21 ms·

Skirting U.S. sanctions, Europeans launch trade mechanism for Iran

317 points by betahiker 8y ago

shaki-dora 8y ago
That’s the thing with all the “soft” power the US has: you can maybe use it once or twice to bully allies into doing your bidding. But that’s a terrible way to spent all the good will built over decades of mutually beneficial cooperation.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Some people in the US think that this good will is God given and not the result of decades of hard work so they are very willing to squander it.
colde 8y ago
I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit. This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world. I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this will be enough i don't know, but it seems like a good step forward.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the other side fulfilling its obligations as long as you do. Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.
  - colde 8y ago
    Absolutely. It's completely stupid to go back on a deal when they were upholding their end. It means that there is no point in any country doing long term deals with the US when they know the next president is just going to tear it up if they feel like.
    - zozbot123 8y ago
      IIRC, the whole argument for rejecting the deal is that supposedly there was some hard evidence that Iran was not complying with it as expected. You may think that this purported evidence is BS, but let's not misrepresent positions here.
      - Tomte 8y ago
        Even the current administration admits that Iran is "technically" in compliance. That means theys fulfil all obligations they have signed up to. There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay. The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
  - benj111 8y ago
    You seem to be getting downvoted, I'm not sure why. Anyone care to justify? Edit: Or just downvote me instead.
- fredley 8y ago
  > considering their ongoing Brexit One of the big campaigns for Leave was that the EU was dampening our ability to trade with the rest of the World. I guess maybe not then?
  - ovi256 8y ago
    Do not mistake campaign arguments for facts. They're more of the "arguments as soldiers" variety. It's rational to only care how effective they are at influencing public oppinion, they're not peer reviewed publications.
    - benj111 8y ago
      Where do you stand morally? You may be right, but it's not right
      - ovi256 8y ago
        It doesn't matter where one stands. If you want to fight against, say, the people that run campaigns, you'll have to fight in their chosen arena, that of public oppinion and elections. It's empirically found effective to use "arguments as soldiers" in that arena. If we chose policies through a peer-reviewed search for truth, we wouldn't have this discussion.
        benj111 8y ago
        But then it becomes a race to the bottom. So I think you need some enforcement of standards, whether moral or legal.
        ovi256 8y ago
        And to enforce standards, you better win some elections, right ? And how are you going to win them ?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Let's see in 10 years.
- rv-de 8y ago
  world politics is like a cooperative version of poker where every country is supposed to win occasionally. now trump just decided to just raise all the time and cashing in. but players now realize his hand isn't that strong (no pun intended) most of the time and they will adapt by staying in the game while recoordinating the cooperation. in the end the USA will get a smaller part of the cake than they used to - and that won't improve soon even after Trump due to new arrangements and lost trust.
  - growlist 8y ago
    To an extent, capital now seems to route around barriers similarly to how the internet routes around network problems.
- benj111 8y ago
  Why? This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU. "This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world" Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point in 'rogue' states coming in from the cold, if the US are going to renage on their agreements.
  - sscott 8y ago
    Because it'll be the worse trade deal anybody has signed in the history of the world for Britain.
    - benj111 8y ago
      But it'll also be the best that Britain has, so..... Glass half full, and all that.
- morrbo 8y ago
  Practically speaking, the UK is completely screwed when it gets to choose who to trade with post-brexit. The deal the US will make with the UK will effectively be too good for the US (US hold all the cards) for the UK to have any form of negotiating power. The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK" because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran, they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is my line of thinking anyway.
  - rusk 8y ago
    In terms of trade, how is it exactly they can complement each other? The geography is a bit of an issue for actual physical goods, and I'm not sure what the UK produces that the US needs. Luxury cars maybe, but IIRC most of these marques aren't even owned by the UK any more, except for perhaps the high end. Cheap Bentley's for American oligarchs? Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's a lot of smart people in the US. I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Top exports from the UK to the US, in order, appear to be: cars, pharmaceuticals and mechanical power generators, works of art and refined oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 Interestingly, the UK exports rather a lot more to the US than it imports from there. Edit: What is worrying is that investment in UK car building has drammetically reduced https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufacturing-falls-9-investment-plummets https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufactu...
renholder 8y ago
IA Link[0], for Europeans (like myself), who get "Page Not Found". [0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-sanctions-eu/germany-france-britain-to-launch-mechanism-for-trade-with-iran-idUSKCN1PP0K3 https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reute...
- Luc 8y ago
  Am in Luxembourg, no problem viewing the page. Reuters HQ is in the UK...
- nzbahz 8y ago
  I live in Europe and I can read it, no problem.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
