Mediaboss Marketing

Irans newly chosen president, in his first news conference, on Monday rejected the United States push for a broader deal with the Islamic Republic that would restrict its ballistic missiles program and curb its regional military policies in addition to containing its nuclear program.

President-elect Ebrahim Raisi, a conservative cleric, said that Irans ballistic missiles and its regional policies were nonnegotiable and that he would not meet with President Biden. He called on the United States to comply with a 2015 accord in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions against it.

My serious recommendation to the U.S. government is to immediately return to their commitments, lift all the sanctions and show that they have good will, he said in a briefing with domestic and international reporters in Tehran.

Regional issues and missiles are not negotiable, he said, adding that the United States had not carried through on matters it had negotiated, agreed and committed to.

The comments appeared to signal a hardening of Iranian policies as the conservative faction takes control of all branches of the government: Parliament, the judiciary and soon, the presidency.

Mr. Raisi, who takes office in August, said his administrations policies would be revolutionary and anti-corruption.

While Iran has always insisted that its military capabilities are not up for discussion, the current president, Hassan Rouhani, who is considered moderate, has said he would be willing to meet anyone if it benefited his country. He also said broader negotiations with the United States could be possible under the umbrella of the nuclear deal once the Americans returned to the 2015 accord, which was abandoned in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump, who called it too weak. The Trump administration then imposed some 1,600 sanctions on Iran.

The United States and Iran are holding talks through intermediaries in Vienna about reviving that 2015 agreement. American and Iranian officials familiar with the talks said that an agreement had been drafted and that a deal could be possible in the six weeks that remain before Mr. Raisi takes office.

Mr. Raisis government would benefit from an economic boost if it begins its term with sanctions eased by a renewed deal, as well as access to billions of dollars of frozen funds. Improving the economy and peoples livelihoods was one of Mr. Raisis main campaign pledges.

Mr. Biden has promised to seek a return to the deal, which would remove key sanctions, including those dealing with oil, banking transfers, shipping and insurance, though penalties on conglomerates, charities and individuals accused of human rights violations would remain.

Mr. Raisis pledge to refuse to negotiate on missile and militia issues, which fell outside the 2015 nuclear agreement, was not a surprise, analysts said. It echoed positions he took as a candidate and was in keeping with the views of the countrys supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a hard-liner who sets Irans key policies.

It was quite expected he knows more about what he is not going to do than what he is going to do in terms of any specific plans in foreign policy, said Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. He was just repeating the general positions of the Islamic Republic.

On whether he would meet Mr. Biden, the Iranian president-elect had a one-word answer: No.

Mr. Azizi attributed the striking firmness with which Mr. Raisi rejected the possibility of such a meeting to his lack of a background in diplomacy.

Mr. Raisi, who has been the head of the judiciary for the past 18 months, has no experience in politics or governing. He has spent his career in the legal system as a prosecutor, a judge and the head of the judiciary, with a brief stint as the leader of a powerful and wealthy religious conglomerate.

The tone was not diplomatic, and this is something we are going to see more during his presidency because he has no experience in diplomacy, Mr. Azizi said.

Talal Atrissi, a sociologist at the Lebanese University in Beirut who studies Iran and its regional allies, said Mr. Raisis victory was a blow to reformists and would strengthen Irans ties with its regional militia allies, known as the axis of resistance. These include Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who receive support from Iran and share its anti-Israeli and anti-American stances.

Raisi will stay committed to the axis of resistance, Mr. Atrissi said.

On Monday, Mr. Raisi also declared that Mr. Trumps so-called maximum pressure campaign against Iran had failed.

The president-elect did say that a negotiating team would continue indirect talks in Vienna until his administration took its place. Mr. Raisi said that he supported discussions that secured Irans national interests, but that we will not allow talks for the sake of talks.

He addressed accusations by international rights groups that he has had a dismal record of human rights violations during his time with the judiciary, including involvement in the mass execution of opponents of the government in 1988. That record has brought him sanctions from the United States.

