May 10,2018
Malaysia election: Opposition scores historic victory
Mr Mahathir said he hoped a swearing-in ceremony would be held on Thursday
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has scored a historic victory in the country's general election.
The election commission said Mr Mahathir's opposition alliance had won 115 seats, over the threshold of 112 seats needed to form a government.
Mr Mahathir, 92, defeated the governing Barisan Nasional coalition, which has been in power for more than 60 years.
He came out of retirement to take on his former protege, Najib Razak.
"We are not seeking revenge, we want to restore the rule of law," Mr Mahathir told reporters.
He said he hoped a swearing-in ceremony would be held on Thursday. Mr Mahathir will become the oldest elected leader in the world.
Mahathir Mohamad: A political survivor
Najib Razak: Malaysia's tainted political aristocrat
Malaysia country profile
A government spokesman later declared nationwide public holidays for Thursday and Friday.
With only a few seats left to count, official results showed Mr Mahathir's Pakatan Harapan alliance, along with an ally in Sabah state, Borneo, had won 115 seats with BN on 79 seats.
Opposition supporters poured on to the streets in celebration as the results became clear.
Mahathir Mohamad's supporters took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur in celebration
The campaign pitted Mr Mahathir's opposition group against the BN, led by incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The BN and its major party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), have dominated Malaysian politics since the country won independence from Britain in 1957, but the once-powerful coalition has seen its popularity decline in recent years.
In the previous election, in 2013, the opposition made unprecedented gains, winning the popular vote, but it failed to win enough seats to form a government.
In a dramatic turn of events, then-opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was sentenced to five years jail on sodomy charges, which he said were part of a political smear campaign.
Malaysia Elections: A battle of old allies
Could Mahathir Mohamad make a comeback?
Malaysia's youth have power they won't use
Mr Mahathir, who was once an integral part of BN and a mentor to Mr Najib, abandoned the coalition in 2016.
As he left, he said he was "embarrassed" to be associated with a party "that is seen as supporting corruption".
Mr Najib has been embroiled in a corruption scandal, which saw him accused of pocketing some $700m from the 1Malaysian Development Berhad, a state investment fund. He has vehemently denied all allegations and been cleared by Malaysian authorities.
The fund is still being investigated by several countries and Mr Najib has been accused of stifling Malaysian investigations by removing key officials.
Mr Najib (L) was a former protege of Mr Mahathir (C)
The government recently passed a law redrawing election boundaries, leading to accusations that it had gerrymandered constituencies to ensure they were filled by Malay Muslims, who are traditionally BN supporters.
In the days before the poll, election reform group Bersih 2.0 accused the Election Commission (EC) of multiple "electoral crimes", including irregularities in postal voting and failing to remove dead people from the electoral roll.
A controversial fake news law was also recently introduced, which critics say could be used by the authorities to muffle dissent.
Mr Mahathir is himself being investigated under that law after alleging that his plane had been sabotaged.
Malaysians had their fingers marked with indelible ink, showing that they had voted
The government had insisted the election would be free and fair, with Mr Najib saying that the EC acted "for the good of all".
Voters were electing 222 members of parliament as well as state assembly members in 12 of the 13 states.
Malaysia uses a first-past-the-post electoral system, where the party that gets the most seats in parliament wins even if it does not win the popular vote.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Trump says 3 Americans held in North Korea have been released - CNN Politics
Trump says 3 Americans held in North Korea have been released
Zachary Cohen
By Zachary Cohen and Karl de Vries, CNN
Updated 1248 GMT (2048 HKT) May 9, 2018
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea 00:48
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that three Americans held in North Korea have been released and are on their way back home.
"I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health," Trump tweeted.
He added that Pompeo had a "good meeting" with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and said a "date & place set" for a meeting between the two leaders.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.
10:30 PM - May 9, 2018
The President said Pompeo and his "guests" will be arriving at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland at 2 a.m. ET, presumably Thursday, where he will greet them.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Secretary Pompeo and his “guests” will be landing at Andrews Air Force Base at 2:00 A.M. in the morning. I will be there to greet them. Very exciting!
10:35 PM - May 9, 2018
The Americans, Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim, have been held in North Korea for months.
While Kim Dong Chul has been in North Korean custody since before Trump was elected, the other two detainees were arrested last spring, after Trump's inauguration and as tensions between Washington and Pyongyang were beginning to ramp up.
Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song, who were arrested in April and May of 2017, respectively, were both accused of carrying out "hostile acts" against the Kim Jong Un regime. Both worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, which bills itself as the only privately run university in the North Korean capital.
The family members of the two educators have said their loved ones are innocent. Shortly after Kim Hak-song was detained, his wife said in an interview with CNN that her husband is an agricultural expert and was teaching rice-growing at the university, trying to help North Koreans feed themselves.
Kim Dong Chul was arrested in 2015 for spying on behalf of South Korea, he told CNN in January 2016. The interview was conducted in the presence of North Korean officials, so CNN could not determine whether Kim's comments were made under duress.
An official with knowledge of the negotiations previously told CNN that the North Koreans decided to free the Americans two months ago, and that North Korea's foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, had proposed their release during his visit to Sweden in March.
At the time, US officials insisted that their release "must not be related or used to loosen the main issue of denuclearization," the source said, but that message seems to have changed in recent days, according to a source at the National Security Council, who said the development would be viewed as a goodwill gesture ahead of the planned summit with Kim Jong Un.
Trump and his allies outside the government had sought to fan the heightened expectations ahead of Thursday's official announcement, casting the potential development as evidence of his negotiating prowess ahead of the summit.
Trump had hinted at a potential development in their case last week in a tweet: "As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three detainees to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail. Stay tuned!"
He did not mention that two of the Americans had been detained after he became President.
And Rudy Giuliani, a member of Trump's legal team but not himself an employee of the government, teased the release last week as well.
Zachary Cohen
By Zachary Cohen and Karl de Vries, CNN
Updated 1248 GMT (2048 HKT) May 9, 2018
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea 00:48
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that three Americans held in North Korea have been released and are on their way back home.
"I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health," Trump tweeted.
He added that Pompeo had a "good meeting" with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and said a "date & place set" for a meeting between the two leaders.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.
10:30 PM - May 9, 2018
The President said Pompeo and his "guests" will be arriving at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland at 2 a.m. ET, presumably Thursday, where he will greet them.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Secretary Pompeo and his “guests” will be landing at Andrews Air Force Base at 2:00 A.M. in the morning. I will be there to greet them. Very exciting!
10:35 PM - May 9, 2018
The Americans, Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim, have been held in North Korea for months.
While Kim Dong Chul has been in North Korean custody since before Trump was elected, the other two detainees were arrested last spring, after Trump's inauguration and as tensions between Washington and Pyongyang were beginning to ramp up.
Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song, who were arrested in April and May of 2017, respectively, were both accused of carrying out "hostile acts" against the Kim Jong Un regime. Both worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, which bills itself as the only privately run university in the North Korean capital.
The family members of the two educators have said their loved ones are innocent. Shortly after Kim Hak-song was detained, his wife said in an interview with CNN that her husband is an agricultural expert and was teaching rice-growing at the university, trying to help North Koreans feed themselves.
Kim Dong Chul was arrested in 2015 for spying on behalf of South Korea, he told CNN in January 2016. The interview was conducted in the presence of North Korean officials, so CNN could not determine whether Kim's comments were made under duress.
An official with knowledge of the negotiations previously told CNN that the North Koreans decided to free the Americans two months ago, and that North Korea's foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, had proposed their release during his visit to Sweden in March.
At the time, US officials insisted that their release "must not be related or used to loosen the main issue of denuclearization," the source said, but that message seems to have changed in recent days, according to a source at the National Security Council, who said the development would be viewed as a goodwill gesture ahead of the planned summit with Kim Jong Un.
Trump and his allies outside the government had sought to fan the heightened expectations ahead of Thursday's official announcement, casting the potential development as evidence of his negotiating prowess ahead of the summit.
Trump had hinted at a potential development in their case last week in a tweet: "As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three detainees to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail. Stay tuned!"
He did not mention that two of the Americans had been detained after he became President.
And Rudy Giuliani, a member of Trump's legal team but not himself an employee of the government, teased the release last week as well.
Argentina looks be headed for another economic storm - CNBC News
May 9, 2018
Argentina looks be headed for another economic storm
Buenos Aires looks to be going through another economic nightmare, with prices rising rapidly while the Argentine peso drops.
President Macri seems to have struggled to deal with economic issues left by his predecessors and has turned to the IMF for help.
Silvia Amaro | @Silvia_Amaro
Published 42 Mins Ago Updated 19 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
Argentine flags at the Plaza de Mayo, in Buenos Aires.
Argentina has started talks with the International Monetary Fund seeking financial rescue once again, as inflation soars and the currency sinks.
Buenos Aires looks to be going through another economic nightmare, with prices rising rapidly while the Argentine peso drops. The central bank announced last week another increase in rates to 40 percent — as the 12-month inflation rate hit 25.4 percent, above its 15 percent target. At the same time, since the start of the year, the peso is down by more than 20 percent against the U.S. dollar.
"Argentina is still a difficult country and unless they do reforms then it's going to be having issues," Michele Gesualdi, the chief investment officer at Kairos Investment Management, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" Wednesday.
According to Gesualdi, the lack of reforms in the country has deepened the economic problems.
"There was a lot of excitement involving (President Mauricio) Macri, and frankly we were involved for example in the first two years. But then the risk reward wasn't very compelling in fixed income, it was a bit better in equities, but increasingly over the last few quarters Macri has been disappointing investors in terms of not doing the reforms he promised," Gesualdi said.
Macri, from the center-right Republican Proposal, was elected in 2015 on a reformist agenda. However, it seems he has struggled to deal with economic issues left by his predecessors and has turned to the IMF for help.
"The IMF has a terrible reputation among Argentinians, and so this is a big political gamble for the government."
