Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Trump says US ‘moving forward’ with additional sanctions on Iran


yota691
 Share

Recommended Posts

We can now conclusively say the Iran nuke deal was induced by fraud

Comments
Permalink
 
Posted by William A. Jacobson    Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:30pm

By the Obama administration and the Mullah regime.

Netanyahu-Speech-4-30-2018-Iran-Files-e1

We know that the U.S. was defrauded into entering into Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

The first fraud was committed by the Obama administration, which deliberately misled the American people and created an echo chamber to amplify and sustain that fraud.

 

But don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Obama official who coordinated it, Ben Rhodes, who admitted as much in an NY Times interview. See our prior posts, Grand Deception: How Obama and Ben Rhodes Lied Us Into the Iran nuke deal and The Five Deceptions of Obama-Rhodes Echo Chamber

There was a second fraud, by the Iranians. That fraud, which involved hiding and secreting evidence of its advanced nuclear weapons program, was just exposed by thousands of documents and CDs the Israeli Mossad stole from right under the Iranians’ noses at one of its most secret locations, Netanyahu Reveals Newly Discovered and Damning Intel on Iran Nuclear Program.

The echo chamber which supported the Iran nuclear deal has gone into overdrive to try to minimize the importance of what Iran hid from everyone. But as Benny Avni explained in The NY Post, Iran’s past lies are very important now:

Critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Iran Lied” presentation on Monday quickly opined that it contained nothing new and, since it didn’t point to violations since the 2015 Iran deal, it in fact showed Tehran is in full compliance….

Can we really trust we know Iran’s current nuclear status without accounting for what happened in the past? Not according to some who know how nuclear inspections actually work. It’s difficult to say whether Iran is advancing in its nuclear program without completely accounting for what it did before.

As Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a press call shortly before the Iran deal was signed, “When the agreement comes in force, there will be a complete declaration by Iran on its . . . past and current nuclear program. That’s the first prerequisite.”

Well, Iran never actually agreed to make such a declaration. Although the IAEA professionals know such accounting is necessary, American and European negotiators didn’t insist on it.

Instead, they bought generalized public declarations by Iranian officials. As Netanyahu showed in his presentation, those included statements by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Hassan Rouhani and the ever-smiling Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. All said pursuing nuclear bombs is, literally, against their religion.

They lied about their religion. Who could have seen that one coming.

But it goes beyond that. One of the best explanations as to why the deception matters was by David Horovitz, Editor in Chief of The Times of Israel, Derisive response to PM’s exposé shows world still refusing to get real on Iran:

The largely derisive response in most international quarters to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s avalanche of evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program on Monday night, notably from among the nations that negotiated the 2015 nuclear capitulation to Iran, merely underlines their incompetence, their failure, their disingenuousness, and the gravity of the ongoing Iranian threat that they so reprehensibly failed to defuse.

Showcasing the Mossad’s astonishing haul of Iran’s own nuclear weapons documentation, Netanyahu did not seek to claim that Israel had attained smoking gun evidence that Iran has breached the terms of the P5+1’s 2015 agreement with the ayatollahs. The critics sneering at his ostensible failure to produce a post-2015 smoking gun are — most deliberately, as is their wont — missing the point.

Israel does not contend that Iran is breaching the specific terms of that radically inadequate accord. Quite the contrary.

It is Israel’s deeply unhappy assessment that the deal is so negligent, so misconceived, so badly constructed, that the Iranians have no need whatsoever to breach it. (I set out many of the central flaws in the accord at the time it was finalized, in an article headlined “16 reasons nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe.”)

Horovitz goes on to demonstrate why Iran’s now-proven intent on creating nuclear weapons, as it claimed at the time was demonstrated by the supposed fact that it never had a nuclear weapons program, is so important:

No, Israel’s contention is not that Iran is breaching the deal. It is, rather, that this agreement, far from preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons arsenal, paves Iran’s path to it.

And what that haul of Iran’s own documentation conclusively demonstrated is that this is precisely what Iran intends to do. Compelled to freeze the program in 2003, Iran is merely biding its time before resuming nuclear weapons-related activities, empowered by the R&D progress it is being allowed to make under the terms of the accord….

It must have been galling for the P5+1 negotiators and their defenders to watch that irritating Netanyahu strutting around in front of those shelves of files and those racks of CDs, claiming vindication and underlining the negotiators’ scandalous failure.

But the fact is that the 2015 deal was a terrible, misconstructed accord. It let the duplicitous Iranians off the hook. It did not dismantle the weapons program they still lie about. It did not close their path to a nuclear weapons arsenal.

There are many other good takes out there dismantling the Iran Echo Chamber talking points.

At The Washington Examiner, Michael Rubin writes, Iran is a nuclear cheat and the IAEA is a complete failure:

Advocates of the Iran nuclear deal say that Netanyahu’s exposure of 100,000 documents is proof that the Iran deal worked because, they insist, the agreement ended such Iranian work. That is far from clear.

What is worrisome, however, is how proponents of the JCPOA ignore two problems: First is Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s previous insistence that Iran had never worked on nuclear weapons, and second was that former President Barack Obama accepted Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s supposed fatwa against nuclear weapons as evidence that Iran was sincere. In reality, Netanyahu’s bombshell shows both Zarif and Khamenei have lied repeatedly, raising questions about their honesty about every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program.

The bigger problem, and one that should lead to resignations, is with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Contrary to those who argue that Netanyahu’s revelations reveal nothing new, the documents show both that the size and scope of Iran’s program was far greater than the IAEA realized and that Tehran sought illicitly to retain the ability to reconstitute its program. And yet, the IAEA missed the extent of Iran’s nuclear program, all the while giving cover for largely political reasons that the deal was working.

At Ynet News, Ron Ben-Yishai writes:

As for Iran’s current compliance, of course it’s complying. The deal gave Iran the best of all worlds. It weakened U.N. restrictions on its right to develop, test and field ballistic missiles — a critical component for a nuclear weapons capability that the Iranians haven’t fully mastered. It lifted restrictions on Iran’s oil exports and eased other sanctions, pumping billions of dollars into a previously moribund economy. And it allows Iran to produce all the nuclear fuel it wants come the end of the next decade.