Mr. Raisi said those who are accusing him must answer for their own violations of human rights and called himself a defender of human rights and of peoples security and comfort.

Narges Mohammadi, a prominent human rights activist who was sentenced to 16 years in prison for her campaign to abolish Irans death penalty, reacted to Mr. Raisis comments on her Instagram page. I cannot accept Mr. Raisis presidency as one of the most serious violators of human rights in 42 years, she said,

Mr. Raisi said that he would prioritize improving relations with neighboring countries, and that Iran was willing to restore diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, which collapsed in 2016 after Iranians protesting the kingdoms execution of a prominent Shiite cleric stormed Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been quietly negotiating to restore diplomatic relations.

Mr. Raisi will preside over a government that was elected with a minority of votes in an election process largely viewed as engineered to ensure his win, and over a restive and frustrated population that is seen as capable of exploding into street unrest with the smallest trigger.

Opposition to the result of local City Council election results led to clashes in several provinces on Sunday and Monday. In the city of Yasouj, security forces on motorbikes and on foot beat the crowds with batons and fired gunshots, videos posted on social media showed. In the city of Karoun, protesters gathered outside government buildings shouting that the vote counts were rigged.

Political figures from a reformist faction that is regrouping pointed to the low voter turnout as indicative of Iranians discontent. Former President Mohammad Khatami issued a statement saying he bows his head to all those who did not vote.

The unprecedented lack of voter participation above 50 percent is a sign of people being disillusioned and hopeless, he said. The gap between the people and the governing system should serve as a dangerous warning call to all.

Hwaida Saad contributed reporting.

Link:
Irans Incoming President Vows Tough Line on Missiles and Militias - The New York Times

Saudi foreign minister says he was very concerned about unanswered questions on Irans nuclear programme.

Saudi Arabia will judge Iranian President-elect Ebrahim Raisis government by the reality on the ground, the kingdoms foreign minister has said, adding that Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final say on foreign policy.

Raisi, a hardline judge who secured an expected election victory on Saturday, said on Monday he wanted to improve ties with Gulf Arab neighbours while calling on regional rival Saudi Arabia to immediately halt its intervention in Yemen.

After six years of war, a military coalition led by Riyadh has failed to defeat the Houthi movement in Yemen. Tens of thousands have been killed in the war, which has caused what the UN has described as the worlds worst humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia also opposes the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that Tehran and Washington are trying to revive in indirect talks.

The accord between Iran and world powers, which lifted sanctions on Tehran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme, has been in tatters since the US unilaterally withdrew in 2018 under former President Donald Trump. Since the US pulled out and reimposed harsh sanctions, Iran has gradually lessened its own compliance with the deal.

From our perspective, foreign policy in Iran is in any case run by the supreme leader and therefore we base our interactions and our approach to Iran on the reality on the ground, and that is what we will judge the new government on, regardless of who is in charge, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud told a news conference in Vienna on Tuesday.

He said he was very concerned about unanswered questions on Irans nuclear programme, an apparent reference to the UN nuclear watchdog seeking explanations on the origin of uranium particles found at undeclared sites in Iran.

The current agreement between Iran and the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is set to expire on June 24.

A new interim agreement under which the IAEA is allowed access to Iranian nuclear sites has yet to be announced.

I think its important that even though the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] discussions are ongoing, that these outstanding issues be addressed and be addressed seriously and that we hold Iran accountable for its activities, and hold it to its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty and its commitments to the IAEA, Prince Faisal said.

Saudi Arabia and Gulf allies continue to pressure Iran over its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is entirely peaceful, and its ballistic missile programme. US intelligence agencies and the IAEA believe Iran had a secret, coordinated nuclear weapons programme that it halted in 2003.

In a bid to contain tensions between them, Saudi Arabia and Iran began direct talks in April in the Iraqi capital Baghdad to address several points of contention.

Ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia were cut in 2016 after Iranian protesters attacked Saudi diplomatic missions following the kingdoms execution of a revered Muslim Shia scholar.