-Fiona Mackie, Regional director for Latin America at the RIU
Graham Stock, an emerging markets senior sovereign strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, said that the decision to turn to the IMF was a "positive step."
"It is certainly a good thing … The central bank has faced challenges in managing the currency and in keeping inflation under control … and the Macri administration has been pursuing a very gradual approach to fiscal adjustment," Stock told CNBC's "Street Signs" Wednesday.
Asking for help from the Fund is a contentious issue for the country. Back in 2001, Argentina defaulted on $132 billion of foreign debt. The Washington-based institution, which was helping the country at the time, admitted shortly after the intervention that its support to keep the peso's peg against the dollar prolonged the crisis in the country.
Agentine peso stability is a reasonable aim, strategist says Agentine peso stability a reasonable aim, strategist says
40 Mins Ago | 03:41
Following Macri's announcement Tuesday, several people protested against a new IMF intervention, still traumatized by the economic collapse at the start of the century, Reuters reported.
"The IMF has a terrible reputation among Argentinians, and so this is a big political gamble for the government," Fiona Mackie, regional director for Latin America at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC via email.
"At present, though, (the government) clearly sees the need to regain the confidence of markets as more pressing, and is hoping that its program of adjustment gets back on track in time for the presidential election late next year," she added.
Meanwhile, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said in a statement Tuesday that Argentina is a "valued member" of the Fund. "Discussions have been initiated on how we can work together to strengthen the Argentine economy and these will be pursued in short order," she said.
In its latest economic assessment of Argentina, the IMF said in December that the country was experiencing a "solid recovery."
"Even in the face of planned fiscal consolidation and ongoing efforts at disinflation, growth is expected to consolidate in the coming years," the IMF report said at the end of last year.
A trader works on the floor of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Diego Giudice | Bloomberg | Getty Images
A trader works on the floor of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
However, the lack of economic reforms and an increasingly tough global environment have complicated the economic issues of Argentina.
"And that gradualism (in fiscal refoms) depended very much on access to external financing. Now in a world of tighter global liquidity, a stronger dollar, that external financing is no longer assured," Stock from BlueBay Asset Management explained.
The dollar has strengthened over the last weeks on political developments and on the back of rising interest rates. A strong dollar is usually negative for emerging markets like Argentina. This is because their currencies are not as competitive and borrowing in dollars will grow their debt pile.
The details of how much the IMF might lend and how that lending will take place are still yet to be finalized.
Argentina looks be headed for another economic storm
Buenos Aires looks to be going through another economic nightmare, with prices rising rapidly while the Argentine peso drops.
President Macri seems to have struggled to deal with economic issues left by his predecessors and has turned to the IMF for help.
Silvia Amaro | @Silvia_Amaro
Published 42 Mins Ago Updated 19 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
Argentine flags at the Plaza de Mayo, in Buenos Aires.
Argentina has started talks with the International Monetary Fund seeking financial rescue once again, as inflation soars and the currency sinks.
Buenos Aires looks to be going through another economic nightmare, with prices rising rapidly while the Argentine peso drops. The central bank announced last week another increase in rates to 40 percent — as the 12-month inflation rate hit 25.4 percent, above its 15 percent target. At the same time, since the start of the year, the peso is down by more than 20 percent against the U.S. dollar.
"Argentina is still a difficult country and unless they do reforms then it's going to be having issues," Michele Gesualdi, the chief investment officer at Kairos Investment Management, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" Wednesday.
According to Gesualdi, the lack of reforms in the country has deepened the economic problems.
"There was a lot of excitement involving (President Mauricio) Macri, and frankly we were involved for example in the first two years. But then the risk reward wasn't very compelling in fixed income, it was a bit better in equities, but increasingly over the last few quarters Macri has been disappointing investors in terms of not doing the reforms he promised," Gesualdi said.
Macri, from the center-right Republican Proposal, was elected in 2015 on a reformist agenda. However, it seems he has struggled to deal with economic issues left by his predecessors and has turned to the IMF for help.
"The IMF has a terrible reputation among Argentinians, and so this is a big political gamble for the government."
-Fiona Mackie, Regional director for Latin America at the RIU
Graham Stock, an emerging markets senior sovereign strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, said that the decision to turn to the IMF was a "positive step."
"It is certainly a good thing … The central bank has faced challenges in managing the currency and in keeping inflation under control … and the Macri administration has been pursuing a very gradual approach to fiscal adjustment," Stock told CNBC's "Street Signs" Wednesday.
Asking for help from the Fund is a contentious issue for the country. Back in 2001, Argentina defaulted on $132 billion of foreign debt. The Washington-based institution, which was helping the country at the time, admitted shortly after the intervention that its support to keep the peso's peg against the dollar prolonged the crisis in the country.
Agentine peso stability is a reasonable aim, strategist says Agentine peso stability a reasonable aim, strategist says
40 Mins Ago | 03:41
Following Macri's announcement Tuesday, several people protested against a new IMF intervention, still traumatized by the economic collapse at the start of the century, Reuters reported.
"The IMF has a terrible reputation among Argentinians, and so this is a big political gamble for the government," Fiona Mackie, regional director for Latin America at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC via email.
"At present, though, (the government) clearly sees the need to regain the confidence of markets as more pressing, and is hoping that its program of adjustment gets back on track in time for the presidential election late next year," she added.
Meanwhile, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said in a statement Tuesday that Argentina is a "valued member" of the Fund. "Discussions have been initiated on how we can work together to strengthen the Argentine economy and these will be pursued in short order," she said.
In its latest economic assessment of Argentina, the IMF said in December that the country was experiencing a "solid recovery."
"Even in the face of planned fiscal consolidation and ongoing efforts at disinflation, growth is expected to consolidate in the coming years," the IMF report said at the end of last year.
A trader works on the floor of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Diego Giudice | Bloomberg | Getty Images
A trader works on the floor of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
However, the lack of economic reforms and an increasingly tough global environment have complicated the economic issues of Argentina.
"And that gradualism (in fiscal refoms) depended very much on access to external financing. Now in a world of tighter global liquidity, a stronger dollar, that external financing is no longer assured," Stock from BlueBay Asset Management explained.
The dollar has strengthened over the last weeks on political developments and on the back of rising interest rates. A strong dollar is usually negative for emerging markets like Argentina. This is because their currencies are not as competitive and borrowing in dollars will grow their debt pile.
The details of how much the IMF might lend and how that lending will take place are still yet to be finalized.
What's Next: Who Gets Hit When U.S. Resumes Iran Sanctions - Bloomberg
What's Next: Who Gets Hit When U.S. Resumes Iran Sanctions
By Jennifer Epstein and Justin Sink
May 9, 2018, 6:44 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 9, 2018, 7:10 AM GMT+10
U.S. to allow 90- and 180-day wind-down periods for deals
Iran’s oil industry, financial sector and shipping targeted
President Donald Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions on Iran threatens to tighten global oil markets and could derail tens of billions of dollars in business deals.
But the “snap-back” of penalties on Iran isn’t immediate, instead kicking in over six months. That could allow time to negotiate a new accord to replace or supplement the deal agreed to during Barack Obama’s presidency.
Trump’s order on Tuesday blocks new contracts immediately and sets 90- and 180-day clocks for companies with existing Iranian business commitments. By August or November, they’ll have to comply with a broad array of sanctions targeting the Iranian Central Bank and Iran’s financial sector, oil industry, shipping and other economic pressure points.
Trump made clear he expects to achieve a new deal that lifts the penalties.
“The fact is they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal, one that benefits all of Iran and the Iranian people, ” Trump said. “When they do, I am ready, willing and able.”
Unless Trump is satisfied or changes course, here is what will happen:
August Sanctions
The first deadline is Aug. 6. By then, companies must wind down holdings of Iranian sovereign debt or Iranian currency. Any person or company that assists the Iranian government with acquiring or purchasing U.S. dollar banknotes also will be subject to sanctions by that date.
Sanctions also snap back into place Aug. 6 on Iran’s trade in gold and other precious metals, graphite and coal, metals such as aluminum and steel, the country’s automobile sector and luxury products such as Iranian-origin carpets and caviar.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a briefing that companies can request waivers or special licenses to avoid sanctions, and they’ll be determined on a case-by-case basis.
November Sanctions
Sanctions targeting companies doing business with Iran’s oil industry are reinstated Nov. 4, including penalties against foreign financial institutions that conduct significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran.
On top of that, the U.S. will impose sanctions on Iran’s energy sector and on petroleum-related transactions with firms including National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran Intertrade Company, and National Iranian Tanker Company.
RBC Capital Markets chief commodities strategist Helima Croft said that “depending on the enforcement rate” she expects Iranian oil exports to be curtailed by between 200,000 and 300,000 barrels per day. By comparison, 1 million to 1.5 million barrels were removed from the market daily when the Obama administration and other world powers jointly sanctioned Iran to force it to the negotiating table before 2015.
The U.S. advised countries that want to avoid sanctions on their financial institutions to reduce their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran during the 180-day wind-down period. The State Department will determine on a case-by-case basis whether countries have sufficiently cut their Iranian imports.
More Risk Ahead
More U.S. penalties against Iran’s economy could be on the horizon.
“It’s entirely possible that additional sanctions will follow as new information comes to light,” White House National Security Adviser John Bolton told reporters in a briefing following Trump’s announcement. “And that’s something we should pursue vigorously because we want to put as much economic pressure on Iran as we can and deny them the revenues they would have gotten from the transactions we’re not eliminating.”
He didn’t specify what other industries or companies could be targeted.
Deals endangered
Trump’s announcement is likely to scuttle billions of dollars of deals even before the sanctions fully take effect. All the uncertainty will have a “potentially devastating chilling effect” on business, said Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of State under Obama.