Yes, Iran is permanently enjoined from building a nuclear weapon, even after the limitations on uranium enrichment expire. But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?

The U.S. agrees that there is much new material in the materials, as Reuters reported:

The international agreement on limiting Iran’s development of nuclear weapons was reached under false pretenses because the country’s nuclear program was more advanced than it indicated at the time the deal was negotiated in 2015, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Tuesday.

“The problem is the deal was made on a completely false pretense. Iran lied on the front end,” Sanders said at a regular White House briefing. “They were dishonest actors and so the deal that was made was made on things that were not accurate. Particularly the fact that Iran’s nuclear capability were far more advanced and further along than they indicated.”

Netanyahu did the cable news circuit, and explained the importance:

[Alternative YouTube upload here}

We now can conclusively say the Iran Nuclear Deal was induced by fraud by the Obama administration and the Mullah regime.

As a result, Iran is just biding its time, putting all the pieces into place to launch and deliver a nuclear weapon when the deal sunsets. We know that because of the archives obtained by Mossad.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/05/we-can-now-conclusively-say-the-iran-nuke-deal-was-induced-by-fraud/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

European powers urge dialogue as Iran says ready for talks with US if it returns to nuclear deal

A war of words has erupted between US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

 

i24NEWS - AFP

Latest Revision July 14, 2019, 12:02 PM

Nicholas Kamm, HO (AFP/File)

A war of words has erupted between US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

'We are concerned by the risk that the JCPOA further unravels under the strain of sanctions imposed by the US'

Three key European powers on Sunday called for dialogue and an end to the escalation over Iran's nuclear program, as tensions further intensify between Tehran and the United States.

"We think that the moment has come to act in a responsible way and look for ways to stop the escalation of tensions and to resume dialogue," said a statement by the leaders of Britain, France and Germany issued by the Elysee.

"The risks are such that is is necessary that all the parties take a pause and think about the possible consequences of their actions," it added.

At the same time, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday that he was ready to strike up talks with the United States if it agrees to lift the economic sanctions and return to the 2015 nuclear deal. 

“We have always believed in talks … if they lift sanctions, end the imposed economic pressure and return to the deal, we are ready to hold talks with America today, right now and anywhere,” Rouhani said on state television.

Rouhani: US pressure on Iran is ineffective

Play Video

 

The European statement expressed concern that the 2015 deal over Iran's nuclear program risked further unraveling.

"We are concerned by the risk that the JCPOA further unravels under the strain of sanctions imposed by the United States and following Iran's decision to no longer implement several of the central provisions of the agreement," said the three European powers.

"The risks are such that it is necessary for all stakeholders to pause and consider the possible consequences of their actions," it added, though it said it was up to Tehran to ensure the deal survived.

"We are extremely concerned by Iran's decision to stockpile and enrich uranium in excess of authorized limits," it added, also warning over "the deterioration of the security in the region."

The three European powers were among the key players in the 2015 deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear program.

i24NEWS DESK | Iran demands Britain release seized oil tanker | Friday, July 12th 2019

Play Video

But US President Donald Trump in 2018 announced Washington was pulling out of the deal, to the dismay of its European allies.

Angered that its beleaguered economy is not receiving the sanctions relief it believes was promised under the deal, Iran has intensified its sensitive uranium enrichment work, prompting stern warnings from Washington.

The three powers said they would continue to support the nuclear deal but said its implementation "was contingent on Iran's full compliance."

"We strongly urge Iran to reverse its recent decisions in this regard," the statement said.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/1563118845-european-powers-urge-dialogue-as-iran-says-ready-for-talks-with-us-if-it-returns-to-nuclear-deal

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Persian Gulf Conflict Could Send Oil Beyond $325

The possibility of Iran attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic has increased significantly in recent weeks, as has the possibility of a Persian Gulf War, especially with the Islamic Republics’ intentional destruction of a U.S. surveillance drone on June 20.

This act provides weight to Tehran’s threat that it will inflict a heavy toll on U.S. allies in the region if attacked by American forces and will not allow these same countries to export their oil if it can’t export its own.

The memory remains remarkably fresh in Iran of the 1951-53 oil embargo that toppled the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh – and the CIA installing the despot Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the so-called Shah of Iran, in his place.

The impact on oil markets of an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be enormous.

Strait of Hormuz Closure

The leadership of the Iranian Navy and the Revolutionary Guard Navy, knowing they could never challenge the U.S. in a conventional naval contest, have been accumulating considerable asymmetric and other capabilities to enable the Islamic Republic to close the Strait of Hormuz since the “tanker war” in the Persian Gulf during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

These capabilities include thousands of sea mines, torpedoes, advanced cruise missiles, regular-sized and mini-submarines, and a flotilla of small fast-attack boats, most of which are concentrated in the strait region. Related: Oil Prices Set For Worst Weekly Drop In Five Weeks

Pentagon planners believe Iran would use all of these capabilities in an integrated fashion to both disrupt maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and attempt to deny American and allied forces access to the region. Iranian naval forces are viewed as a “credible threat” to international shipping in the strait.

When commanding CENTCOM between 2010 and 2013, former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis developed a multinational plan to minimize disruptions to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz by preventing Iranian efforts to lay mines and systematically clear mines that have been deployed. The focus on mines was due to the assumption that they were the major means to hinder traffic as it is difficult to sink a modern double-hull oil tanker by torpedo or missile attack. A primary goal of the plan is to create ever-larger safe passages through minefields to allow movement of oil tankers to return to pre-crisis levels as quickly as possible.

There is a consensus among U.S. military planners that American and allied forces would ultimately prevail over Iran if it attempted to close the Strait of Hormuz. The most optimistic planners believe U.S.-led forces could reopen the straight within a few days, whereas the least optimistic ones believe it could take up to three months to restore maritime traffic to normal levels.

Of course, hostilities could spread from the Strait of Hormuz to elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region – and a regional war could break out even without Iran first closing the strait – in which case oil and gas production and export infrastructure would suffer significant damage.

If attacked by U.S. and allied forces, or if it believes an attack is imminent, Tehran may choose to launch airstrikes and missiles on American military forces and regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE while it still has the capability to do so. This ‘use them before you lose them’ strategy would largely be based on Saddam Hussein’s experience in Iraq.