nkozyra 8y ago
Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we keep getting fed. Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent. I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts. I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.
- grecy 8y ago
  I agree. I keep hearing the most wonderful things about the people of Sudan, I can't wait to get there soon and discover for myself!
  - smashcash 8y ago
    The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen. There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good". There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism. Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
      - deleted 8y ago
zozbot123 8y ago
Wouldn't want to lose access to that oil... who cares about preserving the liberal order and not giving an incentive to states to turn rogue? But hey, President Trump is thinking about doing the same thing wrt. the Ukraine, so who am I to complain? Maybe two wrongs can make a right.
- entity345 8y ago
  The Iran regime largely owes its very existence to the way the West (particularly UK and US) behaved towards the country. Do they think that hitting even harder will have any result?
  - oriol11 8y ago
    I became an islamist terrorist state because they forced me to.
    - ric2b 8y ago
      Or maybe all the leaders that weren't awful were forced out.
    - entity345 8y ago
      Foreign intrusion produced a reaction towards a nationalist and traditionalist government. It seems no lesson were learned since...
    - oblio 8y ago
      Umm... if "they" wreck your life completely, you might be tempted to. Go read up Iran's history in the 20th century.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  You do realize that the U.S. and Trump especially is super buddy, buddy with the Saudis and Emiratis, who are almost unquestionably worse, right? You also do realize that the U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships, right? You do realize that the U.S./U.K. orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected leader of Iran, right?
oriol11 8y ago
The idea that European powers move on ethical principles is largely false. You can understand these countries much better when you follow diplomatic and economic ties. Compare the reaction to Salisbury's murder attempt with the demonstrated involvement of Saudi Arabia's king in Kashoggi's murder. Now here you have Iran, with it's sponsoring of Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist activities, who has been involved in plotting terror attacks in Denmark and other ally countries, and is now in a nuclear bomb program for the grace of god, and Europe's best response if first to oppose Trump's isolation and second to try to neutralize it, the way only Chinese and Russians know how to do. Or see the extremely mild support they have given to Venezuela's opposition, despite it being a murderous regime that has left it's population begging around the world. Macrons, Merkels, Mays, you have no credibility as liberal leaders.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  The idea that any government moves on ethical principles is largely false. Even strong constitutional guarantees and a democratic form of government only make countries behave slightly better from a liberal international perspective (and yet, that slight difference does matter quite a bit in the longer run). But this is exactly why sanctions on badly-behaving actors can be important.
- Udik 8y ago
  > and is now in a nuclear bomb program for the grace of god No, it isn't.
- boudin 8y ago
  Don't mistake a country and the regime that is leading it. Is punishing a whole country (so including the population) an efficient way to change a regime behaviour? I'm not sure history proved this right... Just look at Cuba ... Cutting all ties with a country makes the population even more dependant to the actual regime since there's no more direct exchanges with other countries. It also removes some communication bridges would limits the influence of the regime on censorship. Keeping some economical relationship with the country is not giving full support to the regime, but a way to keep an influence. I'm not saying there's no economical interest behind, of course there is, but the "ban" approach is unlikely to change the situation in a good way in the first place.
echofavor 8y ago
Thanks for sharing. You can also share your ideas for free on www.echofavor.com
nabla9 8y ago
The mechanism, as I understand it, is just SWIFT network isolated from exposure to US, USD and banks with exposure to the US. It prevents US justice department from monitoring or preventing transactions. It's my understanding that China has also licensed SWIFT software and will use it to create isolated payment system to shield it's trade with Iran and Russia other countries.
x3tm 8y ago
And yet, they can't reach an agreement with each other. Edit: I meant this as a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, comment re the Brexit negotiations. It was apparently wrong to do so (?). I even took precious time from the fallacy man (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9).
- benj111 8y ago
  The EU (minus Britain) are united. Its just Britain that cant agree with itself.
  - makomk 8y ago
    If there's one thing about Brexit that Britain can agree on, it's that the deal that's being offered by the EU is awful. It lead to the largest House of Commons defeat for a key government bill in history, and it polls terribly with pretty much everyone. That's why the EU (and most of the British press) have been using the fact that May managed to trade some bad parts of their proposal with differently bad replacements to spin the whole thing as the UK's doing. Pundits also like to potray the EU as an inanimate object incapable of culpability for anything and the UK as the only one responsible for changing. Also, we don't even know that most of the EU is united even on Brexit - they've carefully held off their required votes on the Brexit deal until after the UK gets it through Parliament, which doesn't look like happening any time soon.
    - catdog 8y ago