Mnuchin said that Boeing Co.’s license to sell aircraft to Iran will be revoked. The company has signed a $3 billion deal for 30 737 Max jets with Iran Aseman airline and a $16.6 billion deal with national carrier Iran Air for 80 aircraft.
“That deal would be in jeopardy and thousands of jobs in various locations of the U.S. would be in jeopardy,” Jane Harman, CEO of The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Democratic House member from California, said in congressional testimony on Tuesday before Trump’s announcement.
“We will consult with the U.S. government on next steps,” Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing vice president, said in a statement.
Airbus Group SE’s Iran license will also be revoked, Mnuchin said. The company has a contract with Iran for 100 jetliners worth about $19 billion at list prices. Also endangered: a 20-year, $5 billion agreement Total SA and China National Petroleum Corp. signed to develop part of Iran’s South Pars offshore gas field.
— With assistance by Daniel Flatley, and Saleha Mohsin
By Jennifer Epstein and Justin Sink
May 9, 2018, 6:44 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 9, 2018, 7:10 AM GMT+10
U.S. to allow 90- and 180-day wind-down periods for deals
Iran’s oil industry, financial sector and shipping targeted
President Donald Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions on Iran threatens to tighten global oil markets and could derail tens of billions of dollars in business deals.
But the “snap-back” of penalties on Iran isn’t immediate, instead kicking in over six months. That could allow time to negotiate a new accord to replace or supplement the deal agreed to during Barack Obama’s presidency.
Trump’s order on Tuesday blocks new contracts immediately and sets 90- and 180-day clocks for companies with existing Iranian business commitments. By August or November, they’ll have to comply with a broad array of sanctions targeting the Iranian Central Bank and Iran’s financial sector, oil industry, shipping and other economic pressure points.
Trump made clear he expects to achieve a new deal that lifts the penalties.
“The fact is they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal, one that benefits all of Iran and the Iranian people, ” Trump said. “When they do, I am ready, willing and able.”
Unless Trump is satisfied or changes course, here is what will happen:
August Sanctions
The first deadline is Aug. 6. By then, companies must wind down holdings of Iranian sovereign debt or Iranian currency. Any person or company that assists the Iranian government with acquiring or purchasing U.S. dollar banknotes also will be subject to sanctions by that date.
Sanctions also snap back into place Aug. 6 on Iran’s trade in gold and other precious metals, graphite and coal, metals such as aluminum and steel, the country’s automobile sector and luxury products such as Iranian-origin carpets and caviar.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a briefing that companies can request waivers or special licenses to avoid sanctions, and they’ll be determined on a case-by-case basis.
November Sanctions
Sanctions targeting companies doing business with Iran’s oil industry are reinstated Nov. 4, including penalties against foreign financial institutions that conduct significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran.
On top of that, the U.S. will impose sanctions on Iran’s energy sector and on petroleum-related transactions with firms including National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran Intertrade Company, and National Iranian Tanker Company.
RBC Capital Markets chief commodities strategist Helima Croft said that “depending on the enforcement rate” she expects Iranian oil exports to be curtailed by between 200,000 and 300,000 barrels per day. By comparison, 1 million to 1.5 million barrels were removed from the market daily when the Obama administration and other world powers jointly sanctioned Iran to force it to the negotiating table before 2015.
The U.S. advised countries that want to avoid sanctions on their financial institutions to reduce their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran during the 180-day wind-down period. The State Department will determine on a case-by-case basis whether countries have sufficiently cut their Iranian imports.
More Risk Ahead
More U.S. penalties against Iran’s economy could be on the horizon.
“It’s entirely possible that additional sanctions will follow as new information comes to light,” White House National Security Adviser John Bolton told reporters in a briefing following Trump’s announcement. “And that’s something we should pursue vigorously because we want to put as much economic pressure on Iran as we can and deny them the revenues they would have gotten from the transactions we’re not eliminating.”
He didn’t specify what other industries or companies could be targeted.
Deals endangered
Trump’s announcement is likely to scuttle billions of dollars of deals even before the sanctions fully take effect. All the uncertainty will have a “potentially devastating chilling effect” on business, said Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of State under Obama.
Mnuchin said that Boeing Co.’s license to sell aircraft to Iran will be revoked. The company has signed a $3 billion deal for 30 737 Max jets with Iran Aseman airline and a $16.6 billion deal with national carrier Iran Air for 80 aircraft.
“That deal would be in jeopardy and thousands of jobs in various locations of the U.S. would be in jeopardy,” Jane Harman, CEO of The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a former Democratic House member from California, said in congressional testimony on Tuesday before Trump’s announcement.
“We will consult with the U.S. government on next steps,” Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing vice president, said in a statement.
Airbus Group SE’s Iran license will also be revoked, Mnuchin said. The company has a contract with Iran for 100 jetliners worth about $19 billion at list prices. Also endangered: a 20-year, $5 billion agreement Total SA and China National Petroleum Corp. signed to develop part of Iran’s South Pars offshore gas field.
— With assistance by Daniel Flatley, and Saleha Mohsin
How Companies Use Math to Make the Gender Pay Gap Vanish - Bloomberg
How Companies Use Math to Make the Gender Pay Gap Vanish
Bloomberg’s newest podcast, The Pay Check, analyzes the human toll of getting paid less for the same work.
By Jordyn Holman
May 9, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
There are two pay gaps when it comes to American women being paid unfairly: the average pay gap and the adjusted pay gap.
These two measures of how men and women are treated differently tell separate stories. Overall, the average pay gap is 20 percent, which means that, on average, U.S. women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. This is a broad measure, one that considers everyone in the workplace. It also tends to reveal that men usually occupy the highest paying positions. The adjusted pay gap, meanwhile, takes into account factors that include job title, seniority or geography when calculating the difference in compensation between genders.
The reasons behind gender pay disparity and its persistence will be explored in Bloomberg’s newest podcast, The Pay Check, an in-depth miniseries that also looks at the human toll of getting paid less for the same work.
After years of pressure from shareholders and the public, some of the biggest banks in the country began disclosing their gender pay gap this year. Many of them, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., chose the adjusted pay gap, which, in the case of these three Wall Street giants, was just 1 percent.
“You can imagine that the company might be able to come up with an adjusted pay analysis that shows there’s not much of a gap at all,” said Henry Farber, a professor of labor economics at Princeton University who has conducted analyses on companies’ pay data and spoke to us for The Pay Check podcast. In an analysis of one firm's pay, Farber said he’s found as many as four ways to slice company data when it comes to describing the gender pay disparity. And while it’s illegal in the U.S. to pay women less for the same work, there’s no law requiring companies to disclose their gender pay gap—let alone what measure to use or how much weight they give certain factors—so numbers can vary.
For example, New York-based JPMorgan said just a month after disclosing its 1 percent adjusted pay gap that it pays women in the U.K. an average of 36 percent less. This was the first year the government there required all companies with more than 250 U.K. employees to disclose their pay differential. Most large banks showed a similarly wide difference between the gender pay gap they reported in the U.K. and the adjusted pay gap they voluntarily released in the U.S.
At the time of the U.K. pay gap disclosure, JPMorgan said “raw compensation comparisons, without consideration of the factors that typically impact pay, do show a gap between the pay of men and women.” The bank said it views “global pay equity results as a more representative measure of comparable pay for similar work.”
Farber said that companies in America are at an advantage, given the culture of silence when it comes to how much one gets paid. This lack of information may help perpetuate pay inequality, he said.
“In the U.S., any company that’s releasing a number is releasing the number for presumably public relations purposes to inform whoever’s watching that, ‘Gee, don’t come after us and say we’re discriminating,’” Farber said. “Shedding some light on the structure of pay gives workers the opportunity to say, ‘Oh look, my company is doing a good job,’ or ‘Oh look, my company is not doing a good job. Let me go talk to them or let me go try to address this situation.’”
Bloomberg’s newest podcast, The Pay Check, analyzes the human toll of getting paid less for the same work.
By Jordyn Holman
May 9, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
There are two pay gaps when it comes to American women being paid unfairly: the average pay gap and the adjusted pay gap.
These two measures of how men and women are treated differently tell separate stories. Overall, the average pay gap is 20 percent, which means that, on average, U.S. women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. This is a broad measure, one that considers everyone in the workplace. It also tends to reveal that men usually occupy the highest paying positions. The adjusted pay gap, meanwhile, takes into account factors that include job title, seniority or geography when calculating the difference in compensation between genders.
The reasons behind gender pay disparity and its persistence will be explored in Bloomberg’s newest podcast, The Pay Check, an in-depth miniseries that also looks at the human toll of getting paid less for the same work.
After years of pressure from shareholders and the public, some of the biggest banks in the country began disclosing their gender pay gap this year. Many of them, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., chose the adjusted pay gap, which, in the case of these three Wall Street giants, was just 1 percent.
“You can imagine that the company might be able to come up with an adjusted pay analysis that shows there’s not much of a gap at all,” said Henry Farber, a professor of labor economics at Princeton University who has conducted analyses on companies’ pay data and spoke to us for The Pay Check podcast. In an analysis of one firm's pay, Farber said he’s found as many as four ways to slice company data when it comes to describing the gender pay disparity. And while it’s illegal in the U.S. to pay women less for the same work, there’s no law requiring companies to disclose their gender pay gap—let alone what measure to use or how much weight they give certain factors—so numbers can vary.
For example, New York-based JPMorgan said just a month after disclosing its 1 percent adjusted pay gap that it pays women in the U.K. an average of 36 percent less. This was the first year the government there required all companies with more than 250 U.K. employees to disclose their pay differential. Most large banks showed a similarly wide difference between the gender pay gap they reported in the U.K. and the adjusted pay gap they voluntarily released in the U.S.
At the time of the U.K. pay gap disclosure, JPMorgan said “raw compensation comparisons, without consideration of the factors that typically impact pay, do show a gap between the pay of men and women.” The bank said it views “global pay equity results as a more representative measure of comparable pay for similar work.”
