Category Archives: United Nations

European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Society, United Nations, United States

Trump condemned as US withdraws from Iran nuclear deal

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

Walking away: Donald Trump announcing that the US is withdrawing from the Iran deal.

DONALD TRUMP has faced global condemnation after the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

As the President inflamed tensions in the already volatile region, Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel said his decision had been met with “regret and concern”.

In a joint statement, the French, British and German leaders said “the world was a safer place” because of the deal and pledged to remain committed to it.

But Mr Trump said he was walking away from the 2015 pact in order to stop a “nuclear bomb” being acquired by the “world’s leading state sponsor of terror”.

Announcing “powerful” sanctions for Iran, he claimed failing to withdraw from the agreement would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

And he warned that, if Iran developed weapons, Tehran would have “bigger problems then it has ever had before.”

However, Iran’s president responded by saying that if negotiations failed over the nuclear deal, it would enrich uranium “more than before… in the next weeks”.

Mrs May, Mr Macron and Mrs Merkel – who each spoke to the President about the decision over the past few days – said they remained committed to the deal that was “important for our shared security”. They also urged Tehran “to show restraint in response” to the US decision.

In a much anticipated response from the White House, Mr Trump said: “If I allowed this deal to stand there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.

“We cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotting structure of the current agreement. The Iran deal is defective at its core.

“In just a short period of time the world’s leading state sponsor of terror would be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Under the agreement, Iran had agreed to limit nuclear activities in return for easing economic sanctions. Tehran claimed at the time it had pursued only nuclear energy rather than weapons.

But Mr Trump said that, since the deal, “Iran’s bloody ambitions have grown only more brazen” and the pact “didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will”.

The President, who had committed to scrapping the deal during his election campaign, pointed out that Iran had boosted its military expenditure, supported terrorism and “caused havoc” throughout the Middle East and beyond.

He said that he had spoken to France, Germany, Britain and friends across the Middle East who were “unified” in their conviction that Iran must never deliver nuclear weapons. He added: “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail.

“The US no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises I keep them.”

However, the President said he would be open to a new deal in future. Mr Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, who signed the deal, said the “misguided” decision could even lead the US into war.

He said: “At a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away… risks losing a deal that accomplished – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

“We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region.”

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said there was a “short time” to negotiate with the countries remaining in the nuclear deal.

He told Iranian state media: “I have ordered Iran’s atomic organisation that wherever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before.” The UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said he was deeply concerned by the US decision, while the EU’s diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini said Brussels was “determined” to preserve the deal.

Tensions were already heightened after Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu announced that his nations spies had stolen thousands of files on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also said Israel would rather face a confrontation with Iran “now than later”.

 

THE 2015 nuclear deal was signed by Iran, the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany.

The agreement lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to its nuclear energy programme, which many feared would be used to make a nuclear weapon.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to slash enrichment levels of uranium to prevent it reaching “weapons grade” and by redesigning a heavy-water nuclear facility it had been building so it would no longer be capable of producing plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, that it would need to develop a weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted greater access and information to monitor Iran’s nuclear programme. It also had powers to investigate suspicious sites.

In return, the lifting of sanctions meant Iran gained access to more than $100billion in assets frozen overseas. It was also able to resume selling oil on international markets and use the global financial system for trade.

The agreement stated that any violation would lead to UN sanctions being put into place for ten years.

. See also Israel, Iran and the tinderbox of the Middle East

Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Israel, Iran and the tinderbox of the Middle East

ISRAEL-IRAN

Israel is prepared for a direct conflict with Iran if the threat of the regime’s terrorist proxies increases, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned.

TENSIONS between arch-enemies Israel and Iran have once again threatened to plunge the two countries into direct military conflict – one which could lead to a new and terrifying regional war.

Any escalation would drag in other regional major powers such as Saudi Arabia and the Lebanese-backed Shia militia Hezbollah. These proxies are aligned militarily with the Middle East’s two main opposing power brokers, the United States and Russia.

A ferocious Israeli missile strike on alleged Iranian military bases in Syria on Sunday reportedly killed dozens of soldiers. It is certainly true that Israel has launched more than 100 such strikes inside Syria since the bloody and brutal civil war broke out in that country seven years ago. Those strikes have targeted both Iranian and Hezbollah forces sent to the country to help prop up the regime of President Assad. The latest attacks are the most brazen and deadly yet.

Those attacks were then followed by a dramatic claim from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has proof the mullahs in Tehran have secretly been developing nuclear weapons, in blatant contravention of an internationally brokered deal – secured by Barack Obama in 2015 – aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It saw the lifting of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, in return for strictly imposed limitations to the country’s controversial nuclear energy programme.

Mr Netanyahu accused Iran of having a secret plan called ‘Project Amad’, whose primary objective and aim is to produce five ten-kiloton nuclear weapons.