      > it's that the deal that's being offered by the EU is awful. That's because full membership was already the best deal the EU had to offer. A lot of UK politicians seem to live inside a dream world where they think the remaining EU members are obliged to make major concessions without anything in return because a no-deal brexit surely hurts them, a little bit, too. Also the most disliked thing seems to be the backstop, where exactly is the practical alternative proposal for making sure the Good Friday Agreement is not broken?
      - 8y ago
xster 8y ago
Their CFOs better not travel to Canada anytime soon :D
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Yeah, it definitely has the appearance of undercutting the importance of Huawei's alleged actions of breaking sanctions the US has imposed on Iran. Be interesting which side Canada chooses. They might even get a wall out of it.
anonu 8y ago
As America steps back from the world stage, we will see more alliances being forged that exclude the USA. These plans of dissociation have been in motion for some time now. I think two ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a shift in American foreign policy that we are now starting to see play out more frequently. This will continue for many decades.
- mc32 8y ago
  Perhaps, but this is orthogonal to that. This is to sidestep US sanctions. The traditional (not current) left was for disengagement (WTO protests, Iraq protests), it’s strange to see the left now argue for intervention and more internationalism and intervention and hegemony.
  - anonu 8y ago
    In the past, US allies like Germany, France, Britain, would never dream of crossing the US. A trade agreement that effectively promotes the Euro to sidestep the USD is Europe thumbing its nose at the US. Yes, on the face of it, this is about sidestepping sanctions. But the implications of doing so go far deeper. The US posture today basically makes the US weaker in the long run.
- adventured 8y ago
  > As America steps back from the world stage, we will see more alliances being forged that exclude the USA. That's all a fantasy though. The US isn't stepping back from the world stage. Its $20.5 trillion economy is growing twice as fast as the EU's smaller economy. Its $700 billion military isn't going to be reduced in size. The USD is as strong as a global standard as it has been in the last 40 years, it has no serious currency challenger (including the Yuan). The US isn't stopping / abandoning trade. The US isn't leaving NATO. The US isn't reducing its economic or military heft. The US isn't leaving the UN or the security council and giving up its permanent seat. The US isn't ending immigration in any regard. Few of the things people pretend are happening re a step-back & isolationism, are actually happening. Germany + UK + France = $9.5 trillion in economic output, with the combination persistently lagging behind the US in output growth. The global alternatives to the US are all growing weaker, not stronger, with one exception: China. The EU isn't better off today than it was in ~2005, it's weaker. Trump is gone in 2-6 years. He's opposed by nearly the entire political system when it comes to isolationist policies. There is no actual step back occuring and there isn't going to be one. Trump is a fluke one-off as a politician. The next president - which will be a typical politician from inside the system - is guaranteed to follow the same script every other president has since WW2 when it comes to the US global engagement and power projection. When people write that there is a step-back occuring, it's a projection on their part of what they would like to see happen (it often involves an emotion-based fantasy that the US will soon collapse and be humbled as a superpower).
miscreanity 8y ago
I find it interesting that those are the countries where Yellow Vest protests are greatest, where government has been ignoring citizens the most.
- vixen99 8y ago
  Not interesting in the least. You need a re-education course in HN-correct thinking.
pointillistic 8y ago
Honest argument about these issues is no longer possible on HN or elsewhere on the Net. People immediately move into ideological formations and the rational conversation falls away. The down-votes and up-votes have nothing to do with content or even the subject but only with the perceived team. I would ban politically charged conversation on HN, if this was up to me.
- mrep 8y ago
  I don't know about ban, but an automated mechanism which removes up/downvoting anytime their are too many in a thread sounds like a good option to me.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    So that emotionally charged threads become pure shitshows? That's a really bad idea. It would be better to delete the thread then.
- mercer 8y ago
  If we're going to ban people, I propose we start banning users who post whiny, pointless comments first.
anc84 8y ago
We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that destroys the planet.
- jdowongns 8y ago
  Yeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.
  - pmlnr 8y ago
    Numbers, please. Also, starting from the US emissions per capita, it's really not hard to reduce it.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    If you mean with competitive that the US is among the countries with the highest per capita emissions then you are right.
  - realradicalwash 8y ago
    you just gonna throw this out or will you back up your claims by some sources? because looking here[0] tells a very different story. while there has been a reduction since 1980, it has not been "more than any other country". and crucially, per capita emissions are pretty bad in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - thomasahle 8y ago
    I found this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the-us-is-a-leader-in-co2-reduction/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the... Which agrees in total tons. I didn't find anything per capita, or relative to current emissions.
  - Udik 8y ago
    Anyway measuring emissions this way is pointless when the production is simply offshored to other countries.
y04nn 8y ago
Thinking that an embargo is going to solve the problem is misleading and it's only going to make things worst. The population is going to confort themselves that the occidental nations are evil, you give valid arguments to the dictatorial power, only the population is going to suffer. Conversely opening the market creates bounds between countries and opens the population's mind that will impose the democracy by itself.
- blackbrokkoli 8y ago