Farber said that companies in America are at an advantage, given the culture of silence when it comes to how much one gets paid. This lack of information may help perpetuate pay inequality, he said.
“In the U.S., any company that’s releasing a number is releasing the number for presumably public relations purposes to inform whoever’s watching that, ‘Gee, don’t come after us and say we’re discriminating,’” Farber said. “Shedding some light on the structure of pay gives workers the opportunity to say, ‘Oh look, my company is doing a good job,’ or ‘Oh look, my company is not doing a good job. Let me go talk to them or let me go try to address this situation.’”
Signs China tariffs are starting to hurt U.S. businesses, wallets - CBS News
May 9, 2018, 5:00 AM
Signs China tariffs are starting to hurt U.S. businesses, wallets
White House advisers like National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow have been telling Wall Street and Corporate America that despite President Donald Trump's tough talk this spring on trade and tariffs, the administration isn't pursuing a trade war with China or anyone else. "This is just a proposed idea," Kudlow told reporters in early April about potential tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese steel, heavy machinery and 1,300 other products. "Nothing's happened. Nothing's been executed."
Yet early signs are emerging that tariffs and their countermeasures, proposed or imposed, already are hitting some U.S. industries, some in areas of the country that voted for Mr. Trump in the 2016 election. Consider:
• Chinese importers cut pork orders starting in early April, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal citing U.S. Department of Agriculture data. After China imposed retaliatory tariffs on April 2, the USDA reported the biggest weekly drop in net pork sales to the country since October 2016. Boneless hams in cold storage hit a record 86 million pounds earlier this year as the industry had been looking to sell more, not less, to China, the Journal said.
• China is purposely avoiding direct soybean purchases from the U.S., Bloomberg reported. "Whatever they're buying is non-U.S.," Bunge Ltd. CEO Soren Schroder told the news service last week. "They're buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S." The Associated Press reports that USDA data show that sales of soybeans to China have fallen from about 255,000 metric tons in the first week of April, when the trade dispute began, to just 7,900 in the week that ended April 26. Cancellations have also jumped, to more than 140,000 metric tons in the week ending April 26; in the same week last year, there were no canceled sales at all.
• Another casualty in the shadow trade war: some 2,000 growers of pecans from California to the Carolinas who sell about a third of their crop to China. Pecans were among the U.S. products China slapped with a 15 percent tariff after Mr. Trump proposed steel and aluminum tariffs in late March. That penalty hurts buyers and gets passed to growers and exporters with "immediate impact," according to Randy Hudson, CEO of Hudson Pecan in Ocilla, Georgia. He's holding off on planned production expansion until things become clearer. "We were going to triple our capacity ... build another warehouse and hire another 20 people," Hudson told CBS MoneyWatch. "Right now it's a little uncertain. We've got to get a sense for what's going to happen."
• Companies from Caterpillar (CAT) to Harley-Davidson (HOG) have said on earnings calls that higher commodity prices tied to tariffs are expected to be a drag on results this year, according to The Wall Street Journal. Steel costs for the equipment industry as a whole were up about 15 percent in the quarter ended in March, executives at construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar said on an earnings call in April, according to a transcript. "We expect steel and other commodity costs to be a headwind all year," Caterpillar CFO Brad Halverson said. "However, at the end of the day, higher commodity costs benefit many of our customers." Metal users Boeing (BA) and Ford (F) are also among companies monitoring prices.
• Some small businesses aren't hiring as planned in the wake of tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, Reuters reported, pointing to comments from the Institute for Supply Management's April report. One company, The Metalworking Group in Cincinnati, lost about 1,000 hours renegotiating contracts because it couldn't honor prices. It also delayed plans to spend around $500,000 on equipment this year and bring on new staff to expand, Reuters reported.
• It's not just China trade that has been hit. Higher newsprint prices because of tariffs aimed at Canadian mills prompted the Tampa Bay Times to begin cutting 50 jobs. Prices rose more than 30 percent, or to about $800 from $600 for every ton, adding more than $3 million to the paper's annual newsprint bill. The newspaper uses about 17 tons of newsprint every year, Paul Tash, the newspaper's CEO wrote in March.
• Complicating matters in U.S. aluminum markets are sanctions imposed on Russia in early April that sent the metal soaring to six-year highs and unleashed the widest swings in prices since at least 1997, according to The Wall Street Journal. That left shipments from Russian aluminum company Rusal sitting unopened in U.S. ports including Baltimore and Houston as customers avoid violating sanctions, the Journal reported, citing Harbor Aluminum Intelligence, an Austin, Texas-based consultant to aluminum companies, banks and hedge funds. Rusal is the world's second-biggest aluminum company in metric tons produced behind China's Hongqiao, according to Statista. The U.S.'s Alcoa is sixth.
So far, China has only matched a smaller opening round of tariffs, like on steel, tit-for-tat. Other trade war potential hangs in the air as Europe waits another 30 days for a metals decision and negotiations resume this week for the North American Free Trade Agreement.
For China, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner, more negotiation "will likely result in a scale back of the current proposal on tariffs as China quickens its implementation of some announced opening and reform measures," UBS economists Tao Wang and Ning Zhang predicted in a note late last week.
A U.S. delegation including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin emerged from talks in Beijing last week without an agreement as the Trump administration inches closer to imposing the first round of tariffs on at least $50 billion of imports from China. "After two days of 'candid' trade talks, the U.S. and China are said to have 'fully exchanged views' and agreed to talk more," the UBS economists wrote. "There is no grand trade agreement. On the positive side, both sides seem to want to continue to negotiate to avoid an immediate outbreak of a serious trade war."
Still, they noted, "we do not expect all core differences in the US-China trade relationship to be resolved."
-- Jillian Harding contributed to this report
Signs China tariffs are starting to hurt U.S. businesses, wallets
White House advisers like National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow have been telling Wall Street and Corporate America that despite President Donald Trump's tough talk this spring on trade and tariffs, the administration isn't pursuing a trade war with China or anyone else. "This is just a proposed idea," Kudlow told reporters in early April about potential tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese steel, heavy machinery and 1,300 other products. "Nothing's happened. Nothing's been executed."
Yet early signs are emerging that tariffs and their countermeasures, proposed or imposed, already are hitting some U.S. industries, some in areas of the country that voted for Mr. Trump in the 2016 election. Consider:
• Chinese importers cut pork orders starting in early April, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal citing U.S. Department of Agriculture data. After China imposed retaliatory tariffs on April 2, the USDA reported the biggest weekly drop in net pork sales to the country since October 2016. Boneless hams in cold storage hit a record 86 million pounds earlier this year as the industry had been looking to sell more, not less, to China, the Journal said.
• China is purposely avoiding direct soybean purchases from the U.S., Bloomberg reported. "Whatever they're buying is non-U.S.," Bunge Ltd. CEO Soren Schroder told the news service last week. "They're buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S." The Associated Press reports that USDA data show that sales of soybeans to China have fallen from about 255,000 metric tons in the first week of April, when the trade dispute began, to just 7,900 in the week that ended April 26. Cancellations have also jumped, to more than 140,000 metric tons in the week ending April 26; in the same week last year, there were no canceled sales at all.
• Another casualty in the shadow trade war: some 2,000 growers of pecans from California to the Carolinas who sell about a third of their crop to China. Pecans were among the U.S. products China slapped with a 15 percent tariff after Mr. Trump proposed steel and aluminum tariffs in late March. That penalty hurts buyers and gets passed to growers and exporters with "immediate impact," according to Randy Hudson, CEO of Hudson Pecan in Ocilla, Georgia. He's holding off on planned production expansion until things become clearer. "We were going to triple our capacity ... build another warehouse and hire another 20 people," Hudson told CBS MoneyWatch. "Right now it's a little uncertain. We've got to get a sense for what's going to happen."
• Companies from Caterpillar (CAT) to Harley-Davidson (HOG) have said on earnings calls that higher commodity prices tied to tariffs are expected to be a drag on results this year, according to The Wall Street Journal. Steel costs for the equipment industry as a whole were up about 15 percent in the quarter ended in March, executives at construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar said on an earnings call in April, according to a transcript. "We expect steel and other commodity costs to be a headwind all year," Caterpillar CFO Brad Halverson said. "However, at the end of the day, higher commodity costs benefit many of our customers." Metal users Boeing (BA) and Ford (F) are also among companies monitoring prices.
• Some small businesses aren't hiring as planned in the wake of tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, Reuters reported, pointing to comments from the Institute for Supply Management's April report. One company, The Metalworking Group in Cincinnati, lost about 1,000 hours renegotiating contracts because it couldn't honor prices. It also delayed plans to spend around $500,000 on equipment this year and bring on new staff to expand, Reuters reported.
• It's not just China trade that has been hit. Higher newsprint prices because of tariffs aimed at Canadian mills prompted the Tampa Bay Times to begin cutting 50 jobs. Prices rose more than 30 percent, or to about $800 from $600 for every ton, adding more than $3 million to the paper's annual newsprint bill. The newspaper uses about 17 tons of newsprint every year, Paul Tash, the newspaper's CEO wrote in March.
• Complicating matters in U.S. aluminum markets are sanctions imposed on Russia in early April that sent the metal soaring to six-year highs and unleashed the widest swings in prices since at least 1997, according to The Wall Street Journal. That left shipments from Russian aluminum company Rusal sitting unopened in U.S. ports including Baltimore and Houston as customers avoid violating sanctions, the Journal reported, citing Harbor Aluminum Intelligence, an Austin, Texas-based consultant to aluminum companies, banks and hedge funds. Rusal is the world's second-biggest aluminum company in metric tons produced behind China's Hongqiao, according to Statista. The U.S.'s Alcoa is sixth.
So far, China has only matched a smaller opening round of tariffs, like on steel, tit-for-tat. Other trade war potential hangs in the air as Europe waits another 30 days for a metals decision and negotiations resume this week for the North American Free Trade Agreement.
