A gas flare on an oil production platform in the Soroush oil fields is seen alongside an Iranian flag in the Persian Gulf, Iran, July 25, 2005. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi
Reuters: China defies U.S. pressure as EU parts ways with Iranian oil
BEIJING/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - China, seeking to skirt U.S. sanctions, will use oil tankers from Iran for its purchases of that country’s crude, throwing Tehran a lifeline while European companies such as France’s Total are walking away due to fear of reprisals from Washington.
The United States is trying to halt Iranian oil exports in an effort to force Tehran to negotiate a new nuclear agreement and to curb its influence in the Middle East.
China, which has cut imports of U.S. crude amid a trade war with Washington, has said it opposes unilateral sanctions and defended its commercial ties with Iran.
Read more ....
Update: China moves to keep buying Iranian oil despite US sanctions: report (The Hill)
WNU Editor: This hurts .... French oil giant Total officially quits US sanctions-hit Iran (France 24).
11 comments:
There were some 5 nations that made a treaty with Iran. The US under the president broke that treaty. Why should France then go along with the US sanctions?
Anon
No treaty was ever sign. No treaty was voted on by anyone.
It was an understanding. That is all.
That was Iran’s biggest mistake, to hold out for a treaty instead of an agreement. Then again it wouldn’t have been such a cream puff deal for them so they wouldn’t have signed it anyways...still dragging their heels in the 8th century.
Anon, you are really badly mistaken. There is no treaty signed by the US President as no treaty was submitted to the Congress for a up or down vote garnering 67 votes.
Second the agreement is among the 5 nations not including Iran. That's right your "treaty" doesn't include Iran's signature.
The agreement is a binding as an ocean breeze.
Anon,
Research what a treaty is, and what it means in the context of US law.
Hmm, would a blockade of Iranian tankers coming out of the gulf be possible..?
I was wrong. But an understanding, broken by US under Trump, without consultation with allies. That then gave Iran the go ahead to do as they will and so too our allies who did not want us to renege on the understanding. Thus, though I was mistaken in an important detail, overall my position seems valid
Anon,
All of these folks knew that an arrangement like that could be instantaneously changed or completely withdrawn from with a new president; especially one from an opposing party. This is part of everyones calculus; admittedly or not. The deal was absolute shit: completely non binding with bulk concessions made immediately by US/EU for nothing in return. An idealistic "in good faith" move. Obama sought the Iran Deal arrangement for entirely political reasons, with no consideration to real international security/strategy, and because he was the golden child that was coddled by the UE, everyone went with it. Massive sums of money was thrown back at Iran for no actual gain, and Iran was able to significantly increase funding for its proxies and military. Even its nuclear program; the very target of the absurd policy. Also, a lot of private money was invested, mainly from private citizens cozy with EU leaders and a few companies, and now that sanctions will be placed on these individuals/companies if they do business with Iran, these players are all upset because some unfulfilled back door promises on the part of Obama and EU leaders. Great.
Nope, it's not
All I can say is the next several years will be very interesting. Back up a minute and see how two Giants are positioning themselves on the world stage. Don't get caught up in the minutiae of the details; China is really trying to break out of its mold. Just hope all ends well.
good place for a big attack on the sea getting out of control 4 war
Post a Comment