  What is "the problem"? If you say the embargo solves the problem of fueling a boogeyman enemy to rationalize military spending and fuel nationalism, then I would say it's a quite elegant solution.
m0skit0 8y ago
A "deal" that has near-zero value for both parties where the EU is more trying to save face by showing it is "independent" while trying to not anger the USA anyway by applying other sanctions. IMHO this is a pretty weak move from the EU, and shows that there is no clear driver behind the EU wheel after the souring of US-EU relations.
- ddalex 8y ago
  Lol, what? This deal is entirely designed to cut US out the loop of international payments, one step at a time. It is extremely valuable to EU to able to conduct oil payments with Iran directly in Euro, without the US being able to say no.
  - m0skit0 8y ago
    Did you read the article? "The European trade vehicle was conceived as a way to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods. However, those ambitions have been toned down, with diplomats saying that, realistically, it will be used only for smaller trade, for example of humanitarian products or food." So effectively the EU-Iran trade deal is just a diplomatic move rather than a real trade deal. Also EU companies do not want to risk getting sanctioned by the US by getting into any trade with Iran.
    - cannabis_sam 8y ago
      Still, it’s a diplomatic move that would have been inconceivable (IMHO) under Obama or Bush..
      - m0skit0 8y ago
        Ofc, because with Trump the US-EU relation has got to an all-time low, and now the EU tries to look independent even if it can't but ofc you need to show your voters you are not sold to US interests.
chvid 8y ago
I don't understand how that would prevent the US from sanctioning those banks and companies that trades with Iran? Regardless if they traded through the described mechanism.
- sadris 8y ago
  Correct. The Secretary of State has already said this. You can do business with America. Or do business with Iran. But you can't do business with both.
  - growlist 8y ago
    Beyond mass scale industrial espionage though, what options does the US realistically have if third party countries/trading blocs create a mechanism to hide the trade? Are they going to sanction the EU? Be interesting to see that one play out. It could basically end up with America blacklisting every country outside the US, thus ending up with itself as its only trading partner..
    - sadris 8y ago
      The US has the largest spying apparatus on the planet. And yes, we will and have block trade with nations trading with Iran. The Twitter feed for our ambassador to Germany documents all of these cases and in every instance, they have folded. The reality is that we are 16t worth of trade and Iran is 440b. They're just not worth it.
      - fixvzbdjzis 8y ago
        That’s really the genius of Trumps foreign policy. He knows the heft of the USA and the spinelessness of EU leaders. Which really obviates the only real reason to have the EU - combined, all the EU countries are stronger in any field than the US (or China). That being said the US is a basket case. Sure bully the EU. It’ll work today, maybe ten years from now. But the US is a failing concern, with a completely rotten and corrupt ruling class that lead ppl to vote for an oversized Twinkee for president. World wide hegemony is done in twenty years.
linkmotif 8y ago
Why? Why do they bend over backwards for these people? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-iran-for-foiled-bomb-attack-near-paris https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-... https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-over-planned-europe-attacks/ https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-o... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-two-assassinations-in-netherlands-minister https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-tw... And on and on and on.
gammateam 8y ago
The US acquired the ability to leverage the financial system to enact its will And now it wont It doesnt really matter if you are subscribed to the merit of the US’ claims or not
strictnein 8y ago
Yeah, Iran is just a simple country that doesn't deserve any of this... they treat everyone well, don't subjugate half their population along gender lines, aren't responsible for thousands of US and Iraqi causalities, and don't export terrorism across the region. I know the "America is dumb" line works well on HN, but the naivety of some people here around foreign policy is just kind of staggering. Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it.
- vegardx 8y ago
  Unlike Saudi-Arabia?
  - strictnein 8y ago
    Whataboutism isn't a debate technique.
- femiagbabiaka 8y ago
  Do you know the history of Iran? It was once a very progressive country before we interfered in their government. With expose to global markets for Iranian citizens, it may be again.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    I think you have that backwards. It was another Islamic regime until the west interfered with it. Then it became more progressive due in large part to our interference. Then the Islamists revolted, wanting to regress back to a less progressive state, fearing secularism - which gave us the Islamic state we have today.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      This is getting the details incorrect and ignoring a century of interference. Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.
beezly 8y ago
"Washington says that, although Iran has met the terms, the accord was too generous, failing to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program or curb its regional meddling." - oh the irony!
Zenst 8y ago
Kinda ironic, how Britain managed to organise a trade deal for Iran so quickly with EU neibours and yet utterly unable after years to organise its own trade needs.
- growlist 8y ago
  yeah, I guess it's almost like the EU is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
miscreanity 8y ago
I find it even more interesting that my comment, which is factually correct, has been flagged. The Yellow Vest movement started in France and has been prominent in the countries listed within the article. The governments of those countries have also been defying popular wishes, particularly regarding Brexit. So I am curious as to why my comment should be flagged instead of replied to. Interesting indeed - hit a nerve?