For China, the U.S.'s biggest trading partner, more negotiation "will likely result in a scale back of the current proposal on tariffs as China quickens its implementation of some announced opening and reform measures," UBS economists Tao Wang and Ning Zhang predicted in a note late last week.
A U.S. delegation including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin emerged from talks in Beijing last week without an agreement as the Trump administration inches closer to imposing the first round of tariffs on at least $50 billion of imports from China. "After two days of 'candid' trade talks, the U.S. and China are said to have 'fully exchanged views' and agreed to talk more," the UBS economists wrote. "There is no grand trade agreement. On the positive side, both sides seem to want to continue to negotiate to avoid an immediate outbreak of a serious trade war."
Still, they noted, "we do not expect all core differences in the US-China trade relationship to be resolved."
-- Jillian Harding contributed to this report
A Harvard Study Says 5 Habits Can Help You Live Way Longer. This One Is the Most Important - Fortune
A Harvard Study Says 5 Habits Can Help You Live Way Longer. This One Is the Most Important
By SY MUKHERJEE April 30, 2018
A new study by Harvard researchers suggests that five lifestyle habits may be key to extending life expectancy by more than 10 years. But one of the longevity-boosting habits is especially important for living longer—staying away from smoking and tobacco.
The research published in the medical journal Circulation cites five behaviors associated with significantly longer life: not smoking, keeping a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI), avoiding excess alcohol consumption, moderate-to-vigorous exercise, and keeping a healthy diet. Sticking to all five of those healthy habits was associated with 12.2 years of longer life for men and 14 years of longer life expectancy for women, according to the researchers. (Ok, this is a good time to note the caveat that this was an observational study and not a randomized clinical trial, and that correlation isn’t the same as causation.) Out of all these behaviors, however, avoiding smoking and tobacco products has been proven time and time again to be the most effective way to live longer—or at the very least avoid dying at an unnecessarily premature age.
Let’s let the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explain exactly why. “Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis,” writes the agency.
On a larger scale, that amounts to an estimated 16 million Americans living with a disease caused by smoking in some way or another. And it checks all of the big-name killing boxes: heart disease (the number one killer of Americans), cancer (the number two killer of Americans), and COPD (the number three killer of Americans).
That’s a likely reason why the criteria in the latest study included avoiding smoking altogether. While the other associations surrounding diet and exercise have also shown strong associations with longer life expectancy and more healthy lives, avoiding smoking remains the single most powerful way to prevent an early death and extend life, according to multiple large-scale analyses.
By SY MUKHERJEE April 30, 2018
A new study by Harvard researchers suggests that five lifestyle habits may be key to extending life expectancy by more than 10 years. But one of the longevity-boosting habits is especially important for living longer—staying away from smoking and tobacco.
The research published in the medical journal Circulation cites five behaviors associated with significantly longer life: not smoking, keeping a healthy Body Mass Index (BMI), avoiding excess alcohol consumption, moderate-to-vigorous exercise, and keeping a healthy diet. Sticking to all five of those healthy habits was associated with 12.2 years of longer life for men and 14 years of longer life expectancy for women, according to the researchers. (Ok, this is a good time to note the caveat that this was an observational study and not a randomized clinical trial, and that correlation isn’t the same as causation.) Out of all these behaviors, however, avoiding smoking and tobacco products has been proven time and time again to be the most effective way to live longer—or at the very least avoid dying at an unnecessarily premature age.
Let’s let the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explain exactly why. “Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis,” writes the agency.
On a larger scale, that amounts to an estimated 16 million Americans living with a disease caused by smoking in some way or another. And it checks all of the big-name killing boxes: heart disease (the number one killer of Americans), cancer (the number two killer of Americans), and COPD (the number three killer of Americans).
That’s a likely reason why the criteria in the latest study included avoiding smoking altogether. While the other associations surrounding diet and exercise have also shown strong associations with longer life expectancy and more healthy lives, avoiding smoking remains the single most powerful way to prevent an early death and extend life, according to multiple large-scale analyses.
Mueller rejects Trump request to answer questions in writing - CBS News
May 7, 2018, 7:12 PM
Mueller rejects Trump request to answer questions in writing
Last Updated May 8, 2018 6:30 AM EDT
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is now on President Trump's legal team, told CBS News correspondent Paula Reid Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's office has rejected proposals to allow Mr. Trump to answer questions from investigators in writing.
The president's legal team has signaled that this would be their preferred format for a possible interview, since it helps protect Mr. Trump from the possibility of lying or misleading investigators, which is a criminal offense.
Giuliani told CBS News it will take up to three weeks for him to get fully up to speed on the facts of the investigation and be prepared to engage in formal negotiations with the special counsel about the terms of a possible interview with Mr. Trump.
Giuliani told Reid that he and the president's legal team continue to be in communication with the special counsel, but that he wants to have a better sense of the facts before engaging in formal negotiations about a possible interview.
Giuliani said Mr. Trump's team also wants some issues to be off-limits, although he wouldn't elaborate on which ones, and they want a time limit for the interview.
In addition, Giuliani also told Reid he'd want to know whether the interview would become public, and whether they would have the chance to issue a rebuttal to anything alleged by the special counsel.
If they can come to an agreement on the terms of an interview, Giuliani says he would like to wait until after the North Korea summit to prepare Mr. Trump. He believes that it would take several days to prepare the president for this kind of interview and he would not want to take him away from preparing for talks with North Korea.
If negotiations are not successful and Mr. Trump is subpoenaed, he will fight it, Giuliani said. The case would likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Giuliani is not suggesting that Mr. Trump would ignore a subpoena, but rather that they will use it as another opportunity to negotiate an interview on their terms. If that does not work, they will challenge it in court.
Mueller rejects Trump request to answer questions in writing
Last Updated May 8, 2018 6:30 AM EDT
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is now on President Trump's legal team, told CBS News correspondent Paula Reid Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's office has rejected proposals to allow Mr. Trump to answer questions from investigators in writing.
The president's legal team has signaled that this would be their preferred format for a possible interview, since it helps protect Mr. Trump from the possibility of lying or misleading investigators, which is a criminal offense.
Giuliani told CBS News it will take up to three weeks for him to get fully up to speed on the facts of the investigation and be prepared to engage in formal negotiations with the special counsel about the terms of a possible interview with Mr. Trump.
Giuliani told Reid that he and the president's legal team continue to be in communication with the special counsel, but that he wants to have a better sense of the facts before engaging in formal negotiations about a possible interview.
Giuliani said Mr. Trump's team also wants some issues to be off-limits, although he wouldn't elaborate on which ones, and they want a time limit for the interview.
In addition, Giuliani also told Reid he'd want to know whether the interview would become public, and whether they would have the chance to issue a rebuttal to anything alleged by the special counsel.
If they can come to an agreement on the terms of an interview, Giuliani says he would like to wait until after the North Korea summit to prepare Mr. Trump. He believes that it would take several days to prepare the president for this kind of interview and he would not want to take him away from preparing for talks with North Korea.
If negotiations are not successful and Mr. Trump is subpoenaed, he will fight it, Giuliani said. The case would likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Giuliani is not suggesting that Mr. Trump would ignore a subpoena, but rather that they will use it as another opportunity to negotiate an interview on their terms. If that does not work, they will challenge it in court.
Trump Overreaches in Critique of Iran Deal - New York Times
Trump Overreaches in Critique of Iran Deal
President Trump said the pact allowed Iran to enrich uranium and wouldn’t have stopped it from developing a nuclear bomb — claims that lacked context or weren’t entirely accurate.
President Trump on Tuesday at the White House before announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
By Linda Qiu
May 8, 2018
President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear dealon Tuesday and delivered familiar — and not entirely accurate — broadsides against the diplomatic agreement he has long called “the worst deal ever.”
Here are some of his claims, fact-checked.
“In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.”
This is misleading.
The nuclear agreement does allow Iran to enrich uranium, but it limited enrichment capacity to less than one bomb’s worth for 15 years.
Iran also gave up about 97 percent of its existing stockpile and two-thirds of its centrifuges. Under the deal, it can use no more than 5,060 first-generation centrifuges for a decade — which The New York Times’s Max Fisher has described as “so few, and such old models, and under constant monitoring, that it poses relatively little threat.”
More advanced centrifuges were placed under monitored storage or can be used only for limited research purposes approved by the other signers of the deal.
The deal also sought to prevent the possibility of a plutonium bomb by rendering an existing reactor inoperable and prohibiting the construction of other heavy-water reactors for 15 years. Tehran also pledged to never produce weapons-grade plutonium.
“This disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash.”
This is misleading.
Mr. Trump has made a version of this claim at least a dozen times since taking office, and he made it dozens of times while running for president.
The nuclear deal released about $100 billion — not $150 billion as he frequently claims — in previously frozen Iranian assets. In other words, the money already belonged to Iran and did not come out of the pockets of American taxpayers, as some of Mr. Trump’s supporters have erroneouslyinferred from the president’s claims.
Much of the amount is also tied up in debt obligations, and estimates for the actual amount available to Iran range from $35 billion to $65 billion.
And as The Times has previously reported, the cash payment Mr. Trump also mentioned refers to a separate matter:
The Obama administration did transfer $1.7 billion to Iran, but Mr. Trump’s statement requires more context. The money — delivered in cash, some on a plane — was payment for a decades-long dispute and was indirectly linked to the nuclear deal.
Before the 1979 revolution, Iran’s shah had paid $400 million for American military goods but, after he was overthrown, they were never delivered. The clerics who seized control demanded the money back, but the United States refused. The additional $1.3 billion is interest accumulated over 35 years. An initial reimbursement was released after the Iran deal was implemented and to help secure the release of American hostages.
“Even if Iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time.”
This requires context.
“Breakout” refers to the time it would take Iran to produce enough fuel for one weapon, and the agreement increased that time to at least a year from an estimated two to three months.
