
Skirting U.S. sanctions, Europeans launch trade mechanism for Iran - betahiker
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-sanctions-eu/germany-france-britain-to-launch-mechanism-for-trade-with-iran-idUSKCN1PP0K3
======
nabla9
The mechanism, as I understand it, is just SWIFT network isolated from
exposure to US, USD and banks with exposure to the US. It prevents US justice
department from monitoring or preventing transactions.

It's my understanding that China has also licensed SWIFT software and will use
it to create isolated payment system to shield it's trade with Iran and Russia
other countries.

------
pointillistic
Honest argument about these issues is no longer possible on HN or elsewhere on
the Net. People immediately move into ideological formations and the rational
conversation falls away. The down-votes and up-votes have nothing to do with
content or even the subject but only with the perceived team. I would ban
politically charged conversation on HN, if this was up to me.

~~~
mrep
I don't know about ban, but an automated mechanism which removes up/downvoting
anytime their are too many in a thread sounds like a good option to me.

~~~
Tomte
So that emotionally charged threads become pure shitshows?

That's a really bad idea. It would be better to delete the thread then.

------
colde
I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit
nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit.

This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft
power all over the world.

I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to
help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this
will be enough i don't know, but it seems like a good step forward.

~~~
morrbo
Practically speaking, the UK is completely screwed when it gets to choose who
to trade with post-brexit. The deal the US will make with the UK will
effectively be too good for the US (US hold all the cards) for the UK to have
any form of negotiating power.

The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK"
because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be
the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an
attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU
especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can
guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran,
they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this
so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is
my line of thinking anyway.

~~~
rusk
In terms of trade, how is it exactly they can complement each other? The
geography is a bit of an issue for actual physical goods, and I'm not sure
what the UK produces that the US needs. Luxury cars maybe, but IIRC most of
these marques aren't even owned by the UK any more, except for perhaps the
high end. Cheap Bentley's for American oligarchs?

Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the
UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between
the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's
a lot of smart people in the US.

I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more
of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.

~~~
morrbo
You've misunderstood. Practically speaking, the UK needs to buy shit, the US
needs to sell shit. UK has effectively blocked out 1/3 of the world (Europe)
from a trade deal because we'd never get one as good as the current free trade
agreement with the EU. Our politicians won't be stupid enough to say "we've
left the EU, but have made a worse deal with Europe than we had before".
Similarly EU won't make a deal with the UK which disallows freedom of movement
and other "core" EU values, so any deal made would either require
circumstances similar to pre-brexit EU to happen, or would just flat out be a
worse deal.

Distance really isn't much of an issue at scale, when your cheap stuff comes
from China - - edit - to clarify, the point i'm trying to make is that it
really doesn't cost much to ship stuff halfway around the world, especially en
masse. -, or meat from New Zealand, this isn't much of an argument. This would
be a purely US beneficial deal, the UK wouldn't really be bringing anything
into the US, other than maybe finance services, specialist products or (i
guess) softer products like educational visas?

There's quite a big controversy over here at the moment about the possibility
of a US trade deal. We are being told that for it to happen we would have to
accept terms like chlorinated chicken/steroid injected beef, and then agree to
other things like labeling the origin of the product (so you would never
really know if you were eating US or UK products). There's a whole other host
of subtleties which would degrade the UK whilst being beneficial to the US,
just do a bit of googling about the proposed deals.

~~~
rusk
_> when your cheap stuff comes from China_

Yeah except neither party to this deal is producing "cheap stuff". Both
consider themselves to be very much "top tier".

 _> edit - to clarify, the point i'm trying to make is that it really doesn't
cost much to ship stuff halfway around the world, especially en masse_

Yeah, if the stuff is "cheap". Like dramatically cheaper than what you can
produce at home.

~~~
morrbo
lol mate you're really not getting it. You said "the geography is a bit of an
issue for physical goods". I'm saying, when you can order a sheep from new
zealand, or a USB stick from China, and have it show up a few days or a week
later, this isn't really a good argument.

~~~
rusk
_" lol mate"_ what is this snapchat? , you're the one that's not getting it.

 _" The geography is a bit of an issue for physical goods"_ when you're not
producing goods cheap enough to cover the cost of transit. The UK does not
produce cheap goods. Quite the opposite.

