French Minister for Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian. Michel Euler/Pool via Reuters
BBC: Iran nuclear deal: France condemns US move to re-impose sanctions
France has condemned as "unacceptable" a US move to re-impose sanctions on companies trading with Iran.
The action from Washington followed President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of a landmark deal that sought to curb Iran's nuclear programme.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said European companies should not have to pay for the US decision.
The US says firms have six months to halt business and cannot enter into new contracts or they will face sanctions.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It looks like the French have made the decision that economic ties with Iran are more important than economic ties with the U.S., and that the EU should set up a European institution (like the U.S. Treasury Department) to penalize foreign companies that do not conform to EU policies .... France to Propose Iran Sanctions-Blocking Measures to EU Parl't - Official (Sputnik).
More News On France Condemning New U.S. Sanctions Against Iran
France urges Europe to push back against 'unacceptable' US sanctions on Iran -- France 24
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran -- Reuters
France: Europe isn't US 'vassal,' should trade with Iran -- Washington Post
France dubs US sanctions on trade with Iran 'unacceptable' -- RFI
France Wants to Defend EU Firms From US Sanctions on Iran - French Minister -- Sputnik
12 comments:
Hell with the French look Hitler's army ran them over caused madness
Afraid to fighting
They hate the fact the US dominate financial institutions. They also despise Trumps values. I wonder if the EU sees the time as right to break the grip of the dollar? China and Russia have been working on that goal for years, maybe they are near convincing the Euros to join?
This is a huge decision for Britain with Brexit looming. But France and Germany may be eager to make the break with DC.
This moment might be a bigger one than just Iran trade vs American trade. It may be about realigning the world banking system away from the dollar so as to greatly undermine US power.
cussing out an ally who was supportive of us since the American Rev is a sure sign of immaturity
Anon # 1,
I tired to respond to your post but my response was to long to post. Time permitting I will try and formulate a more detailed but shorter response later. The case for keeping the JCPOA could be made based upon what you post. Essentially it has been my considered opinion for some time now that the loss of the US dollar as world reserve currency is inevitable and the goal of US leaders needs to be to ensure a "soft landing."
Essentially the JCPOA is a crap sandwich but perhaps we must keep the crap sandwich because the alternatives are worse. Unfortunately those who support this deal aren't making this argument. Instead they are trying to push this as though it is the best thing since warm bread. To do this means leveling with the American people that, yes, this is a crap sandwich that we must accept because the alternatives are worse. In this case, perhaps they will allow us to add some mustard, tomatoes, lettuce, pickles, pickle relish, and even some jalapenos to make this more palatable. Had I been POTUS I probably would have kept the deal based upon this rationale.
DJT has chosen to act on principle rather than political expediency. I hope and pray this is the right decision.
Anon # 2,
I wasn't aware that he "cussed out" French leadership. The American revolution was a long time ago. I think the case could be made that France has not actually been very supportive of us lately. In contrast, America has continued to support France, Germany, and the UK and has done so for many decades while asking precious little and getting less in return. I have long suspected these countries to be adversaries of us who are conspiring against us. If there is a plus side to this, it may now be out in the open. Once out in the open we can then begin to deal with this.
If they would really choose Iran "death to America" over a long time ally, this tells us all we need to know about them. Even Russia appears to be backing away from them. Had someone not insanely made as part of American policy the goal of overthrowing Assad we probably wouldn't be in the position we are in now but this is another topic.
My take on this is similar to the editor's. Those opposed will huff and puff for a little while but we will end up back in negotiations and a new deal will be negotiated that respects America's legitimate concerns and interests. As I stated, I could be wrong and I pray POTUS and his team have made the right decision here.
Obama and our allies had treaty with Iran. That treaty in place, so sanctions removed. Trump breaks treaty. Other nations that signed treaty do not. So, yes, France and others upset.And the sanctions also I believe impact those nations and not just Iran. So, yes, you go your way and they go theirs but they are angry.
cussed out the French nation not the leadership. the leasership on the sanction issue speaks also for French nation
Fred, this was not a treaty as the US traditionally defines them. US law allows the President to negotiate a treaty, however, to be binding the treaty must be approved by 2/3 vote in the Senate. This was not approved be the senate. In addition to not having Repub senator support, 4 dem senators were against the deal. Hence, this wasn't a true treaty in the US, just an executive agreement that could be reversed once a new executive came to power.
Had Obama worked with those repub senators and 4 dem senators to achieve a 2/3 vote, this would have been binding and wouldn't have been able to be reversed by Trump alone (without senate support). What they wanted was thorough inspections, something Iran wouldn't agree to. Unfortunately, instead of walking away from the table with Iran unless they agreed with the inspections, Obama took the shortcut and circumvented the Senate.
France and other EU nations knew this risk from day 1 that Obama signed the deal. This is just fake outrage from them now, to gin up support to make a break from the US.
I will look up the context on this. To express another way, one personally attacks a US POTUS is to personally attack the people who voted for him and by extension the country he represents. They've done this repeatedly. As such, a certain amount of blowback should probably be expected.
Here, here
Well said and factually correct
The main problem with your argument, Fred, is that there is no treaty and never was any treaty re: the Iran deal. It was just another fit of executive overreach by Obama.
The Iran deal was never supported by the American people and certainly not ratified in the senate with a.2/3 majority.
The only thing behind it was an illegitimate billion(s) dollar giveaway. Which the Iranians took laughing all the way to the bank.
"Obama and our allies had treaty with Iran. That treaty in place, so sanctions removed. Trump breaks treat" - FRED
FRED can you give the roll call on the senate vote on the treaty?
Which 67 senators voted for the treaty?
So Bill Clinton gets mulligans on the golf course and a prosecutorial pass for going to orgy island
Obama gets a mulligan on treaty passage. He just needs idiots like Ms. Lindsey and John McShame.
Post a Comment