Three Scenarios

The impact of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz on global crude prices obviously depends on the amount of oil kept off the world market on a daily basis and the duration of the disruption. Based on the discussion in the previous section, we explore two scenarios that relate directly to the Strait of Hormuz, and a third one that includes a Persian Gulf War.

In the Optimistic Scenario, where the Strait of Hormuz is only closed to commercial traffic for a few days, the impact on global oil supplies would be relatively minimal, but we would still see a brief spike above $100 per barrel due to the initial uncertainty surrounding its outcome. Crude prices would then quickly fall back to pre-crisis levels.

The flow of 20.7 million b/d of crude and petroleum product would be curtailed if the Strait of Hormuz is fully closed, but this would be mitigated by almost 4 million b/d of crude being shipped on currently spare pipeline capacity across Saudi Arabia to Red Sea export facilities and the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition, Saudi Arabia has stored an undisclosed, albeit relatively small amount of crude oil in a number of storage facilities around the world, including Rotterdam in Europe, Okinawa and China in Asia, and the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Under the Pessimistic Scenario, the world’s oil emergency response system would be taxed to its maximum in the first two months of the crisis – assuming the Strait of Hormuz is fully closed for the first 45 days, and a straight line resumption in oil tanker traffic over the next 45 days – leading to historically high crude oil prices on an inflation-adjusted basis for an extended period.

Global strategic oil reserves would be more than enough to cover the shortfall in an overall sense, with 40 percent of the 1.9-billion-barrel total remaining post-crisis, but the rate of daily withdrawal from strategic reserves would pose a challenge.

Previous studies suggest that a maximum of 14.4 million b/d of crude and product could be released from the International Energy Agency (IEA) member country reserves in the first month and roughly 12.5 million b/d in the second month, compared to disruptions of 16.9 million b/d and 15.5 million b/d, respectively, based on our assumptions. Related: The Real Reason Why ExxonMobil Won’t Go Ahead With $53 Billion Iraqi Megaproject

China and India now account for about a fifth of global strategic reserves, and releases from their reserves would contribute to the IEA efforts – whereas commercial inventories around the world now tend to run on a just-in-time basis.

Based on an April 2018 study by the Riyadh-based King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), in a world without spare crude capacity – which in effect would be the case with the Strait of Hormuz closed – oil prices would have spiked above $325 per barrel at the height of the Libyan Crisis in June 2011. For the sake of scale, a mere 60 million barrels were released from IEA country stockpiles during that crisis.

Finally, in a Doomsday Scenario, where there is significant damage to Persian Gulf oil-producing and export infrastructure as well as a three-month closure of the Strait of Hormuz, crude oil prices would rocket into the stratosphere. They would not begin to fall back until the global economy collapses into deep recession. A direct hit on Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq oil processing facility alone could deprive the world market of 7 million b/d for a year or more as the plant is repaired.

The impact of this and other Persian Gulf production losses could be mitigated somewhat by the remaining 40 percent of the world’s strategic reserves, as well as 200 million b/d of crude that Saudi Arabia holds in reserve at home assuming Saudi export facilities remain relatively intact.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

European powers ‘deeply troubled’ by shipping attacks, warn nuclear deal could collapse

1666366-894093434.jpg?itok=71vFEi-z

 

An oil tanker on fire in the Gulf of Oman. (File/AP)

Updated 6 sec ago

REUTERS

July 14, 201917:53

 

Three key European powers called for dialogue and an end to the escalation over Iran's nuclear programme

Rouhani says Tehran ready to talk to US if Washington lifts sanctions and economic pressure and returns to 2015 nuclear deal

 

PARIS/DUBAI: France, Britain and Germany said on Sunday they were preoccupied by the escalation of tensions in the Arabian Gulf region and a risk of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal falling apart, calling for dialogue between all the parties to resume.
The European nations said in a joint statement that following renewed sanctions by the United States on Iran, and Iran's decision to no longer respect some of its obligations, the deal signed on this day four years ago could collapse.
"The risks are such that it is necessary for all stakeholders to pause, and consider the possible consequences of their actions," the joint statement released by the French president's office said.
"We believe that the time has come to act responsibly and to look for ways to stop the escalation of tension and resume dialogue.
"The risks are such that is is necessary that all the parties take a pause and think about the possible consequences of their actions," it added.
This comes as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech on Sunday that Tehran is ready to hold talks with the United States if Washington lifts sanctions and returns to the 2015 nuclear deal it exited last year.

US President Donald Trump’s administration says it is open to negotiations with Iran on a more far-reaching agreement on nuclear and security issues.
But Iran has made any talks conditional on first being able to export as much oil as it did before the United States withdrew from the nuclear pact with world powers in May 2018.
“We have always believed in talks ... if they lift sanctions, end the imposed economic pressure and return to the deal, we are ready to hold talks with America today, right now and anywhere,” Rouhani said in his Sunday speech.
Confrontations between Washington and Tehran have escalated, culminating in a plan for US air strikes on Iran last month that Trump called off at the last minute.
In reaction to US sanctions, which have notably targeted Iran’s main foreign revenue stream in the shape of crude oil exports, Tehran announced in May that it would scale back its commitments under the deal.
Defying a warning by the European parties to the pact to continue its full compliance, Tehran has amassed more low-enriched uranium than permitted and it has started to enrich uranium above the 3.67% permitted by the agreement. “The risks are such that it is necessary for all stakeholders to pause, and consider the possible consequences of their actions,” France, Britain and Germany, who have been trying to salvage the pact by shielding Tehran’s economy from sanctions, said in their statement.
Iranian clerical rulers have said that Tehran will further decrease its commitments if Europeans fail to fulfil their promises to guarantee Iran’s interests under the deal.
The nuclear deal aimed to extend the amount of time it would theoretically take Iran to produce enough fissile material for an atomic bomb — so-called breakout time — from several months to a minimum of one year until 2025.
Iran denies ever having considered developing atomic weapons.

