The EU is encouraging companies to trade with Iran

[Suff]

In direct defiance of US sanctions.

Very laudable. Also totally stupid.

Any director who does as the EU says will find themselves in a jail the second their foot hits US soil. This is a proven fact as the gambling CEO's found out when they were arrested on touching US soil.

No wonder then that Daimler is closing their operations in Iran and others are following suit.

[Workingman]

So, the US is totally 100% right, is it?

The EU, on the other hand, is 100% totally wrong, is it?

I have news for Mr D Trump, citizens of the USA, and other supporters around the world: Not everyone agrees with you.

There are countries and blocs who will still trade with Iran and you, Donny boy, cannot afford not to trade with the RoW.

[Suff]

I know the sentiment WM.

The EU is not totally wrong. However the problem is that the EU commissioner should not be giving this advice without the warning of the consequences. Which are, personally, pretty severe.

Then there are another couple of points to note.

One is that Trump campaigned on this. Which means, essentially, that, under the democratic rules of America (yes I know he got less votes then the other guy), the people of America voted for this action.

How many people voted for the UN deal? 0. Zilch. Nada. None.

The final point is the most poignant of all. The US, under the guise of NATO, underwrites the nuclear security umbrella that the EU lives and thrives under. If they want to emerge as a fully competent nation which does not need the support of the US, then they need to DO it and they need to PAY for it. The most interesting point is that there are only 4 countries in the world which could give the EU the 3 stage weapon technology to create this deterrent. The US, Russia, the UK and China....

I don't agree or disagree with everything Trump says. But I will tell you this. The very LAST place I would put the power of a nuclear weapon, or even a nuclear reactor, is a country who's military and highest laws, are run by a religious zealot.

[Workingman]

Trump did not "camaign" to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran. He scorned it, no doubt about that, but it was not a campaign promise to undo it.

How many people voted for the UN deal? Well, if governments around the world represent their peoples, then plenty.

When it comes to nuclear capabilities Iran has possibly two targets: Saudi Arabia and Israel. The US, Russia, the UK, France and China are not in its sights, nor are Tuvalu or Patagonia,

Daimler had plans for local truck production and cooperation with an Iranian partner but they fell through long before Trump's new sanction moves. It is no big deal.

What Trump's actions might do is create a new N. Korea, but Iran is a different animal. It has friends, influence, a powerful military and industrial complex, and it has oil.

I have a great idea, let's poke them in the ribs with a spike. Sorted.

[Suff]

I know, it's probably not a good idea what Trump is doing. But neither is what the EU commissioner is doing.

If the EU were truly against Trumps sanctions, they would get either France or the UK to raise a complaint at the UN and get a resolution, which the US would have to veto, to censure the US.

France might go for it, then again they might not. The UK most certainly will not do that.

So we are left with a half fanged EU trying to encourage their own citizens to become personally identified by the US as targets for justice.

Not their finest hour.

[Workingman]

Hmm, I thnk that the UN can impose agreed sanctions, I am not sure it can stop an individual member, or even a non member, the EU, opposing sanctions by one member on another member no matter who complains.

Ah but, it's the big bad EU, and as it can never do anything right in the minds of some people it automatically follows that anything the EU stands for is total ballcocks.

[Suff]

The UN can't do anything unless a motion is made and a resolution is agreed.

The original sanctions against Iran were made in the UN and the UN approved them.

The true power of a nation, in the UN, is that the motions need to be made by the Council and the permanent members have a veto.

Had the EU used France to force the US to veto a motion on censuring the US for breaking an UN resolution, I would not have said a word.

I might even have been positive about it. I don't drag the EU down over everything. Just when they act like autocrats or idiots. It is hardly my fault that, mostly, the EU act like autocratic idiots...

I work in a company which has separated the Iranian business due to US sanctions. I am Hyper aware exactly what this commissioner is asking and she should not be doing it.

There are political routes to this end and you cannot solve them with economic actions by individual companies. Any company which follows this "advice" will have broken US criminal law.

The EU expects the rest of the world to respect its own directives (just look at gdpr), yet refuses to recognise the laws of the US.

There are ways of solving this and this recommendation is not it. In the very worst case the EU could threaten to sanction the US. Pity that it has such a huge trade in balance with them isn't it. Otherwise that action might actually have some teeth.

[Suff]

To belabour a point, this is what the EU should have been saying.

The EU, as an advanced observer to the UN, could support Iran in complaining about US actions against a UN resolution. Of course the UK would probably support the US, so that might not work out too well. But it is the right thing to do.

Encouraging directors to make themselves criminally liable, on US soil, is not.

[Workingman]

Suff, you appear to be confusing International sanctions agreed under a resolution of the UN, with bilateral, trilateral or multi-lateral sanctions between countries. They only come into play between the countries concerned and everyone else can opt in, opt out, or remain neutral as they see fit.

US sanction are correctly described: US Sanctions. However, what the US is doing as the largest trading nation is to bully its trading partners into imposing its sanctions on Iran.

The EU and other places disagree, as they are free to do, and are refusing to toe the US line completely. Let us not forget that the EU also has its own sanctions on Iran and it too can only persuade others to comply, but it cannot force them.

UN sanctions were lifted in 2016 after a vote, but they can be reimposed if Iran fails to comply with the agreements. The UN does not currently hold that view.

[Suff]

Not quite.

The US set a precedent when they joined with the entire UN Security council in voting to lift sanctions on Iran as they had "complied enough".

Working through the UN would have put the US out in the cold. Forcing them to Veto any motion to censure due to breaking the prior motion.

Had Trump gone to the UN and challenged the decision and had Russia or China vetoed it, or had the US even been outvoted, Trump would have had a platform to act unilaterally. But he did not.

Leaving the UN Path open, by unilaterally declaring sanctions without first going back to the UN, would leave the US on the back foot and having to veto a motion against the US unilateral sanctions.

The end result is the same. But the way it looks is totally different and it gives more scope to refuse to support the US sanctions. Just because Trump decides to charge off on his own, does not mean the EU has to do the same thing. By doing so, all they did was to prove they are no better than Trump himself. Not an admirable quality.