Since the deal limits Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile to less than one bomb’s worth for 15 years, Iran would not be “on the verge of a nuclear breakout” until 2030.
It’s also worth noting that the agreement prohibits Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons permanently. “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,” the first paragraph of the deal reads.
“In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent.”
This is exaggerated.
The Iran deal was reached in June 2015, but went into effect in early 2016, when the United States and European nations lifted sanctions. Since then, Iran’s military spending has increased by about 30 percent, from $10.8 billion in 2015 to $14.1 billion last year, adjusted for inflation, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The Congressional Research Service has estimated that Iran’s defense budget was about 3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $15 billion, in 2015 and about 4 percent of G.D.P., or $20 billion, in 2018.
“Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents — long concealed by Iran — conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”
This requires context.
Mr. Trump is referring to documents shared by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that Mr. Netanyahu said “conclusively prove that Iran is brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons program.”
As The Times has reported, much of what Mr. Netanyahu detailed was known before the diplomatic agreement was reached:
“But the Iranian program to design and build nuclear weapons was hardly a secret; its existence was the reason that the United States, under President George W. Bush and then President Barack Obama, moved to block it. Both presidents said publicly that Iran had a bomb project underway, and the United States mounted, with Israel, a vast covert program to undermine the Iranian effort with one of the world’s most sophisticated cyberattacks.”
American intelligence agencies said in a 2007 report that Iran had frozen its nuclear weapons program in 2003. International inspectors had published information on the program in 2011.
Mr. Netanyahu did not provide evidence that Iran had violated the Iran deal itself.
Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter, based in Washington. She came to the Times in 2017 from the fact-checking service PolitiFact.@ylindaqiu
President Trump said the pact allowed Iran to enrich uranium and wouldn’t have stopped it from developing a nuclear bomb — claims that lacked context or weren’t entirely accurate.
President Trump on Tuesday at the White House before announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
By Linda Qiu
May 8, 2018
President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear dealon Tuesday and delivered familiar — and not entirely accurate — broadsides against the diplomatic agreement he has long called “the worst deal ever.”
Here are some of his claims, fact-checked.
“In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.”
This is misleading.
The nuclear agreement does allow Iran to enrich uranium, but it limited enrichment capacity to less than one bomb’s worth for 15 years.
Iran also gave up about 97 percent of its existing stockpile and two-thirds of its centrifuges. Under the deal, it can use no more than 5,060 first-generation centrifuges for a decade — which The New York Times’s Max Fisher has described as “so few, and such old models, and under constant monitoring, that it poses relatively little threat.”
More advanced centrifuges were placed under monitored storage or can be used only for limited research purposes approved by the other signers of the deal.
The deal also sought to prevent the possibility of a plutonium bomb by rendering an existing reactor inoperable and prohibiting the construction of other heavy-water reactors for 15 years. Tehran also pledged to never produce weapons-grade plutonium.
“This disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash.”
This is misleading.
Mr. Trump has made a version of this claim at least a dozen times since taking office, and he made it dozens of times while running for president.
The nuclear deal released about $100 billion — not $150 billion as he frequently claims — in previously frozen Iranian assets. In other words, the money already belonged to Iran and did not come out of the pockets of American taxpayers, as some of Mr. Trump’s supporters have erroneouslyinferred from the president’s claims.
Much of the amount is also tied up in debt obligations, and estimates for the actual amount available to Iran range from $35 billion to $65 billion.
And as The Times has previously reported, the cash payment Mr. Trump also mentioned refers to a separate matter:
The Obama administration did transfer $1.7 billion to Iran, but Mr. Trump’s statement requires more context. The money — delivered in cash, some on a plane — was payment for a decades-long dispute and was indirectly linked to the nuclear deal.
Before the 1979 revolution, Iran’s shah had paid $400 million for American military goods but, after he was overthrown, they were never delivered. The clerics who seized control demanded the money back, but the United States refused. The additional $1.3 billion is interest accumulated over 35 years. An initial reimbursement was released after the Iran deal was implemented and to help secure the release of American hostages.
“Even if Iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time.”
This requires context.
“Breakout” refers to the time it would take Iran to produce enough fuel for one weapon, and the agreement increased that time to at least a year from an estimated two to three months.
Since the deal limits Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile to less than one bomb’s worth for 15 years, Iran would not be “on the verge of a nuclear breakout” until 2030.
It’s also worth noting that the agreement prohibits Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons permanently. “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,” the first paragraph of the deal reads.
“In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent.”
This is exaggerated.
The Iran deal was reached in June 2015, but went into effect in early 2016, when the United States and European nations lifted sanctions. Since then, Iran’s military spending has increased by about 30 percent, from $10.8 billion in 2015 to $14.1 billion last year, adjusted for inflation, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The Congressional Research Service has estimated that Iran’s defense budget was about 3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $15 billion, in 2015 and about 4 percent of G.D.P., or $20 billion, in 2018.
“Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents — long concealed by Iran — conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”
This requires context.
Mr. Trump is referring to documents shared by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that Mr. Netanyahu said “conclusively prove that Iran is brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons program.”
As The Times has reported, much of what Mr. Netanyahu detailed was known before the diplomatic agreement was reached:
“But the Iranian program to design and build nuclear weapons was hardly a secret; its existence was the reason that the United States, under President George W. Bush and then President Barack Obama, moved to block it. Both presidents said publicly that Iran had a bomb project underway, and the United States mounted, with Israel, a vast covert program to undermine the Iranian effort with one of the world’s most sophisticated cyberattacks.”
American intelligence agencies said in a 2007 report that Iran had frozen its nuclear weapons program in 2003. International inspectors had published information on the program in 2011.
Mr. Netanyahu did not provide evidence that Iran had violated the Iran deal itself.
Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter, based in Washington. She came to the Times in 2017 from the fact-checking service PolitiFact.@ylindaqiu
Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC News
Iran nuclear deal: Key details
8 May 2018
In 2015, Iran agreed a long-term deal on its nuclear programme with the P5+1 group of world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.
It came after years of tension over Iran's alleged efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insisted that its nuclear programme was entirely peaceful, but the international community did not believe that.
Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
Here are the commitments set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Uranium enrichment
Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for 15 years
Enriched uranium is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons.
Iran had two facilities - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas was fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope, U-235.
Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 15 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.
Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development must take place only at Natanz and be limited until 2024.
No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo until 2031, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran is redesigning the Arak reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.
Covert activity
Iran is required to allow IAEA inspectors to access any site they deem suspicious
At the time of the agreement, then-US President Barack Obama's administration expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will remain in place for up to eight years
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration.
US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The Obama administration said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Iran estimated that the fall in oil exports was costing it between $4bn and $8bn each month
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£118bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone.
Under the deal, Iran gained access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
8 May 2018
In 2015, Iran agreed a long-term deal on its nuclear programme with the P5+1 group of world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.
It came after years of tension over Iran's alleged efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insisted that its nuclear programme was entirely peaceful, but the international community did not believe that.
Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
Here are the commitments set out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Uranium enrichment
Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for 15 years
Enriched uranium is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons.
Iran had two facilities - Natanz and Fordo - where uranium hexafluoride gas was fed into centrifuges to separate out the most fissile isotope, U-235.
Low-enriched uranium, which has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235, can be used to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. "Weapons-grade" uranium is 90% enriched.
In July 2015, Iran had almost 20,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was limited to installing no more than 5,060 of the oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026 - 15 years after the deal's "implementation day" in January 2016.
Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by 98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at 3.67%.
By January 2016, Iran had drastically reduced the number of centrifuges installed at Natanz and Fordo, and shipped tonnes of low-enriched uranium to Russia.
In addition, research and development must take place only at Natanz and be limited until 2024.
No enrichment will be permitted at Fordo until 2031, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The 1,044 centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.
Plutonium pathway
Iran is redesigning the Arak reactor so it cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium
Iran had been building a heavy-water nuclear facility near the town of Arak. Spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.
World powers had originally wanted Arak dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Under an interim nuclear deal agreed in 2013, Iran agreed not to commission or fuel the reactor.
Under the JCPOA, Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor exists.
Iran will not be permitted to build additional heavy-water reactors or accumulate any excess heavy water until 2031.
Covert activity
Iran is required to allow IAEA inspectors to access any site they deem suspicious
At the time of the agreement, then-US President Barack Obama's administration expressed confidence that the JCPOA would prevent Iran from building a nuclear programme in secret. Iran, it said, had committed to "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection".
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites and also verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location to build a bomb.
Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, which allows inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.
Until 2031, Iran will have 24 days to comply with any IAEA access request. If it refuses, an eight-member Joint Commission - including Iran - will rule on the issue. It can decide on punitive steps, including the reimposition of sanctions. A majority vote by the commission suffices.
'Break-out time'
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will remain in place for up to eight years
Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration.
US experts estimated then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "break-out time".
The Obama administration said the JCPOA would remove the key elements Iran would need to create a bomb and increase its break-out time to one year or more.
Iran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, which could contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb.
In December 2015, the IAEA's board of governors voted to end its decade-long investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme.
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". Iran continued with some activities until 2009, but after that there were "no credible indications" of weapons development, he added.
Lifting sanctions
Iran estimated that the fall in oil exports was costing it between $4bn and $8bn each month
Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£118bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone.
Under the deal, Iran gained access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
Should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension.
If the Joint Commission cannot resolve a dispute, it will be referred to the UN Security Council.
Iran also agreed to the continuation of the UN arms embargo on the country for up to five years, although it could end earlier if the IAEA is satisfied that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. A UN ban on the import of ballistic missile technology will also remain in place for up to eight years.
Iran nuclear deal: What now after Trump's decision to pull out? - BBC News
Iran nuclear deal: What now after Trump's decision to pull out?