Meanwhile, the US said it has granted a visa to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to attend a UN meeting in New York this week, two sources familiar with the matter said on Sunday, saying Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had approved the decision.
Had Pompeo not approved giving Zarif, Iran’s top diplomat and nuclear negotiator, a US visa it could have been a signal that the United States was trying to further isolate the Islamic Republic.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1525526/middle-east

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Butifldrm said:

Synopsis, we all love reading your analysis of news and events concerning Iran and Iraq.  It takes a lot of effort and I appreciate your hard work immensely.  There is one thing I would like to bring forward about JCPOA and that is that I have always believed Valerie Jarret had a major influence on Obama and that influence could have been a huge push for the Obama Administration to go ahead with such a rediculous deal that is now causing one of the largest threats geopolitically to the World.

 

:twothumbs: Thank You For The Kudo, Butifldrm, AND The Kudo To You As Well AND ALL The Very Best To You!!! :tiphat:

 

It is heart breaking to see the pass that the Insanians, to INCLUDE the Insanian IRGC, have been given since the late 1970s through the Bark Insane Obama Administration to become such a strong State Sponsored Entity of Corruption AND Terrorism in the Muddle East ESPECIALLY threatening AND harassing Israel.

 

It is a Blessing from the LORD that The True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump was and is legitimately elected AND inaugurated as President AND is doing the NECESSARY things to dismantle the JCPOA AND Insanian IRGC AND Insanian Mu lah lahs WHILE FIRST MAKING The United States Of America Military GREAT AGAIN!!!

 

I see a Red Rubymeister gave You one (1) Red Ruby Citation As A Badge Of Honor For YOUR "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power".

 

I've been giving You purple trophies. I hope You don't mind. :lmao:   :lmao:   :lmao:

 

Hey, maybe BABY the Red Rubymeisters WILL bequeath AND bestow upon ME Red Ruby Citations As a Badge Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power"???!!!

 

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU Red Rubymeisters IN ADVANCE For ALL THEE Red Ruby Citations As Badges Of Honor For ME For "Display Of Intellectual Speed And Power"!!!

 

:bravo:   :bravo:   :bravo:

 

Go MAGA!!!

 

Go True The United States Of America Patriot President Donald J Trump!!!

 

Go True The United States Of America Patriots!!!

 

Go Red Rubymeisters!!!

 

Go Moola Nova (YEAH AND YEE HAW, BABY, READY WHEN YOU ARE BROTHER (OR SISTER) - LET 'ER BUCK!!!)!!!

:pirateship:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 scenarios waiting for the oil market if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz

3 scenarios waiting for the oil market if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz

15 July 2019 02:30 PM
Editing: Noha Al-Nahhas

Mubasher: In recent weeks, fears have been raised that Iran is trying to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, with concern about the outbreak of war in the Gulf region in particular after the destruction of a US drone aircraft on June 20.

An analysis by Oil Price indicates that the downing of the American March plane weighed heavily on Iran's previous threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in the case of its attacks by US forces, while not allowing the export of crude across the strait if prevented.

That anniversary is still present in Iran when the oil embargo in 1951-1953 overthrew the elected government of Mohamed Mossadegh and the inauguration of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, known as the Shah of Iran.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have a huge impact on oil markets.

Close the Strait of Hormuz

Iran's naval command and the IRGC since the tankers' wars in the Gulf from 1980 to 1988 have combined capabilities to enable Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz.

These capabilities include thousands of mines, torpedoes and upgraded submarines, as well as submarines of small and small size, most of which were stationed in the Straits.

Pentagon planners believe Iran can use all these capabilities to disrupt sea traffic in the strait and try to prevent US and allied forces from reaching the country. The Iranian navy is seen as a real threat to international shipping in the straits.

From 2010 to 2013, former US Secretary of Defense Jim Matisse set up an international multinational plan to reduce the disruption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz by blocking Iranian efforts to plant mines and demining systematically deployed mines.

The focus on mines was the result of the assumption that it was an essential means of blocking traffic as it was difficult to sink an oil tanker using a torpedo or a rocket attack.

The plan's primary objective is to create safer corridors than ever before to allow oil tankers to return to pre-crisis levels as soon as possible.

There was a consensus among US military planners that US forces and their allies would eventually win over Iran if it tried to close the strait.

The most optimistic planners believe that US-led forces could reopen the straits in a few days, while the less optimistic views it would take 3 months for the return of sea traffic to normal rates.

Of course hostilities can spread from the Strait of Hormuz to other parts of the Gulf region, and regional war can erupt without Iran closing the strait first. In that case, oil, gas and export production could be severely damaged.

3 Scenario of closure

The impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on international oil prices will depend on the amount of oil that will be blocked from the global market on the basis of daily rates and the period of disruption.

There are two scenarios directly linked to the Strait of Hormuz, and the third examines the impact of the possibility of war in the Gulf.

According to the optimistic scenario, which is supposed to close the strait to trade for only a few days, the impact on the global supply of oil will be small, but at the same time we may see a brief jump in oil prices to levels above $ 100 a barrel due to initial uncertainty surrounding the results.

This scenario suggests that prices will then fall rapidly to pre-crisis levels.

Crude oil and petroleum products, which are estimated at 20.7 million barrels per day, could decline in the event of a complete closure of the strait, but this could be mitigated by 4 million bpd being shipped via a backup pipeline through Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea export facilities, Abu Dhabi crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition, Saudi Arabia has stockpiled an undisclosed amount of crude oil in a number of storage facilities around the world, including Rotterdam in Europe, Okinawa, China in Asia, and the Gulf Coast.

As for the pessimistic scenario , the oil market will be traumatized in its highest range during the first two months of the crisis - assuming that the Strait of Hormuz is completely closed for the first 45 days - and resuming a straight line in the movement of oil tankers across the next 45 days leading to higher crude oil prices Adjusted for inflation for historical and long-term levels.

The global strategic oil reserves will be more than enough to cover the deficit in the overall landscape, with 40 percent of the 1.9 billion barrels after the crisis, but the daily drawdown of strategic reserves will be a challenge.

Previous studies have suggested that a maximum limit of crude oil products could be produced from reserves at the International Energy Agency (IEA) at 14.4 million bpd in the first month and 12.5 million bpd in the second month, compared to 16.9 million barrels per day 5 million barrels per day, respectively.

China and India currently account for about one-fifth of the global strategic reserves, and the release of those reserves could contribute to the efforts of the International Energy Agency.