The Saudi embassy in Iran shut down in 2016 as relations deteriorated.

Raisi said on Monday that Iran would have no problem with a possible reopening of the Saudi embassy in Tehran and that the restoration of relations faces no barrier.

There are no obstacles from Irans side to re-opening embassies there are no obstacles to ties with Saudi Arabia, he said.

Read more here:
Saudi Arabia to judge Irans Raisi by reality on the ground - Al Jazeera English

Cranes at an oil industry support facility in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, U.S., on Wednesday, April 21, 2021.

Luke Sharrett | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Oil prices rose on Tuesday, with Brent gaining for a fourth consecutive session, as the prospect of extra supply coming to the market soon from Iran faded with talks dragging on over the United States rejoining a nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Brent crude was up by 61 cents, or 0.8%, at $73.47 per barrel, having risen 0.2% on Monday. U.S. oil gained 55 cents, or 0.8%, to $71.43 a barrel, having slipped 3 cents in the previous session.

Indirect discussions between the United States and Iran, along with other parties to the 2015 deal on Tehran's nuclear program, resumed on Saturday in Vienna and were described as "intense" by the European Union.

A U.S. return to the deal would pave the way for the lifting of sanctions on Iran that would allow the OPEC member to resume exports of crude.

It is "looking increasingly unlikely that we will see the U.S. rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal before the Iranian Presidential Elections later this week," ING Economics said in a note.

Other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) along with major producers including Russia a group known as OPEC+ have been withholding output to support prices amid the pandemic.

"Additional supply from OPEC+ will be needed over the second half of this year, with demand expected to continue its recovery," ING said.

To meet rising demand, U.S. drillers are also increasing output.

U.S. crude production from seven major shale formations is forecast to rise by about 38,000 barrels per day (bpd) in July to around 7.8 million bpd, the highest since November, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its monthly outlook.

Read the original:
Oil rises as threat of immediate Iran supply recedes - CNBC

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, resigned to the revival of a nuclear pact with Iran they always opposed, are engaging with Tehran to contain tensions while lobbying for future talks to take their security concerns into account.

World powers have been negotiating in Vienna with Iran and the United States to revive the 2015 deal, under which Tehran agreed to curbs on its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of international sanctions.

The new U.S. administration of President Joe Biden wants to restore the deal, which Washington abandoned under his predecessor, Donald Trump. But Washington's Gulf allies have always said the deal was inadequate because it ignored other issues, such as Iran's missile exports and support for regional proxy fighters.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made clear on Monday that Washington's priority was to get the deal "back in the box" and then use it as a platform to address other questions.

But with Saudi Arabia embroiled in a costly war in Yemen and facing repeated missile and drone attacks on its oil infrastructure which it blames on Iran and its allies, the Gulf States say the wider issues must not be set aside.

"The Gulf countries have said 'fine the U.S. can go back to (the nuclear deal), this is their decision we cannot change it, but...we need everybody to take into account regional security concerns'," Gulf Research Center's Abdulaziz Sager, who has been active in past unofficial Saudi-Iran dialogue, said this week.

Gulf officials worry that they lack the same clout with the Biden administration that they had under Trump. They lobbied to join the Vienna talks, but were rebuffed.

Rather than wait for the outcome in Vienna, Riyadh accepted Iraqi overtures in April to host talks between Saudi and Iranian officials, two sources familiar with the matter said.

"WE NEED TO LIVE WITH THEM"

As the foes suss each other out, Riyadh has said it wants to see verifiable deeds.

Iran holds a number of cards, not least its support for the Houthi movement in Yemen, which the Saudis have failed to defeat after six years of war that exhausted Washington's patience.

"Yemen is a cheap course for Iran and a very expensive one for Saudi Arabia. This gives Iran a strong bargaining position," Sager said.

The UAE, for its part, has already been in regular contact with Iran trying to de-escalate, notably since tankers were attacked off its coast in 2019, a third regional source said.

