The WSJ reports U.S. to Reimpose Sanctions Targeting Iranian Economy.
The White House made good Monday on its vow to reimpose sanctions on Iran, striking a blow against Iran’s weakening economy and putting the world on notice that still-tougher sanctions are to come.
The measures are the first economic action Mr. Trump has taken against Iran since announcing in May that the U.S. was withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord.
They will remain in effect unless Tehran meets the administration’s demands to stop its support for militant groups in the Middle East and ends its enrichment of uranium, U.S. officials say.
The measures, which will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, will prohibit Iran’s access to U.S. dollars, sanction Iran’s trade in gold and precious metals, outlaw the purchase of Iran’s sovereign debt, and sanction Iran’s automotive sector.
Far tougher steps will come into force on Nov. 5, when the U.S. tries to cut off Iran’s oil exports and imposes sanctions on Iran’s shipping, among other measures.
Skeptics question whether the Trump administration can muster sufficient international support to isolate Iran economically. While the U.S. has withdrawn from the 2015 agreement constraining Iran’s nuclear activities, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain and the European Union are still party to the deal.
While the threat of sanctions is prompting European companies to withdraw from the Iranian market, China is likely to remain a major importer of Iranian oil.
“I think it’s going to just breed loopholes, even amongst some of our closest allies,” said Richard Nephew, a former deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department during the Obama administration.
While Iran is widely believed to be adhering to its core promises under the nuclear accord, the Trump administration has zeroed in on the country’s destabilizing activities in Syria and other countries in the Middle East as cause for its decision to withdraw from the agreement. Those activities were not covered by the agreement.
US Hypocrisy
When it comes to destabilizing Syria, Iraq, and Libya, the us played the role of the greatest destabilizing agent.
We Had a Good Deal
I agree with the American Conservative article Trump Will Never Get a Better Deal With Iran by Scott Ritter.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The Economist says Scrapping the Iran Deal Won’t Do Anyone Any Good.
At What Price?
Even IF Trump secures a better deal, I cannot and will not support such actions. Our own intelligence agency says the US was honoring the terms.
Our allies, including the EU, object to this action. Trump is making a mockery of US treaty agreements on the flimsiest of reasons.
The price is mistrust. Why should anyone believe a US treaty?
Defiance
I do not support US warmongering and make no mistake, these unilateral actions are an act of war.
I encourage efforts by China, the EU, and India to ignore or circumvent US warmongering belligerency including these sanctions on Iran.
Sanction Avoidance Discussion
- Windbag Jean-Claude Juncker’s Pathetic Bluff Regarding Iran Sanctions
- How Iran Can Use Bitcoin to Avoid US Sanctions
- Will Any Country Stand Up to Trump Sanctions? Juan Cole Says Yes
The lead-in image is from link number three.
Addendum
A friend, Dave, whose opinion I respect, yet with whom I frequently disagree chimed in with this comment.
Agree. We have a country that agreed to restrictions and heavy inspections after years of the international community encouraging them to do so. Evidence shows that Iran is in compliance and our European allies agree.
This has nothing to do with the nuclear deal and everything to do with siding with the Saudis and Israel in a regional power struggle.
Meanwhile his big deal in North Korea was a flowery statement that said less than prior statements at other such conferences and they not only possess sixty weapons but work continues on that and the missile program continues.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Am. Conserv.? Economist? Look at all the neocon never-Trumpers trying to salvage their Iran deal… wonder why.
Trump will get a better ‘deal’ w/ Iran. All the Chicken-Little’s here will be eating their words… and the same goes for trade – DT will make dozens of bi-lateral trade deals, all of which will be better for US workers/voters than the ‘free trade’ mega-treaties which sold this country down the river…
Trump may have taken $3.6B from the Saudis to make this change. Trump’s America: for sale to the highest bidder.
Time to end the dollar-oil trade and let anyone buy oil with whatever currency they want. Then we can ignore the middle east and let it be Europe’s problem.
“and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD…” Somebody tell Mish that no WMD were in Iraq …… (holy cow Mish – a 1991 map plus that statement ? )
That was a Ritter quote who confirms there were not WMD. But he was part of the inspection team. Mish never implied there were.
The Iran deal is/was not a treaty. President Obama never submitted it to the Senate, no doubt because he knew it would not be approved.
U.S. Law — true. International Law — possibly false.
It would probably be best if no President starts or terminates any international agreement without the consent of the Senate unless it is (a) an emergency, or (b) irrefutably in the interest of the United States, or (c) so trivial as to be insignificant.
I am sure you voted straight Republican when obama destabilized Syria and Libya and threw 100,000 troops into Afghanistan…
Oh wait….that never happened.
China needs to step up and help the Iranians settle transactions in dollars outside of the SWIFT system. That should be possible to do with some clever subterfuge like setting up a bank to handle Iranian transactions under its name.