According to a study published in April 2018 by the King Abdullah Center for Petroleum Studies and Research, the existence of a world without oil reserve capacity - which may resemble the same effect as closing the Strait of Hormuz - oil prices will jump to the highest level of $ 325 a barrel, which reminds us of high levels of crude During the Libyan crisis in June 2011.

A total of 60 million barrels per day (bpd) of the IEA's standby capacity was released during the crisis.

The latter scenario assumes a significant destruction of the oil export and production infrastructure in the Gulf region, along with the closure of the strait for a period of three months, and then oil prices will rise by rocket.

Crude prices will only start to fall again as the global economy moves into recession.

The impact of this loss and other production losses in the Arabian Gulf could to some extent be mitigated by the remaining 40 per cent of the world's strategic reserves, as well as 200 million barrels of crude oil held by Saudi Arabia at home assuming that export facilities Saudi Arabia remains relatively intact.

 
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
16238.jpg
 
  

 Arab and international


Economy News _ Baghdad

South Korea did not import crude oil from Iran in June, compared with 686.8 tons imported a year ago, preliminary data from the Korea Customs Authority showed.

South Korea imported 11.5 million tons of crude oil last month, up from 13.1 million tons a year ago, the agency said.

South Korea is the world's fifth largest oil buyer.


Views 24   Date Added 07/15/2019

 
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pompeo is trying to make a "withdrawal" from a Baghdad embassy in Baghdad .. always

 Monday, July 15, 2019 at 14:06 pm (555 views)

Pompeo is trying to make a "withdrawal" from a Baghdad embassy in Baghdad .. always
 

Baghdad / Sky Press

Foreign Secretary Mike Pompeo is trying to make the withdrawal from his country's embassy in Baghdad always, according to Foreign Policy magazine, quoting State Department sources.

In May, Pompeo ordered a partial evacuation of diplomats from the US embassy in Iraq amid escalating tensions with Iran.

At the moment, many State Department officials have indicated that they have been told that the reduction in the number of embassy staff will always be a reality, a move that could leave only a few of the staff of the US Embassy to take on important missions, such as confronting Iran on the diplomatic front, Hundreds of diplomats have been stranded in Washington, without an embassy to return to.

But the spokesman quoted a Foreign Office spokesman as saying that the description of the withdrawal was inaccurate, adding that "no decision has been made on permanent staffing levels, but a review of staff is underway."

However, a senior ministry official familiar with the magazine's internal deliberations said, "They have already made a political decision to not return these people." "But they do not actually describe it as a withdrawal, they just say they are reviewing the departure order," he said.

However, only a small part of its staff are directly engaged in basic diplomatic functions, including political, economic and public diplomacy officials, and the majority are contractors, security personnel or officials from federal agencies Other, including the intelligence community.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington decides to continue the "withdrawal" of most of its diplomatic missions in Iraq for an indefinite period ..

Monday

Washington decides to continue the "withdrawal" of most of its diplomatic missions in Iraq for an indefinite period ..
 

Baghdad / Sky Press

US media quoted a US magazine leaks of officials in the US State Department confirms that Washington decided to continue the withdrawal of most of the members of the diplomatic mission in Iraq indefinitely,

US media said the decision by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in May to withdraw members of the US embassy in Baghdad and bring them back to the United States will last for a long time.

According to the magazine Foreign Policy, today, the administration's plan to escalate with Iran imposed an exceptional diplomatic policy not to return US diplomats to Iraq.

A senior State Department official familiar with the internal deliberations said that the US administration had already made a secret decision not to return its diplomats, but told the Iraqi side that it was reviewing the departure order without any talk of withdrawal from Iraqi territory, while keeping a small part of its staff to basic needs related to relations Political and economic ties with Baghdad, as well as intelligence personnel and officials from other federal agencies.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39714.jpg?watermark=w4

Former adviser to the International Coalition: That's why Iraq is not a priority for Trump

 July 16, 2019 - 4:46

 

0

 

 Number of readings:

  

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq is no longer a priority for US President Donald Trump's administration over Iran, former coalition adviser Kazem al-Waeli said on Tuesday. "Iraq has become part of the problem between Tehran and Washington after he chose the Iranian camp," al-Waeli said in an interview with the Tigris channel. "The armed factions are trying to get Iraq into the US-Iranian conflict," he said. Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said earlier that Iraq wants to maintain balanced relations with everyone and does not want to engage in policy axes.

https://sumer.news/ar/news/39435/مستشار-سابق-في-التحالف-الدولي-لهذا-السبب-العراق-ليس-اولوية-لترامب

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CC0

Iran Semnan oil tankerker

‘If US Decides to Sanction China for Buying Iran’s Oil It Would Impact Them As Well’ – Scholar

 

 

OPINION

09:03 16.07.2019Get short URL
8371

The United States is considering the possibility of imposing sanctions on China due to its importing Iranian oil. In June, China imported more than one million barrels of Iranian crude despite Washington not extending the grace period during which countries can buy Iranian oil without fear of being hit by US sanctions.

The White House believes that China’s actions are undermining strong pressure on Iran. In response, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang stated that China’s cooperation with Iran is legal and Beijing opposes any unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction over its enterprises.

In mid-2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and announced the restoration of all sanctions against the country. In particular, there was supposed to be a total ban imposed on the purchase of Iranian oil and the servicing of all oil transactions. According to the International Energy Agency, for Iran, with the third-largest oil reserves in the world, this is a serious blow. As has been estimated by World Bank experts, in 2018–2019, two-thirds of the total increase in Iran’s GDP was provided by the oil sector.

It is clear that under such conditions, Iran will do its best to find buyers for the country’s oil, as has already happened in previous years during US sanctions. After the re-imposition of sanctions the United States even began to threaten other countries with secondary sanctions if they continue to buy Iranian crude. A number of US allies have already stopped purchasing oil from Tehran. China, however, is apparently not going to give up Iranian oil.

According to the magazine Politico, in June, a tanker loaded with one million barrels of Iranian crude arrived at the port of Qingdao. Another supply – almost two million barrels – passed through the port of Tianjin. The hawks in the US National Security Council are now pushing the United States to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese importing enterprises since Washington believes that China’s actions undermine all American efforts to put maximum pressure on Iran.