The priority now for Gulf states is to focus on their economies following COVID-19. But security assurances are an important part of that recovery.

"A (nuclear) deal is better than no deal, but how can you convince the world -- and investors -- that this is a real deal that can stand the test of time?" the third source told Reuters.

Gulf states hope Washington maintains leverage over Tehran by keeping some sanctions, including those designed to punish foreign actors for supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.

Blinken told a congressional committee hearing that a deal could be used "as a platform both to look at whether the agreement itself can be lengthened and if necessary strengthened and also to capture" regional concerns.

The Gulf States remain sceptical. UAE envoy to Washington Yousef Al Otaiba said in April he saw no evidence the nuclear deal would become "a tool where moderates are empowered" in Iran, which holds presidential elections this month dominated by hardliners.

But we need to live with them in peace, Otaiba said. We want non-interference, no missiles, no proxies.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

See original here:
Resigned to a nuclear deal revival, Gulf engages with foe Iran - Reuters

Last week, Politico reported the movement of two Iranian warships apparently on their way to the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. national security officials expressed concern that these ships were bound for Venezuela with cargoes that violate U.S. sanctions on Caracas. Already, Sen. Marco Rubio has called for the United States to prevent the ships arrival. However, any U.S. action against these vessels would be unlawful and undermine a core tenet of the international order: sovereign immunity. The costs of direct action would be severe, exposing the United States to charges of hypocrisy toward the rules-based order and potentially opening U.S. naval vessels to similar treatment by adversaries.

Caracas and Tehran have grown close over the past decade as each has found relief in the other as a safety valve from U.S. sanctions. Trade in oil has been particularly important for the duo, and the United States and its allies have, in recent years, interdicted several cargo vessels under flags of convenience suspected of ferrying Iranian oil in violation of U.S. and European Union sanctions. This time is different. These vessels are part of the Iranian navy. Under international law, Tehran can channel rapper MC Hammer and tell the United States, you cant touch this.

Last week, Politico reported the movement of two Iranian warships apparently on their way to the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. national security officials expressed concern that these ships were bound for Venezuela with cargoes that violate U.S. sanctions on Caracas. Already, Sen. Marco Rubio has called for the United States to prevent the ships arrival. However, any U.S. action against these vessels would be unlawful and undermine a core tenet of the international order: sovereign immunity. The costs of direct action would be severe, exposing the United States to charges of hypocrisy toward the rules-based order and potentially opening U.S. naval vessels to similar treatment by adversaries.

Caracas and Tehran have grown close over the past decade as each has found relief in the other as a safety valve from U.S. sanctions. Trade in oil has been particularly important for the duo, and the United States and its allies have, in recent years, interdicted several cargo vessels under flags of convenience suspected of ferrying Iranian oil in violation of U.S. and European Union sanctions. This time is different. These vessels are part of the Iranian navy. Under international law, Tehran can channel rapper MC Hammer and tell the United States, you cant touch this.

The law of the sea, whether customary or conventional, grants warships and other government ships sovereign immunity. In times of peace, sovereign immunity is a practically all-powerful ward against a foreign states jurisdiction. Exceptions may apply in extreme circumstances involving failed states, fake warships, or weapons of mass destruction.This case, however, is textbook.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines warships as vessels belonging to the armed forces under the command of an officer in the service list and manned by a crew in good order.Both Iranian vessels, an unnamed frigate and the IRINS Makran, both clearly meet the definition of a warship under the U.N. convention.

The U.N. Convention, which the United States believes reflects customary international law, explicitly spells out some of sovereign immunitys power. And on the high seas, sovereign immunity is absolute. Article 95 simply reads: Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Article 96 provides the same absolute immunity to government-owned or operated vessels on the high seas. This right also applies in exclusive economic zones (EEZ) since nothing in that section overrules the provisions.