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
8 May 2018
Iran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
With a stroke of his pen US President Donald Trump has jeopardised the one agreement - good or bad - that seeks to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He launched a scathing assault on the deal and its deficiencies.
But he offered no alternative policy to put in its place. He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What is the Iran nuclear deal?
UK and European allies "remains committed to deal"
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal - or JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) to give it its technical name - is not quite dead. But it is most certainly on life support. Much now depends upon how the Iranians respond.
President Rouhani faces strong internal opposition from hardliners, who want to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
President Hassan Rouhani has been a staunch supporter of the agreement. He appears to want to try to explore with the Europeans and others the possibilities of keeping it alive.
But he faces strong internal opposition from hardliners, some of whom want Iran to break out not just from the JCPOA - but from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) altogether.
President Trump appears to have cut the ground from under his Iranian counterpart's feet.
An imperfect deal that was working
Let's be clear here what we are talking about. The Iran nuclear deal is undoubtedly controversial. Mr Trump has opposed it consistently, though often it appeared for no other logical reason than that it was the creation of his predecessor in the White House.
The deal was not perfect. It did not cover a range of worrying Iranian activities from its missile programme to its regional behaviour.
It covered what it covered - Iran's sophisticated and impressive nuclear programme. It imposed a whole range of restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities and introduced a more intrusive verification regime to ensure that Iran was complying with its terms.
Some of these restrictions will expire over time. At best you could say the agreement prevented Iran from getting close to a break-out point after which it might dash to get a bomb.
At worst you could say that it simply delayed a potential crisis - "kicking the can down the road" as it were. Given that without the JCPOA there was a real risk of a war between Israel and Iran this might not have been such a bad thing.
The inconvenient truth for Donald Trump is that, as far as it goes, the nuclear deal was working.
All the other countries who signed up to the agreement believe that Iran is in full compliance with its terms. So does the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). So, too, do key members of the Trump administration itself, not least the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
Despite this, Mr Trump presented the JCPOA in stark and frankly erroneous terms. He largely condemned it for leaving out things that it was never supposed to cover in the first place.
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
So where do we go from here?
Dangerous path ahead
A battle will now be under way in Tehran, and who wins out will determine if the agreement can be saved.
If the so-called moderates prevail then the Europeans will have a crucial role to play. For what is at stake here is not US sanctions against Iran as such, but so-called "secondary sanctions" - that is sanctions against foreign i.e. non-US companies that may be dealing with Tehran.
Major headache: Do the Europeans have a clear strategy how to deal with the US on the Iran issue?
The Europeans are clearly dismayed by President Trump's announcement. They seem ready to stick with the deal.
There will be significant delays before they - or more correctly European companies - are likely to face the wrath of the US treasury department's sanctions machine.
This could provide time for some gathering of thoughts and diplomatic efforts to explore how much latitude there may be in the US position, if any.
But we are in an unprecedented situation with potentially dangerous consequences. If the Iran deal does collapse and Iran were to ramp up its nuclear activities, what then?
With the US, the Europeans and Nato increasingly worried about Russia's more assertive stance, is this really the moment for a serious trans-Atlantic rift?
And then there is the war-scarred Middle East itself.
Iran and Israel are already engaged in preliminary skirmishes in Syria that risk an all-out confrontation.
Iran is smarting from a number of air attacks against its facilities and allies. It is already eager for revenge.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been the major cheer-leader urging Mr Trump to abandon the nuclear deal. (This despite most former senior Israeli intelligence and military figures - and even some current ones - believing that the deal, for all its faults, has some value).
Where is the Plan B?
Part of the rationale for the nuclear deal was to keep Iran a respectable distance away from having a bomb. This would give sufficient time for international pressure to be applied if it looked like breaking out from the constraints.
But if the JCPOA unravels and Iran steps up its nuclear activities what then? The risk of an Iranian break-out and dash for a bomb could encourage other countries - not least Saudi Arabia - to go nuclear too.
We are living in extraordinary times and this decision - some 18 months or so in office - perhaps marks the start of the real Donald Trump foreign policy: one that many critics would say is based upon raw emotion, a gut-feeling, but certainly not on empirical fact.
Even those who agree with Mr Trump's actions are left with fundamental questions to answer.
Where is the "Plan B"? How is Iran now to be contained? And how is an international consensus to be maintained to further this goal?
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
8 May 2018
Iran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
With a stroke of his pen US President Donald Trump has jeopardised the one agreement - good or bad - that seeks to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He launched a scathing assault on the deal and its deficiencies.
But he offered no alternative policy to put in its place. He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What is the Iran nuclear deal?
UK and European allies "remains committed to deal"
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal - or JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) to give it its technical name - is not quite dead. But it is most certainly on life support. Much now depends upon how the Iranians respond.
President Rouhani faces strong internal opposition from hardliners, who want to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
President Hassan Rouhani has been a staunch supporter of the agreement. He appears to want to try to explore with the Europeans and others the possibilities of keeping it alive.
But he faces strong internal opposition from hardliners, some of whom want Iran to break out not just from the JCPOA - but from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) altogether.
President Trump appears to have cut the ground from under his Iranian counterpart's feet.
An imperfect deal that was working
Let's be clear here what we are talking about. The Iran nuclear deal is undoubtedly controversial. Mr Trump has opposed it consistently, though often it appeared for no other logical reason than that it was the creation of his predecessor in the White House.
The deal was not perfect. It did not cover a range of worrying Iranian activities from its missile programme to its regional behaviour.
It covered what it covered - Iran's sophisticated and impressive nuclear programme. It imposed a whole range of restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities and introduced a more intrusive verification regime to ensure that Iran was complying with its terms.
Some of these restrictions will expire over time. At best you could say the agreement prevented Iran from getting close to a break-out point after which it might dash to get a bomb.
At worst you could say that it simply delayed a potential crisis - "kicking the can down the road" as it were. Given that without the JCPOA there was a real risk of a war between Israel and Iran this might not have been such a bad thing.
The inconvenient truth for Donald Trump is that, as far as it goes, the nuclear deal was working.
All the other countries who signed up to the agreement believe that Iran is in full compliance with its terms. So does the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). So, too, do key members of the Trump administration itself, not least the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
Despite this, Mr Trump presented the JCPOA in stark and frankly erroneous terms. He largely condemned it for leaving out things that it was never supposed to cover in the first place.
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
So where do we go from here?
Dangerous path ahead
A battle will now be under way in Tehran, and who wins out will determine if the agreement can be saved.
If the so-called moderates prevail then the Europeans will have a crucial role to play. For what is at stake here is not US sanctions against Iran as such, but so-called "secondary sanctions" - that is sanctions against foreign i.e. non-US companies that may be dealing with Tehran.
Major headache: Do the Europeans have a clear strategy how to deal with the US on the Iran issue?
The Europeans are clearly dismayed by President Trump's announcement. They seem ready to stick with the deal.
There will be significant delays before they - or more correctly European companies - are likely to face the wrath of the US treasury department's sanctions machine.
This could provide time for some gathering of thoughts and diplomatic efforts to explore how much latitude there may be in the US position, if any.
But we are in an unprecedented situation with potentially dangerous consequences. If the Iran deal does collapse and Iran were to ramp up its nuclear activities, what then?
With the US, the Europeans and Nato increasingly worried about Russia's more assertive stance, is this really the moment for a serious trans-Atlantic rift?
And then there is the war-scarred Middle East itself.
Iran and Israel are already engaged in preliminary skirmishes in Syria that risk an all-out confrontation.
Iran is smarting from a number of air attacks against its facilities and allies. It is already eager for revenge.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been the major cheer-leader urging Mr Trump to abandon the nuclear deal. (This despite most former senior Israeli intelligence and military figures - and even some current ones - believing that the deal, for all its faults, has some value).
Where is the Plan B?
Part of the rationale for the nuclear deal was to keep Iran a respectable distance away from having a bomb. This would give sufficient time for international pressure to be applied if it looked like breaking out from the constraints.
But if the JCPOA unravels and Iran steps up its nuclear activities what then? The risk of an Iranian break-out and dash for a bomb could encourage other countries - not least Saudi Arabia - to go nuclear too.
We are living in extraordinary times and this decision - some 18 months or so in office - perhaps marks the start of the real Donald Trump foreign policy: one that many critics would say is based upon raw emotion, a gut-feeling, but certainly not on empirical fact.
Even those who agree with Mr Trump's actions are left with fundamental questions to answer.
Where is the "Plan B"? How is Iran now to be contained? And how is an international consensus to be maintained to further this goal?
Iran nuclear deal not dead despite US exit, France says - BBC News
May 9, 2018
Iran nuclear deal not dead despite US exit, France says
Analysis: What's next for the Iran deal? Barbara Plett Usher explains
France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says the Iranian nuclear deal is "not dead" despite US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw.
The 2015 agreement curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed by the UN, US and EU.
But Mr Trump argued that the deal was "defective at its core", saying he would pull out and reimpose sanctions.
Other signatories to the nuclear accord say they remain committed to it.
The deal was agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany.
Is there a Plan B?
Could the Iran deal collapse?
UK pledges support for deal
Iran has also said it would try to salvage the agreement, but would restart uranium enrichment if it could not.
In a statement, President Hassan Rouhani said: "I have ordered the foreign ministry to negotiate with the European countries, China and Russia in the coming weeks.
Iranian parliamentarians reacted angrily to Mr Trump's decision
"If we achieve the deal's goals in co-operation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place."
There were furious scenes in the Iranian parliament, with members burning an American flag and the speaker reportedly saying Mr Trump lacked "mental capacity".
How do key powers see Mr Trump's decision?
In his comments to French radio, Mr Le Drian said "the deal is not dead. There's an American withdrawal from the deal but the deal is still there".
He said there would be a meeting between France, Britain, Germany and Iran on Monday.
Russia said it was "deeply disappointed" by Mr Trump's decision while China expressed regret.