If sanctions are imposed this will complicate the already difficult process of trade talksbetween the United States and China. In May, after 11 rounds, the negotiations ended in failure. Only after the meeting of the two heads of state in Osaka was it possible to reach an agreement on the need to resume negotiations.

Nevertheless, so far even the date for a new meeting between negotiators from both sides has not been determined. In such a situation, China should not pander to the whims and caprices of the United States. Whether it’s the Iranian issue or something else, negotiations are already complex and difficult, Li Weijian, a professor of West Asian and African Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies said.

“I think that even without the oil issue, there are still a lot of unresolved problems in the trade talks between the PRC and the United States. But the US is unlikely to place much emphasis on the issue of China buying Iranian oil to put pressure on the PRC during trade negotiations. After all, if the negotiations fail, it will not be only a unilateral sanction against China. It is also important for the United States that the two countries sit down at the negotiating table, it is in their interests. A lot of American, domestic economic issues depend on it. So, the United States, of course, will take into account the situation with Iranian oil, but this will not be the decisive factor. US-China trade is a two-way road and it is also very important for the United States to negotiate. America has already tried to put pressure on China, intimidate us, in order to secure some sort of short-term victories. However, it turned out that China’s position is extremely clear: China is in a better position in all respects than the United States. So, of course, there will be some impact of the issue of purchasing Iranian oil but not at all significant. And if the US decides to impose any sanctions because of this, first of all, it would impact them as well”.

China is the largest market for Iranian oil. According to the information portal TankerTrackers, in April of this year, oil supplies from Iran to China reached a record 913,000 barrels per day. And in the first half of the year, China purchased 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Iran on average, which is more than 40% of the total oil supplied by Iran for export.

In the conditions of sanctions, Iran is trading oil at a discount. And for China, a stable and inexpensive supply of black gold to maintain its slowed economic growth is very important. One can therefore hardly expect that China will refuse the Iranian offer, Li Weijian said.

“I think that in the future it is imperative to continue purchasing Iranian oil. The unilateral US sanctions are internal American rules, and not necessarily the whole world should follow them. Both the IAEA and Iran have repeatedly recognised that Iran is fully implementing the agreement. The fact that China buys oil from Iran is a normal practice. Whereas it is not normal to just stop purchasing. Now many countries are trying to work out a solution on how to keep the Iranian deal, how to resist US sanctions. Europe and a number of other countries are thinking about this. But from Iran’s point of view, they are not doing enough. For Iran, it is important to ensure the uninterrupted shipment of oil for the normal functioning of the economy. And the humanitarian aid provided by some countries is all half measures. Therefore, Iran is now taking certain steps, and the point is not that the country wants to destroy the deal but to put pressure on other countries to help Iran resist the unjust US sanctions. The EU is now trying to help so that Iran does not recede from the previously reached agreements. Otherwise, the Iranian nuclear deal can be considered buried”.

Could it be that the US goal is not the Iranian nuclear programme, but the oil market? The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the overproduction of oil in the world next year. According to the IEA, in the first half of 2019, oil supply exceeded demand by 900,000 barrels per day. Next year, the effectiveness of the OPEC+ deal will become lower, since non-member countries, mainly the United States, will intensively increase production, the IEA study says.

In such a situation, it is important for the US to create a shortage of oil in the market in order to get into this niche with its products in time. According to Reuters, in the first quarter of 2019, Iran exported an average of 1.3 million barrels per day. If this volume leaves the world market overnight, there will be a shortage that can be filled by American shale oil.

Whether US sanctions will affect the world oil market is not yet completely clear. But they have already impacted the nuclear deal. Since 7 July, Iran has started increasing uranium enrichment to above the 3.67 percent set by the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. According to Tehran, the Iranian decision to cut commitments is due to European countries, parties to the nuclear deal, not taking any measures to protect the Islamic Republic from US sanctions.

The views and opinions expressed by the speaker do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201907161076258509-if-us-decides-to-sanction-china-for-buying-irans-oil-it-would-impact-them-as-well--scholar/

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Data showing the disappearance of an Emirati tanker in Iranian waters two days ago

Political | 03:28 - 16/07/2019

 
image
 
 

BAGHDAD - A 
UAE oil tanker disappeared at the time it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz two days ago, according to data released on Monday. 
"Tracking data showed that a UAE tanker was passing through the Strait of Hormuz, drifting towards Iranian waters, and then the signals that have been moving for more than two days disappeared," the Associated Press news agency reported. 
The US agency pointed out that it is not clear so far, what happened to the oil tanker belonging to an Emirati company, although it was flying Panamanian flag, which disappeared from the tracking devices since Saturday night. 
The 58-meter-long RIA tanker flew from Dubai and Sharjah on the western coast of the UAE, before passing through the Strait of Hormuz on its way to the port of Fujairah on the east coast of the UAE and telling the Associated Press.

"The carrier has not changed course in 3 months of flights across the UAE, and has never gone out of the way and has not disappeared from the tracking devices," said Capt. Rangith Raja, of Data Recovery, the Associated Press. 
The UAE and Iran have not released any official statements on the incident, while the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which oversees the waters of the Middle East, declined to comment on the incident. 
The Associated Press said it had tried to contact Dubai-based tanker Prime Tankers, but said they had sold the ship to another company, "The Sea Wave." When the agency spoke to the new company, they said they did not They have any ships or tankers

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US magazine reveals Washington plans on the invasion of Iraq: selling like a cake

Political | 04:32 - 16/07/2019

 
image
 
 