Even in the territorial sea, sovereign immunity remains a powerful protection. Warships enjoy the right of innocent passage in foreign territorial seas. The coastal state may establish rules for navigational safety but has essentially no power to enforce these regulations on foreign warships that flout traffic separation schemes or the like. As long as the warship is engaged in innocent passage, not threatening the coastal state, the coastal state can, at most, order the warship to leave the territorial sea. Interdiction or arrest are out of the question unless the warship threatens the coastal state, at which point self-defense would be permitted.

Internal waters, such as ports, are not substantially different. A warship would, of course, need the coastal states permission to enter internal waters. Yet even here, where the coastal state has its greatest authority, sovereign immunity retains its power under well-accepted, customary international law. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) affirmed this in 2012s ARA Libertad case. The Libertad is an Argentinian naval vessel that called at Tema, a Ghanaian port, in late 2012. As part of enforcing a U.S. court order over unpaid Argentine sovereign debts, Ghanaian courts ordered the vessel to remain in the harbor, and Ghanaian authorities attempted to board the vessel. In December 2012, ITLOSs judges unanimously ordered Ghana to release the vessel immediately. The majority reasoning noted a warship is an expression of the sovereignty of its flag state and in accordance with general international law, a warship enjoys immunity, including in internal waters.

ITLOS judges Rdiger Wolfrum and Jean-Pierre Cot built an even more robust argument in their concurring opinion. There, they took issue with the majoritys summary reasoning and instead closely examined both proposals relating to internal waters and warships prior to UNCLOS and the language of that convention itself. They ultimately concluded that warships in internal waters enjoy immunity from the exercise of coastal state jurisdiction, which includes immunity from judicial proceedings or any enforcement measure, [and] is well established in customary international law. This principle, the judges noted, was recognized not only by the Institut de Droit International as early as 1898 and again in 1928 but also by various national court cases, including the U.S. Supreme Courts Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and Others.

Nothing changes even if U.S. officials ascertain the vessels are carrying conventional arms that violate U.S. sanctions on Caracas. Consider U.N. Security Council-endorsed sanctions on North Korea. That system includes perhaps the most robust system of sanctions on ship-borne materials and comes with the backing of the five permanent Security Council members (even if Chinas enforcement has been lukewarm). Although silent on sovereign immune vessels, the most recent resolution in 2017 allowed member states to seize, inspect, and freeze any vessel subject to its jurisdiction in its territorial waters. Since customary international law holds that warships during peacetime are never under the jurisdiction of a foreign state, foreign warships are arguably not subject to foreign enforcement actions under these U.N. sanctions.

In this case, so long as the Iranian warships do not threaten use of force, sovereign immunity protects them wherever they arewhether in the high seas, an EEZ, a territorial sea, or internal waters. If conventional arms are aboard, the U.S. enforcement action would merely rest on national sanctions while even the most robust U.N. sanctions may not cover sovereign immune vessels. Likewise, the ARA Libertad precedent clearly demonstrates even if these vessels are forced to request and receive permission to call at a port to replenish their supplies, the United States gains no legal options. The port state remains bound by customary international law.

The United States could ignore the law, as Iran does in the Persian Gulf, but this comes with significant costs. If an attempted enforcement action leads to a U.S. loss before an international court, the United States suffers a humiliating defeat that may embolden Iran. If the enforcement action succeeds both operationally and legally, the United States could put U.S. naval vessels at jeopardy, if, say, China decided U.S. naval vessels supplying arms to Taiwan violated future Chinese sanctions.

A success or failure, U.S. action directly against the Iranian vessels steaming across the Atlantic Ocean will complicate efforts to secure U.S. interests and position the United States as a champion of the international rules-based order. To prevent Irans naval vessels from reaching Venezuela and to advance U.S. interests, the United States should employ diplomacy rather than force and encourage states along the route to deny the Iranian vessels port access if requested. But policymakers and elected officials itching to send in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard would do well to remember MC Hammers basic rule of sovereign immunity: You cant touch this.

Read the original post:
US Can't Touch Iran's Warships Even If They're Violating Venezuelan Sanctions - Foreign Policy