317 points by betahiker 8y ago

That’s the thing with all the “soft” power the US has: you can maybe use it once or twice to bully allies into doing your bidding. But that’s a terrible way to spent all the good will built over decades of mutually beneficial cooperation.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Some people in the US think that this good will is God given and not the result of decades of hard work so they are very willing to squander it.

colde 8y ago

I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit. This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world. I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this will be enough i don't know, but it seems like a good step forward.

shaki-dora 8y ago
It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the other side fulfilling its obligations as long as you do. Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.
- colde 8y ago
  Absolutely. It's completely stupid to go back on a deal when they were upholding their end. It means that there is no point in any country doing long term deals with the US when they know the next president is just going to tear it up if they feel like.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    IIRC, the whole argument for rejecting the deal is that supposedly there was some hard evidence that Iran was not complying with it as expected. You may think that this purported evidence is BS, but let's not misrepresent positions here.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Even the current administration admits that Iran is "technically" in compliance. That means theys fulfil all obligations they have signed up to. There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay. The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
- benj111 8y ago
  You seem to be getting downvoted, I'm not sure why. Anyone care to justify? Edit: Or just downvote me instead.
fredley 8y ago
> considering their ongoing Brexit One of the big campaigns for Leave was that the EU was dampening our ability to trade with the rest of the World. I guess maybe not then?
- ovi256 8y ago
  Do not mistake campaign arguments for facts. They're more of the "arguments as soldiers" variety. It's rational to only care how effective they are at influencing public oppinion, they're not peer reviewed publications.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Where do you stand morally? You may be right, but it's not right
    - ovi256 8y ago
      It doesn't matter where one stands. If you want to fight against, say, the people that run campaigns, you'll have to fight in their chosen arena, that of public oppinion and elections. It's empirically found effective to use "arguments as soldiers" in that arena. If we chose policies through a peer-reviewed search for truth, we wouldn't have this discussion.
      - benj111 8y ago
        But then it becomes a race to the bottom. So I think you need some enforcement of standards, whether moral or legal.
        ovi256 8y ago
        And to enforce standards, you better win some elections, right ? And how are you going to win them ?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Let's see in 10 years.
rv-de 8y ago
world politics is like a cooperative version of poker where every country is supposed to win occasionally. now trump just decided to just raise all the time and cashing in. but players now realize his hand isn't that strong (no pun intended) most of the time and they will adapt by staying in the game while recoordinating the cooperation. in the end the USA will get a smaller part of the cake than they used to - and that won't improve soon even after Trump due to new arrangements and lost trust.
- growlist 8y ago
  To an extent, capital now seems to route around barriers similarly to how the internet routes around network problems.
benj111 8y ago
Why? This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU. "This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world" Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point in 'rogue' states coming in from the cold, if the US are going to renage on their agreements.
- sscott 8y ago
  Because it'll be the worse trade deal anybody has signed in the history of the world for Britain.
  - benj111 8y ago
    But it'll also be the best that Britain has, so..... Glass half full, and all that.
morrbo 8y ago
Practically speaking, the UK is completely screwed when it gets to choose who to trade with post-brexit. The deal the US will make with the UK will effectively be too good for the US (US hold all the cards) for the UK to have any form of negotiating power. The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK" because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran, they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is my line of thinking anyway.
- rusk 8y ago
  In terms of trade, how is it exactly they can complement each other? The geography is a bit of an issue for actual physical goods, and I'm not sure what the UK produces that the US needs. Luxury cars maybe, but IIRC most of these marques aren't even owned by the UK any more, except for perhaps the high end. Cheap Bentley's for American oligarchs? Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's a lot of smart people in the US. I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Top exports from the UK to the US, in order, appear to be: cars, pharmaceuticals and mechanical power generators, works of art and refined oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 Interestingly, the UK exports rather a lot more to the US than it imports from there. Edit: What is worrying is that investment in UK car building has drammetically reduced https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufacturing-falls-9-investment-plummets https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufactu...

renholder 8y ago

IA Link[0], for Europeans (like myself), who get "Page Not Found". [0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-sanctions-eu/germany-france-britain-to-launch-mechanism-for-trade-with-iran-idUSKCN1PP0K3 https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reute...