I could see China paying for Iranian oil in Yuan. Iran setting up a banking entity and a number of hidden companies in China. Iran sends its Yuan to its chinese bank who trades them for dollars. Fake companies can then use those dollars to buy and settle transactions all over the world. Then ship the resulting product from China to Iran.
Trump has put himself in a very dangerous position. If the above were to happen, there would be little impact on the Iranian economy, while cutting American exports and jobs. When the Iranians don’t change their behaviour, what is Trump going to do? The US can’t put enough boots on the ground to defeat Iran in a way that would be beneficial to the US. I wouldn’t want to be a GI in the middle of 80 million pissed of Persians.
Mish. Please educate yourself because you sound the fool. Obama had a private agreement with Iran. Kinda like his many EOs in which obama just made up laws.
There was no treaty with Iran. Too bad obama didn’t take the time to actually follow the Constitutional process.
Any your map with the USSR make you look even more foolish.
“Trump is making a mockery of US treaty agreements on the flimsiest of reasons.”
Congress has long given Presidents the power to negotiate multi-lateral treaties through the United Nations that don’t require Congressional approval. So what Obama did was perfectly legal and acceptable. Which is why no one in Congress tried to sue him for it. If a treaty is made strictly between the US and other countries outside of the United Nations though, you would be perfectly correct.
Funny. I don’t remember Congress authorizing the shipment of billions in cash to be flown in secret to Iran.
The made up obama legacy. And if obama has this power then Trump has the same power.
Call it want you want – it ain’t no treaty.
Stupid is as stupid does, right? I also vehemently object. [Shrug[. Not much anyone can do but to vote straight Dem, in the mid-terms in the hopes that Dems will at least stand-up to Trump and put some roadblocks into his continual attempts to destabilize the world unlike the roll-over Pubs..
I don’t see Trump attempts at better relations with Russia, NK, changes to NATO, and dealing with unfair trade as “destabilizing” the world.
Surprise, surprise: The leader of Iran waited until the last day to decide he is willing to renegotiate after all. As for that “US treaty”, it was never a legitimate treaty. Congress never approved it and after Obama the next president had every legal authority to disavow it. Mish, you should know that. As for Scott Ritter overseeing the disarmament of WMD’s in Iraq, what WMD’s are those pray tell? Is Bush’s lie still being passed around?
I had a much better article describing the blatant stupidy of Trump’s actions but I cannot find it at the moment. The key point is US admin universally says Iran was honoring the deal.
“Our own intelligence agency says the US was honoring the terms. ” I was thinking I should probably change that, but I’ll let you fix it, Mish.
Iran probably was pretty much honoring the deal, because it is a bad deal for the US. Anyway, as for US intel, are you going to believe what they say? Remember intel head Clapper lying to congress? Many more examples of their deceit but not enough room here to list, as you know very well Mish.
Nobody knows whether the deal from the previous administration to open Iran up would have worked and brought about favorable regime change before Iran could develop nukes. This current path is fraught with just as much peril. In the end, the US only conducts two types of foreign policy: liberalism and realism. Both have spotty success records.
The disarmament Scott Ritter was involved in followed right on the heels of the first Iraq war, when Saddam occupied the gas station next door and declared it his long-lost 19th province after he had discovered they were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields. And because the disarmament was so successful, there no longer were any WMDs when Bush junior decided to invade (who of course never expected to find any WMDs anyway, that was just his invasion pretext. The lies were so clumsy they could be seen through from day one. Powell must have felt like a complete fool when he performed in front of the UN under the glare of TV cameras from around the world).
“A bad deal for the US” – in what way, precisely? I have heard Trump utter this very phrase a 100 times or so – but I have yet to hear a detailed explanation.
Here we have a country, many thousands of miles from the US, with a defense budget that is roughly 1% of the US defense budget if memory serves. It cannot possibly threaten the US (it could not even mount a credible threat if it actually did have nuclear weapons). In fact, it was recently quite helpful in kicking ISIS out of Iraq by supporting the rag-tag Iraqi army (which seemed unable to do this on its own).
Lastly, there is no need to rely only on US intel with respect to confirmation that the Iranians have so far stuck to their side of the deal. The same agencies that oversaw the disarmament of Iraq after Gulf War 1 and assured us that there were no WMD prior to GW Bush’s invasion are overseeing Iran’s compliance as well – and they also say that Iran is doing what it agreed to.
Note please that I have zero love for the mullah regime, I firmly believe that the sooner it is gone, the better it will be for Iran and its citizens, but that is their problem. Sanctions per experience help cement the regime’s rule because it can now once again blame its economic mismanagement on outside forces and the majority of the population will always back the government against a foreign enemy – that works the same everywhere.
“what way, precisely?”
Again, there never was a “treaty” with Iran; Obama made an “Executive Agreement” with Iran which everyone knew could be vacated once Obama was out of the way. There are many ways the agreement could be improved to actually accomplish what it was purported to do. In any case, my personal preference would be for the US to just get out of interfering in mideast and African politics.