But the move has been welcomed by Iran's major regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent critic of the accord, said he "fully supports" Mr Trump's withdrawal from a "disastrous" deal.
Why did the US withdraw?
In his address on Tuesday, President Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He said he would work to find a "real, comprehensive, and lasting" deal that tackled not only the Iranian nuclear programme but its ballistic missile tests and activities across the Middle East.
Media captionIran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
Mr Trump also said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.
The US Treasury said the sanctions would target industries mentioned in the deal, including Iran's oil sector, aircraft manufacturers exporting to Iran and Iranian government attempts to buy US dollar banknotes.
Major European and US companies are likely to be hit. Some exemptions are due to be negotiated but it is not yet clear what.
US National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business in Iran will have to stop doing so within six months or face US sanctions.
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
Collision course
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
The deal was not perfect. It did not cover a range of worrying Iranian activities from its missile programme to its regional behaviour.
The inconvenient truth for Donald Trump is that, as far as it goes, the nuclear deal was working.
Despite this, Mr Trump presented it in stark and frankly erroneous terms - for leaving out things that it was never supposed to cover in the first place.
He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What was agreed under the deal?
The JCPOA saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - for 15 years and the number of centrifuges installed to enrich uranium for 10 years.
Iran also agreed to modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce plutonium suitable for a bomb.
Iran limited its sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief
In return, sanctions imposed by the UN, US and EU that had crippled Iran's economy were lifted.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran nuclear deal not dead despite US exit, France says
Analysis: What's next for the Iran deal? Barbara Plett Usher explains
France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says the Iranian nuclear deal is "not dead" despite US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw.
The 2015 agreement curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed by the UN, US and EU.
But Mr Trump argued that the deal was "defective at its core", saying he would pull out and reimpose sanctions.
Other signatories to the nuclear accord say they remain committed to it.
The deal was agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany.
Is there a Plan B?
Could the Iran deal collapse?
UK pledges support for deal
Iran has also said it would try to salvage the agreement, but would restart uranium enrichment if it could not.
In a statement, President Hassan Rouhani said: "I have ordered the foreign ministry to negotiate with the European countries, China and Russia in the coming weeks.
Iranian parliamentarians reacted angrily to Mr Trump's decision
"If we achieve the deal's goals in co-operation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place."
There were furious scenes in the Iranian parliament, with members burning an American flag and the speaker reportedly saying Mr Trump lacked "mental capacity".
How do key powers see Mr Trump's decision?
In his comments to French radio, Mr Le Drian said "the deal is not dead. There's an American withdrawal from the deal but the deal is still there".
He said there would be a meeting between France, Britain, Germany and Iran on Monday.
Russia said it was "deeply disappointed" by Mr Trump's decision while China expressed regret.
But the move has been welcomed by Iran's major regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent critic of the accord, said he "fully supports" Mr Trump's withdrawal from a "disastrous" deal.
Why did the US withdraw?
In his address on Tuesday, President Trump called the nuclear accord - or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as it is formally known - a "horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made".
He said he would work to find a "real, comprehensive, and lasting" deal that tackled not only the Iranian nuclear programme but its ballistic missile tests and activities across the Middle East.
Media captionIran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
Mr Trump also said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.
The US Treasury said the sanctions would target industries mentioned in the deal, including Iran's oil sector, aircraft manufacturers exporting to Iran and Iranian government attempts to buy US dollar banknotes.
Major European and US companies are likely to be hit. Some exemptions are due to be negotiated but it is not yet clear what.
US National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business in Iran will have to stop doing so within six months or face US sanctions.
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
Collision course
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
The deal was not perfect. It did not cover a range of worrying Iranian activities from its missile programme to its regional behaviour.
The inconvenient truth for Donald Trump is that, as far as it goes, the nuclear deal was working.
Despite this, Mr Trump presented it in stark and frankly erroneous terms - for leaving out things that it was never supposed to cover in the first place.
He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What was agreed under the deal?
The JCPOA saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - for 15 years and the number of centrifuges installed to enrich uranium for 10 years.
Iran also agreed to modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce plutonium suitable for a bomb.
Iran limited its sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief
In return, sanctions imposed by the UN, US and EU that had crippled Iran's economy were lifted.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls US out in break with Europe allies - BBC News
May 9, 2018
Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls US out in break with Europe allies
Iran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
US President Donald Trump says he will withdraw the US from an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran.
Calling it "decaying and rotten", he said the deal was "an embarrassment" to him "as a citizen".
Going against advice from European allies, he said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.
In response, Iran said it was preparing to restart uranium enrichment, key for making both nuclear energy and weapons.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said: "The US has announced that it doesn't respect its commitments.
"I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran to be ready for action if needed, so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations."
He said he would "wait a few weeks" to speak to allies and the other signatories to the nuclear deal first.
"If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place," he said.
Could the Iran deal collapse?
What is the nuclear accord?
UK and European allies "committed to deal"
The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed by the UN, US and EU.
President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will "wait and see how others react"
Mr Trump had previously complained that the deal only limited Iran's nuclear activities for a fixed period; had failed to stop the development of ballistic missiles; and had handed Iran a $100bn (£74bn) windfall that it used "as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression" across the Middle East.
"It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of this deal," Mr Trump said.
"The Iran deal is defective to its core."
Former President Barack Obama, who signed the deal on behalf of the US three years ago, called Mr Trump's announcement "misguided".
When will the sanctions restart?
The US Treasury said economic sanctions would not be reimposed on Iran immediately, but would be subject to 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.
In a statement on its website, it said sanctions would be reimposed on the industries mentioned in the 2015 deal, including Iran's oil sector, aircraft exports, precious metals trade, and Iranian government attempts to buy US dollar banknotes.
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
US National Security Advisor John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business with Iran will have to finish within six months or face US sanctions.
On a collision course
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
With a stroke of his pen President Trump has jeopardised the one agreement - good or bad -that seeks to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He launched a scathing assault on the deal and its deficiencies, but he offered no alternative policy to put in its place.
He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What reaction has there been worldwide?
France, Germany and the UK - whose leaders had tried to change Mr Trump's mind - have said they "regret" the American decision. The foreign ministry of Russia, another signatory, said it was "deeply disappointed".
The European Union's top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, said the EU was "determined to preserve" the deal.
Former President Obama said on Facebook that the deal was working and was in US interests.
"Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies, and an agreement that our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated.
"At a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes - with Iran - the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans," he said.
The United Nations secretary general's spokesman said Antonio Guterres was "deeply concerned" at the announcement and called on the other signatories to abide by their commitments.
But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he "fully supports" Mr Trump's "bold" withdrawal from a "disastrous" deal.
And Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional rival, says it "supports and welcomes" Mr Trump's moves towards pulling out of the deal.
What was agreed under the deal?
The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - for 15 years and the number of centrifuges installed to enrich uranium for 10 years.
Iran also agreed to modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce plutonium suitable for a bomb.
Iran limited its sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief
In return, sanctions imposed by the UN, US and EU that had crippled Iran's economy were lifted.
The deal was agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls US out in break with Europe allies
Iran nuclear deal: Trump announces US pull-out
US President Donald Trump says he will withdraw the US from an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran.
Calling it "decaying and rotten", he said the deal was "an embarrassment" to him "as a citizen".
Going against advice from European allies, he said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.
In response, Iran said it was preparing to restart uranium enrichment, key for making both nuclear energy and weapons.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said: "The US has announced that it doesn't respect its commitments.
"I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran to be ready for action if needed, so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations."
He said he would "wait a few weeks" to speak to allies and the other signatories to the nuclear deal first.
"If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place," he said.
Could the Iran deal collapse?
What is the nuclear accord?
UK and European allies "committed to deal"
The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed by the UN, US and EU.
President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will "wait and see how others react"
Mr Trump had previously complained that the deal only limited Iran's nuclear activities for a fixed period; had failed to stop the development of ballistic missiles; and had handed Iran a $100bn (£74bn) windfall that it used "as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression" across the Middle East.
"It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of this deal," Mr Trump said.
"The Iran deal is defective to its core."
Former President Barack Obama, who signed the deal on behalf of the US three years ago, called Mr Trump's announcement "misguided".
When will the sanctions restart?
The US Treasury said economic sanctions would not be reimposed on Iran immediately, but would be subject to 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.
In a statement on its website, it said sanctions would be reimposed on the industries mentioned in the 2015 deal, including Iran's oil sector, aircraft exports, precious metals trade, and Iranian government attempts to buy US dollar banknotes.
Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?
Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal
US National Security Advisor John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business with Iran will have to finish within six months or face US sanctions.
On a collision course
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
With a stroke of his pen President Trump has jeopardised the one agreement - good or bad -that seeks to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
He launched a scathing assault on the deal and its deficiencies, but he offered no alternative policy to put in its place.
He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.
And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.
What reaction has there been worldwide?
France, Germany and the UK - whose leaders had tried to change Mr Trump's mind - have said they "regret" the American decision. The foreign ministry of Russia, another signatory, said it was "deeply disappointed".
The European Union's top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, said the EU was "determined to preserve" the deal.
Former President Obama said on Facebook that the deal was working and was in US interests.
"Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies, and an agreement that our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated.
"At a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes - with Iran - the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans," he said.
The United Nations secretary general's spokesman said Antonio Guterres was "deeply concerned" at the announcement and called on the other signatories to abide by their commitments.
But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he "fully supports" Mr Trump's "bold" withdrawal from a "disastrous" deal.
And Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional rival, says it "supports and welcomes" Mr Trump's moves towards pulling out of the deal.
What was agreed under the deal?
The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - for 15 years and the number of centrifuges installed to enrich uranium for 10 years.
Iran also agreed to modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce plutonium suitable for a bomb.
Iran limited its sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief
In return, sanctions imposed by the UN, US and EU that had crippled Iran's economy were lifted.
The deal was agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