I don't think racing to the bottom in living standards to compete productively
with China is something that people voting for Brexit had in mind.

~~~
morrbo
The UK would be IMPORTING goods from the US.. I don't get where you're getting
this idea we'd be exporting cheap goods from the UK to the US. The examples i
explicitly stated were things like education, specialized tech (which would be
fine for shipping), and access to financial services, which once again doesn't
need shipping. For the last time, i'm not saying that the UK is going suddenly
start mass producing cheap goods to export to the US? I dont know where you've
got that idea from. The US, however, does create a lot of cheap goods which
they'd be exporting TO the UK, such as your corn, meats, etc.

The main issue people are concerned about is that the UK would be flooded with
cheaper/sub standard goods (re. chlorinated chicken) that they can't
differentiate between standard UK/EU products which are of a higher quality.
Currently, US meat is outright banned in the EU, if there's an influx in
cheap/chemically altered meats coming from the US which people can't
differentiate from (this is partially due to the terms of the trading deal
banning branding of goods as "Produced in the UK") then people are worried
they'd accidentally end up buying them.

~~~
rusk
I’m understanding you alright ... so a massive trade deficit in USA’s favour
so!

Not such a concern about where you’re going to get the £££ if all you’re
buying is cheap junk in $$$ but even so there’s got to be cheaper places to
buy cheap junk from and sure with the rules lifted why not just start
producing cheap junk yourself!

------
nkozyra
Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we
keep getting fed.

Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their
own destiny only works so long as we're complacent.

I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological
battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people
profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured.

I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we
need to start asking for receipts.

I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few
terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The
notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems
far fetched.

~~~
dfxm12
_We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global
conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in._

We, the people, are pretty powerless here. Lobbyists and elected officials
have too much power and election cycles are too far apart. So even when recent
American military action gets relatively low support from Americans [0],
neither congress nor the president has any motivation to do anything about it.

0 - [https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-
ra...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-rates-low-
historical-context.aspx)

~~~
josho
You’ve forgotten how to protest. I recall you guys getting pretty upset over
some tea with Britain.

Seriously as long as folks are content at home the politicians won’t give a
damn about you. Go march in the streets en mass and things will slowly change.

~~~
mont
Are you implying that putting some filter over my facebook picture isn't an
effective method of protest?

~~~
wonthegame
You raised awareness. (Slightly sarcasm)

~~~
johannes1234321
Not only that, but you are also signalling to your environment that thy are
not alone. That's also a key factor in many demonstrations.

------
anonu
As America steps back from the world stage, we will see more alliances being
forged that exclude the USA.

These plans of dissociation have been in motion for some time now. I think two
ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a shift in American foreign
policy that we are now starting to see play out more frequently. This will
continue for many decades.

~~~
mc32
Perhaps, but this is orthogonal to that. This is to sidestep US sanctions.

The traditional (not current) left was for disengagement (WTO protests, Iraq
protests), it’s strange to see the left now argue for intervention and more
internationalism and intervention and hegemony.

~~~
anonu
In the past, US allies like Germany, France, Britain, would never dream of
crossing the US. A trade agreement that effectively promotes the Euro to
sidestep the USD is Europe thumbing its nose at the US.

Yes, on the face of it, this is about sidestepping sanctions. But the
implications of doing so go far deeper. The US posture today basically makes
the US weaker in the long run.

------
xster
Their CFOs better not travel to Canada anytime soon :D

~~~
BLKNSLVR
Yeah, it definitely has the appearance of undercutting the importance of
Huawei's alleged actions of breaking sanctions the US has imposed on Iran.

Be interesting which side Canada chooses. They might even get a wall out of
it.

------
shaki-dora
That’s the thing with all the “soft” power the US has: you can maybe use it
once or twice to bully allies into doing your bidding. But that’s a terrible
way to spent all the good will built over decades of mutually beneficial
cooperation.

~~~
maxxxxx
Some people in the US think that this good will is God given and not the
result of decades of hard work so they are very willing to squander it.

------
beezly
"Washington says that, although Iran has met the terms, the accord was too
generous, failing to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program or __curb its
regional meddling. __" \- oh the irony!

------
miscreanity
I find it even more interesting that my comment, which is factually correct,
has been flagged.

The Yellow Vest movement started in France and has been prominent in the
countries listed within the article. The governments of those countries have
also been defying popular wishes, particularly regarding Brexit.

So I am curious as to why my comment should be flagged instead of replied to.
Interesting indeed - hit a nerve?

------
Zenst
Kinda ironic, how Britain managed to organise a trade deal for Iran so quickly
with EU neibours and yet utterly unable after years to organise its own trade
needs.