This unverified claim will have been music to the ears of Donald Trump and the anti-Iran hawks the President has surrounded himself with in the White House.

Even before this dramatically theatrical display from Israel, Mr Trump has appeared stubbornly determined to scrap the controversial nuclear deal, because he sees it as being fatally flawed. The deal is still strongly backed by Britain, the EU, Russia, China and the UN-sponsored watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All remain adamant that inspections show Iran has and continues to abide by its principles.

During a visit to the White House last week, French president Emmanuel Macron similarly urged Mr Trump to stick to the agreement. This echoed earlier pleas by Theresa May and Angela Merkel.

But it is apt to ask whether Mr Trump is listening more closely to his old friend Mr Netanyahu?

What we do know is that, as the deadline nears for Mr Trump’s decision on whether to ratify the nuclear deal – due next month – unprecedented threats and counter-threats of death and destruction are being routinely hurled between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

In the past few weeks, each has promised to destroy the other’s major cities if threatened, raising fears that the proxy war they have been waging in Syria may soon explode into a direct military confrontation.

We should remember, too, that over the past few decades Mr Netanyahu has repeatedly, but erroneously, suggested that Iran is just months away from declaring it has developed a nuclear weapon. Still, it is easy to see why he is so paranoid. Since the revolution in 1979 brought the Shia Islam mullahs to power, the Tehran regime has proudly promoted the destruction of Israel as its top foreign policy objective.

Worse for Israel, the civil war in Syria has resulted in thousands of Iranian fighters joining thousands more militia men from Hezbollah, Iran’s main regional Shia ally, which has already fought numerous wars with Israel.

Their ostensible aim was to help Assad fight Islamic State and other Islamist rebel groups, but that brutal experience means they are now battle-hardened. They are armed to the hilt and firmly entrenched right on the Jewish state’s border.

 

UNTIL now, Russia – which is allied with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah, but which has warm relations with Israel – has played a delicate diplomatic balancing act, backing Israel’s enemies while turning a blind eye to the Jewish state attacks against them in Syria.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin recently signalled, however, that his patience with Mr Netanyahu had run out, and he has promised to deliver the advanced S-300 air defence missile system to Assad to help him defend against such aerial attacks. Israel responded by saying that any such system would be destroyed before it could become operational.

It is easy to see, then, why the price of oil is soaring on the back of Mr Netanyahu’s claims. It’s a sign that the international markets are concerned that supply will be disrupted by strife and conflict in the region.

The great fear for diplomats around the world is that, if Mr Trump does decide to withdraw from the nuclear deal and reimposes sanctions, Israel will launch unilateral air strikes against what it says are Iranian nuclear facilities. That would almost certainly provoke a devastating military response – not just from Tehran, but also its allies in Syria and Lebanon.

And if that does happen, it will take a massive effort of will to stop the US and Russia coming to the aid of their allies – at which point the risks of a global conflict will rise sharply. The tinderbox of the Middle East is once again threatening to drag two of the world’s great powers to the edge of the abyss.

How the UN sanctions were lifted in 2015

The 2015 nuclear deal was signed by Iran, Britain, the US, Russia, France, China and Germany.

It lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country’s nuclear energy programme.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to keep its uranium enrichment levels at no more than 3.67 per cent, down from almost 20 per cent. The country’s uranium stockpile was also to be kept at under 300kg (660lbs), which then US President Barack Obama said would see a reduction of 98 per cent.

Tehran also agreed to redesign a heavy-water nuclear facility it had been building that was capable of producing plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb. In return, the lifting of UN sanctions meant Iran stood to gain access to more than $100billion in assets frozen overseas.

It was also able to resume selling oil on international markets.

But if the country violated any part of the deal, the sanctions would ‘snap back’ into place for ten years.

Appendage:

Iran Nuclear Deal

Standard
Government, History, North Korea, Politics, South Korea, United Nations, United States

North Korea: Can Kim Jong-un really be trusted?

KOREAN PENINSULA

WHEN Ronald Reagan was locked in crucial talks with the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the former US president liked to rely on a favourite adage of his: ‘Trust, but verify.’

In the wake of North Korean president Kim Jong-un’s extraordinary peace overtures, the Western world is being asked to trust a tyrant who has murdered his people in their thousands.

As of now, though, we have no way to verify whether he is acting in good faith.

It is, after all, only a few months since Kim’s reckless missile tests, which included firing one rocket capable of bearing a military payload over Japan and into the sea on the other side.

That single reckless act brought us as close to a new Korean War as we have been for some time.

Such relentless belligerence makes his sudden grinning overtures to South Korea’s leader all the more astonishing. The events of the past few days – the hand-holding, the warm speeches, and the language of peace – were all intended to dazzle us. But we cannot afford to be naïve.