Luc 8y ago
Am in Luxembourg, no problem viewing the page. Reuters HQ is in the UK...
nzbahz 8y ago
I live in Europe and I can read it, no problem.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nkozyra 8y ago

Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we keep getting fed. Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent. I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts. I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.

grecy 8y ago
I agree. I keep hearing the most wonderful things about the people of Sudan, I can't wait to get there soon and discover for myself!
- smashcash 8y ago
  The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen. There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good". There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism. Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
    - deleted 8y ago

zozbot123 8y ago

Wouldn't want to lose access to that oil... who cares about preserving the liberal order and not giving an incentive to states to turn rogue? But hey, President Trump is thinking about doing the same thing wrt. the Ukraine, so who am I to complain? Maybe two wrongs can make a right.

entity345 8y ago
The Iran regime largely owes its very existence to the way the West (particularly UK and US) behaved towards the country. Do they think that hitting even harder will have any result?
- oriol11 8y ago
  I became an islamist terrorist state because they forced me to.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    Or maybe all the leaders that weren't awful were forced out.
  - entity345 8y ago
    Foreign intrusion produced a reaction towards a nationalist and traditionalist government. It seems no lesson were learned since...
  - oblio 8y ago
    Umm... if "they" wreck your life completely, you might be tempted to. Go read up Iran's history in the 20th century.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
You do realize that the U.S. and Trump especially is super buddy, buddy with the Saudis and Emiratis, who are almost unquestionably worse, right? You also do realize that the U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships, right? You do realize that the U.S./U.K. orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected leader of Iran, right?

oriol11 8y ago

The idea that European powers move on ethical principles is largely false. You can understand these countries much better when you follow diplomatic and economic ties. Compare the reaction to Salisbury's murder attempt with the demonstrated involvement of Saudi Arabia's king in Kashoggi's murder. Now here you have Iran, with it's sponsoring of Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist activities, who has been involved in plotting terror attacks in Denmark and other ally countries, and is now in a nuclear bomb program for the grace of god, and Europe's best response if first to oppose Trump's isolation and second to try to neutralize it, the way only Chinese and Russians know how to do. Or see the extremely mild support they have given to Venezuela's opposition, despite it being a murderous regime that has left it's population begging around the world. Macrons, Merkels, Mays, you have no credibility as liberal leaders.

zozbot123 8y ago
The idea that any government moves on ethical principles is largely false. Even strong constitutional guarantees and a democratic form of government only make countries behave slightly better from a liberal international perspective (and yet, that slight difference does matter quite a bit in the longer run). But this is exactly why sanctions on badly-behaving actors can be important.
Udik 8y ago
> and is now in a nuclear bomb program for the grace of god No, it isn't.
boudin 8y ago
Don't mistake a country and the regime that is leading it. Is punishing a whole country (so including the population) an efficient way to change a regime behaviour? I'm not sure history proved this right... Just look at Cuba ... Cutting all ties with a country makes the population even more dependant to the actual regime since there's no more direct exchanges with other countries. It also removes some communication bridges would limits the influence of the regime on censorship. Keeping some economical relationship with the country is not giving full support to the regime, but a way to keep an influence. I'm not saying there's no economical interest behind, of course there is, but the "ban" approach is unlikely to change the situation in a good way in the first place.

echofavor 8y ago

Thanks for sharing. You can also share your ideas for free on www.echofavor.com

nabla9 8y ago

The mechanism, as I understand it, is just SWIFT network isolated from exposure to US, USD and banks with exposure to the US. It prevents US justice department from monitoring or preventing transactions. It's my understanding that China has also licensed SWIFT software and will use it to create isolated payment system to shield it's trade with Iran and Russia other countries.

x3tm 8y ago

And yet, they can't reach an agreement with each other. Edit: I meant this as a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, comment re the Brexit negotiations. It was apparently wrong to do so (?). I even took precious time from the fallacy man (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9).

benj111 8y ago
The EU (minus Britain) are united. Its just Britain that cant agree with itself.
- makomk 8y ago
  If there's one thing about Brexit that Britain can agree on, it's that the deal that's being offered by the EU is awful. It lead to the largest House of Commons defeat for a key government bill in history, and it polls terribly with pretty much everyone. That's why the EU (and most of the British press) have been using the fact that May managed to trade some bad parts of their proposal with differently bad replacements to spin the whole thing as the UK's doing. Pundits also like to potray the EU as an inanimate object incapable of culpability for anything and the UK as the only one responsible for changing. Also, we don't even know that most of the EU is united even on Brexit - they've carefully held off their required votes on the Brexit deal until after the UK gets it through Parliament, which doesn't look like happening any time soon.
  - catdog 8y ago
    > it's that the deal that's being offered by the EU is awful. That's because full membership was already the best deal the EU had to offer. A lot of UK politicians seem to live inside a dream world where they think the remaining EU members are obliged to make major concessions without anything in return because a no-deal brexit surely hurts them, a little bit, too. Also the most disliked thing seems to be the backstop, where exactly is the practical alternative proposal for making sure the Good Friday Agreement is not broken?
    - 8y ago

xster 8y ago

Their CFOs better not travel to Canada anytime soon :D

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Yeah, it definitely has the appearance of undercutting the importance of Huawei's alleged actions of breaking sanctions the US has imposed on Iran. Be interesting which side Canada chooses. They might even get a wall out of it.