Translation - balances News 
revealed lobelog magazine interested in criticism of US foreign policy, for Washington 's schemes in the invasion of Iraq, and as pointed out that the chorus of foreign policy and military experts and American journalists who criticize President Donald Trump 's administration has reached its peak methods, showed Ana despite divisions Deep political There is broad agreement on this issue. 
She outlined the magazine in an article several points , namely: 
First , the American public mention that the modern war on Iran strikingly resembles the events that led us to the Iraq war, the sanctions, isolation, and the allegations of erroneous nuclear weapons phantom relations with al - Qaeda, the attempts of the first class to justify An unjustifiable war in 2003. These allegations are now directed at Iran. 
Second, the axis of the anti-Iranian novel is the agreement that the Iraq war was a failure
In 2002-03, the Iraq war was sold as a cake, an easy way to overthrow a violent dictatorship and replace it with a liberal democracy in line with American values and interests in the heart of the Middle East. It was supposed to be a cost-free war. Iraq, The cost of the US military and the restoration of its national infrastructure and the truth, of course, turned differently, thousands of American and British soldiers and other soldiers lost their lives or returned home or were subjected to mutilation, shock or suicide. At the same time, the occupation between 2003 and 2011 was so poorly implemented that US forces and their countless private contractors squandered about $ 1.06 trillion in taxpayers' money, but were unable to recover basic electricity in many major urban areas. Iraq.
American treatment of Iraqi prisoners and civilians has contributed to a resurgent rise, which continues to plague the region despite its supposed demise. 
To put it mildly, the original task was inconclusive, and of course, it makes the Americans conservative about a new war against a country that is four times as large as the Earth's mass and doubling the population of Iraq. 
what if? 
But there are two problems, according to the newspaper, first, what if the Iraq war led to a stable democratic state? Is more than one million Iraqis killed in the operation acceptable side damage? Has this "success" stimulated the foreign policy community to support Iran's war now? Or will there be little concern about the illegality of the war and the inherent criminality? In Washington, prominent figures in the Bush-Cheney administration are remembered for claiming that "the boys go to Baghdad, but the real men go to Tehran."
The Iraq war was supposed to be an appetizer. If it really was a "picnic," Iran was on the list, with a large number of fans in the US media and foreign policy. 
More troubling is the unquestionable idea in the United States that the Iraq war was a failure. The Bush administration has sold it as a just war in the pursuit of freedom, liberation and justice for the Iraqi people, as is the current effort on Iran. And certainly from a humanitarian point of view and from the perspective of Iraq itself, it was a terrible failure. But seen through the lens of regional geopolitics, definition of failure and change of success. Here's the scenario to consider.
If Iraq were indeed to become a credible liberal democratic state with its oil revenues and human capital, the country would have become a major regional power. Such a state is likely to be a critical counterpoint to other regional states. For example, it was possible to retreat and challenge the spread of Saudi Wahhabism. Even if it was strongly allied to the United States, would have been closely watching Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and might have taken responsibility on the international scene, forcing Europe and the United States to implement the promise of the Oslo Accords, a democracy and boldness that secular Iraq would have restricted Qatar Or the United Arab Emirates across the region. But Iraq, as it is today, is a faltering and truly fractured state, not only a real threat, but its demise has enabled it to rise. For them, the Iraq war was successful.
Saddam is gone, but nothing threatens to replace him. Not only did America and its allies pay blood and paid the bill, they also became more dependent on Israel and the Gulf states. The formula was irresistible and became the rules of its game for other countries, according to the magazine. 
The war of Libya
In 2012, after a full decade of the Iraq war, when lessons and mistakes were widely known, the Obama administration agreed to unleash the NATO force on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi under the United Nations' "responsibility to protect" mandate. But Libya in the wake of the fall of Gaddafi was worse than Iraq. The United States has not deployed troops and UN peacekeepers have not been sent to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Libyan government. Instead, the world allowed the Gulf states to pump millions of dollars and weapons into the country to finance Islamic parties and extremist militias to varying degrees. Libya is a rich country. If it emerged as a stable democratic state it would have been a moderate force against Saudi Arabia and Israel and could have had a major positive impact throughout Africa. But the promise of democracy or even stability has been thwarted. Instead, like Iraq, it is a divided and shattered nation.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump says 'a lot of progress' made with Iran to defuse crisis

trump

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday "a lot of progress" had been made toward ending a volatile standoff with Iran, with his top diplomat saying Tehran had signaled willingness to negotiate over its disputed ballistic missile program.

He appeared to be reacting to a comment by Iran's foreign minister said Tehran would discuss its missile program after Washington stopped arming allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, something the United States is unlikely to do.

The surprising disclosures came hours after Iran's supreme leader upped the ante in the brewing confrontation by warning Tehran would continue removing restraints on its nuclear activity and retaliate for the seizure of an Iranian oil tanker.

Tensions have spiraled since Trump last year ditched big powers' 2015 nuclear deal with Iran under which it agreed to curtail its nuclear program in return for the lifting of global sanctions crippling its economy.

Washington has since reimposed draconian sanctions to throttle Iran's oil trade in a policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran to agree stricter limits on its nuclear capacity, curb its ballistic missile program and end support for proxy forces in a Middle East power struggle with US-backed Gulf Arabs.

After threats from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate authority, to push on with breaches of the nuclear deal,Trump suggested to a Cabinet meeting at the White House that Iran wanted to talk with its archenemy.

"A lot of progress has been made. We'll see what happens. But a lot of progress has been made," Trump said.

Trump said the Iran nuclear pact agreed under his predecessor Barack Obama was too weak to preventTehran developing atomic bombs. "They can't have a nuclear weapon. We want to help them. We'll be good to them, we'll work with them. We'll help them in any way we can, but they can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not looking, by the way, for regime change."

He added: "They (also) can't be testing ballistic missiles."

US Secretary State Mike Pompeo told the Cabinet meeting at the White House that Iran had signaled it was prepared to negotiate about its ballistic missiles.
"The Iranian regime is struggling to figure out what they're going to do with their economy because we've been terribly effective," Pompeo said.

"And the result is ... frankly, I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before, for the first time the Iranians have said that they're prepared to negotiate about their missile program. So we will have this opportunity, I hope, if we continue to execute our strategy appropriately, we'll have this opportunity to negotiate a deal that will actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

Pompeo appeared to be referring to comments by Iran's foreign minister on Monday in which he said Shi'ite Iran would discuss its missile program only after the United States ceased arming its regional Sunni rivals Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told NBC's "Nightly News with Lester Holt" program that once the Trump administration removed sanctions it has restored since leaving the nuclear deal the "room for negotiation is wide open."

Asked if that could include its ballistic missile program,Zarif replied: "If they want to talk about our missiles, they need, first, to stop selling all these weapons, including missiles, to our region."

There was no immediate comment from Tehran. Iran has repeatedly ruled out negotiating under sanctions duress with Washington. It has long said its ballistic missile program is defensive in nature and non-negotiable.