Yet, if it is impossible to trust Kim, we should at least attempt to understand his aims. That will help us gauge whether this attempt at rapprochement between North Korea and South Korea is more than superficial. It is claimed by the North Korean leader to be the end of the conflict that stems back to 1950.

The enmity that has riven the Korean peninsula dates to the end of the Second World War, when America and the Soviet Union agreed to split control of the former Japanese colony.

That quickly led to a power grab by North Korea, which invaded the South. American troops led the UN fightback and, although the war ended in 1953, no peace treaty was officially signed.

Since then, North Korea has become ever more isolated, as the Kim dynastic line tightened their grip as dictators. Whatever Kim Jong-un said about peace in the last few days, he has no intention of giving up power now.

 

HIS grandfather, Kim Il-sung, and his father, Kim Jong-Il, dominated their people, but the latest in the family line has shown himself more ruthless – and, some would say, dangerous – than either.

Family rivals have been brutally disposed of. His uncle was savagely executed. He had one cousin burnt alive with a flame thrower, according to South Korean reports. His half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, was assassinated with a nerve agent in February last year.

Many in the West would say we should not deal with such a man, and that any attempt at diplomacy would be immoral. Yet there are historical precedents which suggest otherwise. In 1972, US President Richard Nixon amazed the world by opening diplomatic discussions with China, whose leader Mao Tse-tung was responsible for at least 60million deaths.

Mao was a monster, but by negotiating with him Nixon laid the groundwork for an end to the Vietnam War, and usher in economic changes in China that eventually saw the introduction of capitalism there.

Today, President Donald Trump regards Nixon as a role model, a president who was willing to think the unthinkable. And like Nixon before him, Trump finds it easier than a Democratic president might to engage with Communists, because he will not be suspected of naïve Left-leaning sympathies.

There’s little doubt that Trump’s bombastic dealings with North Korea in recent months have had a part to play in the events of recent days.

His brand of ‘diplomacy’ might have been comical if it were not so inflammatory. His outbursts on Twitter, dubbing Kim the ‘little rocket man’, used the language of the playground. Some might suggest that if there is one thing that unsettles a lunatic, it’s being confronted by an even more powerful lunatic.

The US President’s rationale was that calmly reasoned rhetoric had got his predecessors in the White House precisely nowhere with Pyongyang. The only way of getting through, he felt, was to stick a megaphone against his opponent’s ear, and shout insults. After months of knockabout threats on both sides, Trump suddenly announced last month that he would be willing to meet Kim in May or June to discuss ‘de-nuking’ the Korean peninsula.

That was not the only indication that change was afoot. Mike Pompeo, at the time CIA director, made a secret visit to North Korea over the Easter period when he met Kim, a few days after the North Korean leader visited China for talks.

So, while Kim’s startling proclamations came as a genuine surprise, there have certainly been clues it was becoming a possibility.

In the short term, no doubt, the reduction of tension in the region must be a good thing.

 

THE Japanese will be watching with concern, however, because both North and South Korea view some of Japan’s islands as disputed territory and might wish to reclaim them.

The American have worries, too. Like Trump the Korean leaders talked about ‘denuclearisation’ of the peninsula. But that would also mean the removal of any nuclear weapons the US may have in the region, or even America being asked to dismantle its military bases in the South altogether.

And while Kim might be willing to allow American inspectors in to check that work at his known nuclear facilities has been shut down, it’s ludicrous to suppose he would welcome US oversight across his entire, vast military machine.

As long as some of his Army, comprising more than one million troops, is unseen, we cannot be certain that he is not hiding another atomic weapons programme, as was the case after a similar deal was struck in 1994.

And what about the question of reuniting the two nations, as we saw with East and West Germany in 1990.

The South Koreans want reunification – but not yet. They could certainly never accept Kim as ruler of both countries. And though they are a wealthy nation, the cost of absorbing the destitute North could be economically crippling. Before the two halves of the peninsula are joined up, the South will want to see the establishment of a successful capitalist economy in the North. Can Kim accept an opening up of his backward nation to Western influences, including the internet – which would allow his repressed people to understand for the first time how appallingly they have been treated?

At present, the unrelenting hardship and constant conditions of near-starvation help keep Kim Jong-un’s populace under control. And while he will hope to see Western sanctions on his regime lifted, that doesn’t mean he plans or intends to make his people’s lives any easier.

The West should make an offer to lift sanctions in return for a cast-iron promise to stop his nuclear programme. (In fact, his reckless nuclear testing has made it unsafe for him to detonate another H-bomb at his northern underground test site because it could collapse.)

If Kim Jong-un agrees, then his regime will be allowed to survive – however arduous and horrific that may be for his people.

What the North Korean leader will want to do is welcome President Trump to his capital with a glorious cultural and military spectacle. The American leader will be received by cheering crowds, just as China’s Chairman Mao made sure Richard Nixon was treated like a megastar. We can trust Kim to do that much. The question is, can he be trusted to keep the peace?

Standard