anonu 8y ago

As America steps back from the world stage, we will see more alliances being forged that exclude the USA. These plans of dissociation have been in motion for some time now. I think two ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a shift in American foreign policy that we are now starting to see play out more frequently. This will continue for many decades.

mc32 8y ago
Perhaps, but this is orthogonal to that. This is to sidestep US sanctions. The traditional (not current) left was for disengagement (WTO protests, Iraq protests), it’s strange to see the left now argue for intervention and more internationalism and intervention and hegemony.
- anonu 8y ago
  In the past, US allies like Germany, France, Britain, would never dream of crossing the US. A trade agreement that effectively promotes the Euro to sidestep the USD is Europe thumbing its nose at the US. Yes, on the face of it, this is about sidestepping sanctions. But the implications of doing so go far deeper. The US posture today basically makes the US weaker in the long run.
adventured 8y ago
> As America steps back from the world stage, we will see more alliances being forged that exclude the USA. That's all a fantasy though. The US isn't stepping back from the world stage. Its $20.5 trillion economy is growing twice as fast as the EU's smaller economy. Its $700 billion military isn't going to be reduced in size. The USD is as strong as a global standard as it has been in the last 40 years, it has no serious currency challenger (including the Yuan). The US isn't stopping / abandoning trade. The US isn't leaving NATO. The US isn't reducing its economic or military heft. The US isn't leaving the UN or the security council and giving up its permanent seat. The US isn't ending immigration in any regard. Few of the things people pretend are happening re a step-back & isolationism, are actually happening. Germany + UK + France = $9.5 trillion in economic output, with the combination persistently lagging behind the US in output growth. The global alternatives to the US are all growing weaker, not stronger, with one exception: China. The EU isn't better off today than it was in ~2005, it's weaker. Trump is gone in 2-6 years. He's opposed by nearly the entire political system when it comes to isolationist policies. There is no actual step back occuring and there isn't going to be one. Trump is a fluke one-off as a politician. The next president - which will be a typical politician from inside the system - is guaranteed to follow the same script every other president has since WW2 when it comes to the US global engagement and power projection. When people write that there is a step-back occuring, it's a projection on their part of what they would like to see happen (it often involves an emotion-based fantasy that the US will soon collapse and be humbled as a superpower).

miscreanity 8y ago

I find it interesting that those are the countries where Yellow Vest protests are greatest, where government has been ignoring citizens the most.

vixen99 8y ago
Not interesting in the least. You need a re-education course in HN-correct thinking.

pointillistic 8y ago

Honest argument about these issues is no longer possible on HN or elsewhere on the Net. People immediately move into ideological formations and the rational conversation falls away. The down-votes and up-votes have nothing to do with content or even the subject but only with the perceived team. I would ban politically charged conversation on HN, if this was up to me.

mrep 8y ago
I don't know about ban, but an automated mechanism which removes up/downvoting anytime their are too many in a thread sounds like a good option to me.
- Tomte 8y ago
  So that emotionally charged threads become pure shitshows? That's a really bad idea. It would be better to delete the thread then.
mercer 8y ago
If we're going to ban people, I propose we start banning users who post whiny, pointless comments first.

anc84 8y ago

We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that destroys the planet.

jdowongns 8y ago
Yeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.
- pmlnr 8y ago
  Numbers, please. Also, starting from the US emissions per capita, it's really not hard to reduce it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  If you mean with competitive that the US is among the countries with the highest per capita emissions then you are right.
- realradicalwash 8y ago
  you just gonna throw this out or will you back up your claims by some sources? because looking here[0] tells a very different story. while there has been a reduction since 1980, it has not been "more than any other country". and crucially, per capita emissions are pretty bad in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- thomasahle 8y ago
  I found this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the-us-is-a-leader-in-co2-reduction/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/16/chart-of-the-week-the... Which agrees in total tons. I didn't find anything per capita, or relative to current emissions.
- Udik 8y ago
  Anyway measuring emissions this way is pointless when the production is simply offshored to other countries.

y04nn 8y ago

Thinking that an embargo is going to solve the problem is misleading and it's only going to make things worst. The population is going to confort themselves that the occidental nations are evil, you give valid arguments to the dictatorial power, only the population is going to suffer. Conversely opening the market creates bounds between countries and opens the population's mind that will impose the democracy by itself.

blackbrokkoli 8y ago
What is "the problem"? If you say the embargo solves the problem of fueling a boogeyman enemy to rationalize military spending and fuel nationalism, then I would say it's a quite elegant solution.

