3 ms·

Yes. Read my comment again. Following that US attempt to change longstanding international law is, in turn, illegal in the EU. Companies are indemnified against

Yes. Read my comment again. Following that US attempt to change longstanding international law is, in turn, illegal in the EU. Companies are indemnified against damages, and the EU will presumably try to claw these back if it ever comes so far. Does something in all this need to give? Yes, definitely. Presumably, the US will shy away from trying to enforce. If not, US courts are actually somewhat likely to uphold long-standing precedents in international law, because the only other possible outcome is a completely unworkable quagmire going forward where no company could simultaneously operate in the EU and the US.

Udik 8y ago
Unfortunately, things are not as you describe them. All the major EU companies have ceased their trading with Iran, as risks are too high and of course it's impossible to punish somebody for not trading with a foreign country. The only meaningful thing for the EU to do would be to retaliate by sanctioning US companies and freezing US assets to compensate for the effect of the US sanctions. Which would mean full scale economic war and sanctions on the US, something the EU of course cannot afford.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  The meaningful thing that needs to be done is that Iran needs to solve their government problem. If I recall, the US had to do something like that back in 1776, and Germany had to have some assistance in it back in 1939-41. Growing pains.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Iran had a somewhat democratic government until the US overthrew it and replaced it with a monarch in the 50s. Iran subsequently had another revolution with a total purge of foreign influence in 1979. Subsequently a huge number of Iranians were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, where the US supported Iraq. Modernization can happen, but only if it's not visibly pro US.
    - wukerplank 8y ago
      I can only guess, but I think the parent was being sarcastic, insinuateing that the current US policy towards the Iran points to a new Gulf war.
    - refurb 8y ago
      The US didn’t overthrow the Mossadegh gov’t in a coup. It did back the opposition during a very turbulent time in Iranian history (massive protests against the Mossadegh gov’t), but to say the gov’t would have survived in the absence of US involvement is a major overstatement.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The US didn’t overthrow the Mossadegh gov’t in a coup. On the contrary: In August 2013, sixty years afterward, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
        refurb 8y ago
        Exactly. The CIA aligned itself with already existing groups within Iran to lend assistance in the coup. People act like without the CIA Iran would be some functioning democracy. Iran was a huge mess of competing factions at the time. The Mossadegh gov't would have fallen regardless. The CIA just decided to help out. Very similar to what happened with Vietnam and the Diem regimen.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The CIA aligned itself with already existing groups within Iran to lend assistance in the coup. No, it (and the British who actually started trying to pull off a coup first) paid people and deployed propaganda from multiple different angles, and including false flag operations, to energize multiple, mutually antagonistic factions in order to destabilize the Mossadegh regime; a lot of the anti-Mossadegh opposition was organized crime groups paid by the CIA to put up a front as political opposition. They didn't care about the politics; they did care about the money. Heck, even the Shah—the monarch who superficially seized total power in the coup—was opposed until the CIA threatened to depose him as well if he didn't go along.
cm2187 8y ago
The US don't really have an history of backing down on these matters. I don't see any responsible CEO taking a life or death bet on which will win between the US and the EU.

Udik 8y ago

Unfortunately, things are not as you describe them. All the major EU companies have ceased their trading with Iran, as risks are too high and of course it's impossible to punish somebody for not trading with a foreign country. The only meaningful thing for the EU to do would be to retaliate by sanctioning US companies and freezing US assets to compensate for the effect of the US sanctions. Which would mean full scale economic war and sanctions on the US, something the EU of course cannot afford.

Fjolsvith 8y ago
The meaningful thing that needs to be done is that Iran needs to solve their government problem. If I recall, the US had to do something like that back in 1776, and Germany had to have some assistance in it back in 1939-41. Growing pains.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Iran had a somewhat democratic government until the US overthrew it and replaced it with a monarch in the 50s. Iran subsequently had another revolution with a total purge of foreign influence in 1979. Subsequently a huge number of Iranians were killed in the Iran-Iraq war, where the US supported Iraq. Modernization can happen, but only if it's not visibly pro US.
  - wukerplank 8y ago
    I can only guess, but I think the parent was being sarcastic, insinuateing that the current US policy towards the Iran points to a new Gulf war.
  - refurb 8y ago
    The US didn’t overthrow the Mossadegh gov’t in a coup. It did back the opposition during a very turbulent time in Iranian history (massive protests against the Mossadegh gov’t), but to say the gov’t would have survived in the absence of US involvement is a major overstatement.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The US didn’t overthrow the Mossadegh gov’t in a coup. On the contrary: In August 2013, sixty years afterward, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
      - refurb 8y ago
        Exactly. The CIA aligned itself with already existing groups within Iran to lend assistance in the coup. People act like without the CIA Iran would be some functioning democracy. Iran was a huge mess of competing factions at the time. The Mossadegh gov't would have fallen regardless. The CIA just decided to help out. Very similar to what happened with Vietnam and the Diem regimen.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The CIA aligned itself with already existing groups within Iran to lend assistance in the coup. No, it (and the British who actually started trying to pull off a coup first) paid people and deployed propaganda from multiple different angles, and including false flag operations, to energize multiple, mutually antagonistic factions in order to destabilize the Mossadegh regime; a lot of the anti-Mossadegh opposition was organized crime groups paid by the CIA to put up a front as political opposition. They didn't care about the politics; they did care about the money. Heck, even the Shah—the monarch who superficially seized total power in the coup—was opposed until the CIA threatened to depose him as well if he didn't go along.

cm2187 8y ago

The US don't really have an history of backing down on these matters. I don't see any responsible CEO taking a life or death bet on which will win between the US and the EU.