Fears of direct US-Iranian conflict have risen since May with several attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf, Iran's downing of a US surveillance drone, and a plan for US air strikes on Iran last month that Trump called off at the last minute.

EU KEEN TO HEAD OFF WAR

In a strategy meeting on Monday, European parties to the nuclear deal decided on Monday not to trigger its dispute mechanism over Iran's breaches in favor of pursuing more troubleshooting diplomacy.

But they took no action to shield Iran against Trump's sanctions clampdown as Tehran has demanded in exchange for returning to full compliance with the 2015 deal.

Supreme leader Khamenei accused Britain, Germany and France of failing to uphold obligations under the deal to restore Iranian access to global trade, especially for Tehran's oil exports blocked by US sanctions.

"According to our foreign minister, Europe made 11 commitments, none of which they abided by. We abided by our commitments and even beyond them. Now that we've begun to reduce our commitments, they oppose it. How insolent! You didn't abide by your commitments!" Khamenei said, according to his website.

"We have started to reduce our commitments and this trend shall continue," Khamenei said in remarks carried by state television.

IMPASSE

He has previously upbraided European powers for not standing up to Trump and circumventing his sanctions noose. Russia and China are also parties to the accord.

But it was the first time Khamenei explicitly pledged to press ahead with breaches of the nuclear deal, spurning European appeals to Iran to restore limits on enrichment aimed at obviating any dash to development of atomic bombs.

"So far, efforts to win gestures from Iran to de-escalate the crisis are not succeeding (as) Tehran is demanding the lifting of sanctions on its oil and banking sectors first," a European diplomatic source told Reuters.

Iran denies any intent to acquire nuclear weapons, and has said all its breaches could be reversed if Washington returned to the deal and its economic dividends were realised. Tehran has accused Washington of waging "economic war."

"Western governments' major vice is their arrogance,"Khamenei said. "If the country opposing them is a weak one, their arrogance works. But if it's a country that knows and stands up against them, they will be defeated."

IAEA inspectors last week confirmed Iran is now enriching uranium to 4.5% fissile purity, above the 3.67% limit set by its deal, the second breach in as many weeks after Tehran exceeded limits on its stock of low-enriched uranium.

The level at which Iran is now refining uranium is still well below the 20% purity of enrichment Iran reached before the deal, and the 90% needed to yield bomb-grade nuclear fuel. Low-enriched uranium provides fuel for civilian power plants.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US ‘suspects’ Iran seized UAE based oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz

1669361-28032484.jpg?itok=aBDxBamv

 

LONDON: The US said it suspects Iran has seized an oil tanker that drifted into Iranian waters as it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz.

Ship tracking data shows the Panamanian-flagged oil tanker Riah, which is based in the UAE, stopped transmitting its location on Saturday.

 

 
 

UPDATE: Data from @MarineTraffic showed the Riah oil tanker leave a port near Dubai and pass through the #StraitofHormuz before performing a sharp U-turn, before it stopped transmitting location details late on Saturday https://bit.ly/2NZcnyL 

View image on Twitter
 
 

The incident is the latest involving shipping in the region where tensions between Iran and the US have escalated in recent months. Iran has been accused of planting mines on several tankers as Washington ramps up economic and military pressure on the regime over its nuclear program and aggressive foreign policy in the region.

Iran also threatened to retaliate against shipping after British forces this month helped seize an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar as it attempted to deliver oil to Syria.

A US defense official told AP that Riah is in Iranian territorial waters near Qeshm Island, which has a Revolutionary Guard base on it. He said the US "has suspicions" Iran seized the vessel.

"Could it have broken down or been towed for assistance? That's a possibility," the official said. "But the longer there is a period of no contact ... it's going to be a concern."

The Riah, a 58-meter oil tanker, traveled from a port near Dubai through the Strait of Hormuz toward Fujairah on the UAE's east coast. After 11 p.m. Saturday something happened to the vessel, according to tracking data.

Capt. Ranjith Raja of the data firm Refinitiv told AP that the tanker had not switched off its tracking in three months of trips around the UAE.

"That is a red flag," Raja said. 

An Emirati official told Al Arabiya that the oil tanker is not owned or operated by the UAE and has not sent a distress call.

“We are monitoring the situation with our international partners,” the official said.

The ship's registered owner, Dubai-based Prime Tankers LLC, told AP it had sold the ship to another company.

Iranian officials have not said anything publicly about the ship.

*With AP

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1526531/middle-east

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump tells Iran to ‘get out of Yemen’

1669466-899271827.jpg?itok=uyVVvmat

 

Donald Trump made remarks at a Cabinet meeting in the White House saying progress had been made with Iran, but that the regime should "get

Updated 16 July 2019

ARAB NEWS

July 16, 201919:39

Trump said on Tuesday a lot of progress had been made with Iran and that he was not looking for regime change

Pompeo said at the meeting Iran had said it was prepared to negotiate about its missile program

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday a lot of progress had been made with Iran and that he was not looking for regime change in Tehran, but said the US wanted the Islamic republic to "get out of Yemen."

Trump, who made the remarks at a Cabinet meeting in the White House, did not give details about the progress, but US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at the meeting Iran had said it was prepared to negotiate about its missile program.

After threats from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate authority, to push on with breaches of the nuclear deal, Trump suggested to the Cabinet meeting that Iran wanted to talk with its archenemy.

"A lot of progress has been made. We'll see what happens. But a lot of progress has been made," Trump said.

Trump said the Iran nuclear pact agreed under his predecessor Barack Obama was too weak to prevent Tehran developing atomic bombs. "They can't have a nuclear weapon. We want to help them. We'll be good to them, we'll work with them. We'll help them in any way we can, but they can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not looking, by the way, for regime change."

He added: "They (also) can't be testing ballistic missiles."

US Secretary State Mike Pompeo told the Cabinet meeting at the White House that Iran had signaled it was prepared to negotiate about its ballistic missiles.

"The Iranian regime is struggling to figure out what they're going to do with their economy because we've been terribly effective," Pompeo said.

"And the result is ... frankly, I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before, for the first time the Iranians have said that they're prepared to negotiate about their missile program. So we will have this opportunity, I hope, if we continue to execute our strategy appropriately, we'll have this opportunity to negotiate a deal that will actually prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1526561/middle-east

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.