m0skit0 8y ago

A "deal" that has near-zero value for both parties where the EU is more trying to save face by showing it is "independent" while trying to not anger the USA anyway by applying other sanctions. IMHO this is a pretty weak move from the EU, and shows that there is no clear driver behind the EU wheel after the souring of US-EU relations.

ddalex 8y ago
Lol, what? This deal is entirely designed to cut US out the loop of international payments, one step at a time. It is extremely valuable to EU to able to conduct oil payments with Iran directly in Euro, without the US being able to say no.
- m0skit0 8y ago
  Did you read the article? "The European trade vehicle was conceived as a way to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods. However, those ambitions have been toned down, with diplomats saying that, realistically, it will be used only for smaller trade, for example of humanitarian products or food." So effectively the EU-Iran trade deal is just a diplomatic move rather than a real trade deal. Also EU companies do not want to risk getting sanctioned by the US by getting into any trade with Iran.
  - cannabis_sam 8y ago
    Still, it’s a diplomatic move that would have been inconceivable (IMHO) under Obama or Bush..
    - m0skit0 8y ago
      Ofc, because with Trump the US-EU relation has got to an all-time low, and now the EU tries to look independent even if it can't but ofc you need to show your voters you are not sold to US interests.

chvid 8y ago

I don't understand how that would prevent the US from sanctioning those banks and companies that trades with Iran? Regardless if they traded through the described mechanism.

sadris 8y ago
Correct. The Secretary of State has already said this. You can do business with America. Or do business with Iran. But you can't do business with both.
- growlist 8y ago
  Beyond mass scale industrial espionage though, what options does the US realistically have if third party countries/trading blocs create a mechanism to hide the trade? Are they going to sanction the EU? Be interesting to see that one play out. It could basically end up with America blacklisting every country outside the US, thus ending up with itself as its only trading partner..
  - sadris 8y ago
    The US has the largest spying apparatus on the planet. And yes, we will and have block trade with nations trading with Iran. The Twitter feed for our ambassador to Germany documents all of these cases and in every instance, they have folded. The reality is that we are 16t worth of trade and Iran is 440b. They're just not worth it.
    - fixvzbdjzis 8y ago
      That’s really the genius of Trumps foreign policy. He knows the heft of the USA and the spinelessness of EU leaders. Which really obviates the only real reason to have the EU - combined, all the EU countries are stronger in any field than the US (or China). That being said the US is a basket case. Sure bully the EU. It’ll work today, maybe ten years from now. But the US is a failing concern, with a completely rotten and corrupt ruling class that lead ppl to vote for an oversized Twinkee for president. World wide hegemony is done in twenty years.

linkmotif 8y ago

Why? Why do they bend over backwards for these people? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-iran-for-foiled-bomb-attack-near-paris https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-... https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-over-planned-europe-attacks/ https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-o... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-two-assassinations-in-netherlands-minister https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-tw... And on and on and on.

gammateam 8y ago

The US acquired the ability to leverage the financial system to enact its will And now it wont It doesnt really matter if you are subscribed to the merit of the US’ claims or not

strictnein 8y ago

Yeah, Iran is just a simple country that doesn't deserve any of this... they treat everyone well, don't subjugate half their population along gender lines, aren't responsible for thousands of US and Iraqi causalities, and don't export terrorism across the region. I know the "America is dumb" line works well on HN, but the naivety of some people here around foreign policy is just kind of staggering. Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it.

vegardx 8y ago
Unlike Saudi-Arabia?
- strictnein 8y ago
  Whataboutism isn't a debate technique.
femiagbabiaka 8y ago
Do you know the history of Iran? It was once a very progressive country before we interfered in their government. With expose to global markets for Iranian citizens, it may be again.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  I think you have that backwards. It was another Islamic regime until the west interfered with it. Then it became more progressive due in large part to our interference. Then the Islamists revolted, wanting to regress back to a less progressive state, fearing secularism - which gave us the Islamic state we have today.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    This is getting the details incorrect and ignoring a century of interference. Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.

beezly 8y ago

"Washington says that, although Iran has met the terms, the accord was too generous, failing to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program or curb its regional meddling." - oh the irony!

Zenst 8y ago

Kinda ironic, how Britain managed to organise a trade deal for Iran so quickly with EU neibours and yet utterly unable after years to organise its own trade needs.

growlist 8y ago
yeah, I guess it's almost like the EU is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

miscreanity 8y ago

I find it even more interesting that my comment, which is factually correct, has been flagged. The Yellow Vest movement started in France and has been prominent in the countries listed within the article. The governments of those countries have also been defying popular wishes, particularly regarding Brexit. So I am curious as to why my comment should be flagged instead of replied to. Interesting indeed - hit a nerve?