~~~
growlist
yeah, I guess it's almost like the EU is cutting off its nose to spite its
face.

------
renholder
IA Link[0], for Europeans (like myself), who get "Page Not Found".

[0] -
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reute...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
iran-usa-sanctions-eu/germany-france-britain-to-launch-mechanism-for-trade-
with-iran-idUSKCN1PP0K3)

~~~
Luc
Am in Luxembourg, no problem viewing the page. Reuters HQ is in the UK...

------
y04nn
Thinking that an embargo is going to solve the problem is misleading and it's
only going to make things worst. The population is going to confort themselves
that the occidental nations are evil, you give valid arguments to the
dictatorial power, only the population is going to suffer.

Conversely opening the market creates bounds between countries and opens the
population's mind that will impose the democracy by itself.

~~~
blackbrokkoli
What is "the problem"?

If you say the embargo solves the problem of fueling a boogeyman enemy to
rationalize military spending and fuel nationalism, then I would say it's a
quite elegant solution.

------
gammateam
The US acquired the ability to leverage the financial system to enact its will

And now it wont

It doesnt really matter if you are subscribed to the merit of the US’ claims
or not

------
chvid
I don't understand how that would prevent the US from sanctioning those banks
and companies that trades with Iran? Regardless if they traded through the
described mechanism.

~~~
sadris
Correct. The Secretary of State has already said this. You can do business
with America. Or do business with Iran. But you can't do business with both.

~~~
growlist
Beyond mass scale industrial espionage though, what options does the US
realistically have if third party countries/trading blocs create a mechanism
to hide the trade? Are they going to sanction the EU? Be interesting to see
that one play out. It could basically end up with America blacklisting every
country outside the US, thus ending up with itself as its only trading
partner..

~~~
sadris
The US has the largest spying apparatus on the planet. And yes, we will and
have block trade with nations trading with Iran. The Twitter feed for our
ambassador to Germany documents all of these cases and in every instance, they
have folded.

The reality is that we are 16t worth of trade and Iran is 440b. They're just
not worth it.

~~~
fixvzbdjzis
That’s really the genius of Trumps foreign policy. He knows the heft of the
USA and the spinelessness of EU leaders.

Which really obviates the only real reason to have the EU - combined, all the
EU countries are stronger in any field than the US (or China).

That being said the US is a basket case. Sure bully the EU. It’ll work today,
maybe ten years from now.

But the US is a failing concern, with a completely rotten and corrupt ruling
class that lead ppl to vote for an oversized Twinkee for president. World wide
hegemony is done in twenty years.

------
anc84
We should have embargos on the US for pursuing a climate change program that
destroys the planet.

~~~
jdowongns
Yeah, except that the US has reduced emissions more than any other country and
is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.

~~~
okal
Not true. The US is responsible for 14% of emissions, which is unconscionable
for a country that only holds ~4.5% of the world's population. You're actually
doing quite horribly on a per-capita basis. China is doing far better than the
US on a per-capita count.

~~~
adventured
That is solely because 1/3 of China's population is still living extremely
impoverished lives that are equivalent to third world standards. They have
400-500 million people that are still among the poorest on earth. I can't
imagine how you think that's an accomplishment that deserves recognition.
Their low per capita pollution output due to extreme poverty, is not due to
stellar environmental policies by China.

~~~
EastToWest
I just want to point out that, as of 2012, there was only 6.5% of the
population in China living in poverty according to World Bank.

[http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#3](http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#3)

------
zozbot123
Wouldn't want to lose access to that oil... who cares about preserving the
liberal order and not giving an incentive to states to turn rogue? But hey,
President Trump is thinking about doing the same thing wrt. the Ukraine, so
who am I to complain? Maybe two wrongs can make a right.

~~~
entity345
The Iran regime largely owes its very existence to the way the West
(particularly UK and US) behaved towards the country.

Do they think that hitting even harder will have any result?

~~~
oriol11
I became an islamist terrorist state because they forced me to.

~~~
ric2b
Or maybe all the leaders that weren't awful were forced out.

------
x3tm
And yet, they can't reach an agreement with each other.

Edit: I meant this as a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, comment re the Brexit
negotiations. It was apparently wrong to do so (?). I even took precious time
from the fallacy man
([http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9](http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9)).

