened to use the sanctions snapback provision in the nuclear deal after it lost a bid in the Security Council on Friday to extend an arms embargo on Tehran, which is due to expire in October.

 

Pompeo said it was unfortunate that the European members of the council abstained on the U.S. attempt to extend the arms embargo and that the move "makes the European people less safe."

 

"They just are wedded to this crazy nuclear deal, they're trying to hang on to it," he said.

 

Once Pompeo submits the complaint about Iran to the Security Council, the body has 30 days to adopt a resolution to extend sanctions relief for Tehran or else the measures will automatically snap back. Any attempt to extend the sanctions relief would be vetoed by the United States.

 

Pompeo will also meet with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Thursday.

 

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal and Eric Beech; Writing by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Sandra Maler and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-08-20

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

just puffery trying to make it look like they are doing something 

[Bluespunk]

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

The United States had threatened to use the sanctions snapback provision in the nuclear deal after it lost a bid in the Security Council on Friday to extend an arms embargo on Tehran, which is due to expire in October.

Lost the vote, so now threatening others not to oppose trump administration imposing sanctions provisions contained in a deal the USA is no longer party to. 
 

maga. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Bluespunk

[rcummings]

If someone dropped their membership in Mar-A-Lago, would would Trump still allow them to enjoy the benefits of membership?

[Pedrogaz]

I'm sure Russia and China are quaking in their boots. Russia will likely sell the S400 and China some nice jets. More hypocrisy, bullying and lunacy from the psychopaths in charge of the US.

[Surelynot]

Probably the most dangerous man in the world (for another 75 days)

[Sujo]

Partnering with indonesia?

 

USA sure has dropped down to division 3 in the world relevance cup.

 

Pompeo, you pulled out of the agreement, so just shut up.

[JulesMad]

Who do Russia and China think they are?!? Only usa has to right to ignore the Security Counsel and the UN...
 

usa and its genius 'president' keep on thinking they can tell the world what to (not) do. The world is quite a bit smarter than the average american republican ????

[Deli]

Send Israel to war against Iran and you kill to birds with 1 stone

Edited August 20, 2020 by Deli

[GreasyFingers]

5 minutes ago, Deli said:

Send Israel to war against Iran and you kill to birds with 1 stone

Especially if both drop nukes.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Especially if both drop nukes.

More than 2 nations will suffer the result of nukes. Best to drop one just outside US waters near mar a lago golf course.

[rvaviator]

9 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Especially if both drop nukes.

On the upside .. nobody will be talking about C-19 anymore ... ????

[Dap]

"Pompeo Warns Russia And China". What a joke,   To be more specific ... "he is"!

Edited August 20, 2020 by Dap

[Morch]

On 8/20/2020 at 10:23 AM, rcummings said:

If someone dropped their membership in Mar-A-Lago, would would Trump still allow them to enjoy the benefits of membership?

 

To use your analogy, I think it's more like arguing that someone dropping their Mar-A-Lago membership may still issue a complaint regarding another member violating house rules. I would guess that it would depend on who are the members involved etc., regardless of the premise's validity. The Trump administration could have, IMO, even gotten somewhere with that in the UNSC, if it wasn't for all them many instances in which better relations weren't fostered (and worse).

[grumpy 4680]

      If your child wanted to play cowboys and Indians, would you give them a bow. Russia and China would, So can't blame Trump for being sensible, and saying NO.

[rcummings]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

To use your analogy, I think it's more like arguing that someone dropping their Mar-A-Lago membership may still issue a complaint regarding another member violating house rules. I would guess that it would depend on who are the members involved etc., regardless of the premise's validity. The Trump administration could have, IMO, even gotten somewhere with that in the UNSC, if it wasn't for all them many instances in which better relations weren't fostered (and worse).

I don't know how far we want to pursue this but what's the salient difference in standing between an ex-member and a non-member? Maybe if the departure was on friendly terms, members in good standing might be willing to lend an ear but they're certainly not obliged to. And in this case...

[rcummings]

17 minutes ago, grumpy 4680 said:

      If your child wanted to play cowboys and Indians, would you give them a bow. Russia and China would, So can't blame Trump for being sensible, and saying NO.

Unfortunately, as regards the agreement the U.S. was never their Daddy, and in fact, is longer even a sibling.

And it might be argued that if anyone was behaving childishly, it was Trump in the first place.

Edited August 21, 2020 by rcummings

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, grumpy 4680 said:

      If your child wanted to play cowboys and Indians, would you give them a bow. Russia and China would, So can't blame Trump for being sensible, and saying NO.

 

Even if the goal is seen as having merit, it cannot be denied that the way Trump's administration of addressing it was/is anything but sensible.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, rcummings said:

I don't know how far we want to pursue this but what's the salient difference in standing between an ex-member and a non-member? Maybe if the departure was on friendly terms, members in good standing might be willing to lend an ear but they're certainly not obliged to. And in this case...

 

We probably don't.

 

The USA's relations and standing with both UNSC (and the mostly overlapping JCPOA signatories) could have been better. If it was "just" quitting the JCPOA, some diplomatic clout might have been preserved, but as it comes with a whole train of foreign relations issues, there's little goodwill toward the USA's wishes, at this point. There are times when bullying, using the country's relatively superior force and standing, and being so openly disparaging of others might do the trick. But as a constant policy, doubtful it creates an atmosphere conductive to some of the USA efforts.

 

I wonder if the Trump administration attitude and statements on this particular issue were utilized as a negotiation tactic, or whether they are the product of realizing things weren't going to go their way.