~~~
benj111
The EU (minus Britain) are united. Its just Britain that cant agree with
itself.

~~~
makomk
If there's one thing about Brexit that Britain can agree on, it's that the
deal that's being offered by the EU is awful. It lead to the largest House of
Commons defeat for a key government bill in history, and it polls terribly
with pretty much everyone. That's why the EU (and most of the British press)
have been using the fact that May managed to trade some bad parts of their
proposal with differently bad replacements to spin the whole thing as the UK's
doing. Pundits also like to potray the EU as an inanimate object incapable of
culpability for anything and the UK as the only one responsible for changing.

Also, we don't even know that most of the EU is united even on Brexit -
they've carefully held off their required votes on the Brexit deal until after
the UK gets it through Parliament, which doesn't look like happening any time
soon.

~~~
louisswiss
A helpful reminder that Britain leaving the EU and Britain getting a 'deal'
with the EU are two separate (but related) events.

Britain triggered Article 50 and decided to leave the EU. There's no deal
necessary. From the EU's point of view (and a legal one), this isn't a
negotiation, just a (sometimes less clearly defined) bureaucratic procedure.

There _is_ of course the question of what Britain's relationship to the EU
will look like after Brexit. And it is the EU's responsibility to negotiate a
deal which makes that relationship as beneficial for EU member states as
possible.

It's simply not their job to care about Britain any more.

Another point worth remembering is that several EU countries don't really have
a significant trading relationship with Britain. Imagine if Britain had
remained in the EU and Austria was negotiating a 'Brexit-style' deal, for
example. How interested would Britain really be in whether that deal was good
or bad?

~~~
pluma
Really it seems like Ireland and Spain are the most interested parties when it
comes to negotiating with post-EU Britain. And if you look at UK land borders
it should be obvious why that is.

This is what's most frustrating about Brexiters complaining about the
"unreasonable" offer by the EU. It's not "the EU" imposing those terms, it's
the interested parties.

~~~
louisswiss
I'm by no means an expert, but I wonder if it isn't actually the
'uninterested' EU parties who are turning this into a 'bad' deal for the UK.

After all, with little to lose personally from a poor UK-EU trading deal,
those uninterested parties have a much stronger incentive to push for other
things they find important (such as freedom of movement).

------
m0skit0
A "deal" that has near-zero value for both parties where the EU is more trying
to save face by showing it is "independent" while trying to not anger the USA
anyway by applying other sanctions. IMHO this is a pretty weak move from the
EU, and shows that there is no clear driver behind the EU wheel after the
souring of US-EU relations.

~~~
ddalex
Lol, what?

This deal is entirely designed to cut US out the loop of international
payments, one step at a time. It is extremely valuable to EU to able to
conduct oil payments with Iran directly in Euro, without the US being able to
say no.

~~~
m0skit0
Did you read the article? "The European trade vehicle was conceived as a way
to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods.
However, those ambitions have been toned down, with diplomats saying that,
realistically, it will be used only for smaller trade, for example of
humanitarian products or food." So effectively the EU-Iran trade deal is just
a diplomatic move rather than a real trade deal. Also EU companies do not want
to risk getting sanctioned by the US by getting into any trade with Iran.

~~~
cannabis_sam
Still, it’s a diplomatic move that would have been inconceivable (IMHO) under
Obama or Bush..

~~~
m0skit0
Ofc, because with Trump the US-EU relation has got to an all-time low, and now
the EU tries to look independent even if it can't but ofc you need to show
your voters you are not sold to US interests.

------
linkmotif
Why? Why do they bend over backwards for these people?

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-
blames-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-iran-
for-foiled-bomb-attack-near-paris)

[https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-
iran-o...](https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-over-
planned-europe-attacks/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-
tw...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-two-
assassinations-in-netherlands-minister)

And on and on and on.

------
strictnein
Yeah, Iran is just a simple country that doesn't deserve any of this... they
treat everyone well, don't subjugate half their population along gender lines,
aren't responsible for thousands of US and Iraqi causalities, and don't export
terrorism across the region.

I know the "America is dumb" line works well on HN, but the naivety of some
people here around foreign policy is just kind of staggering. Iran's "own
destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it.

~~~
femiagbabiaka
Do you know the history of Iran? It was once a very progressive country before
we interfered in their government. With expose to global markets for Iranian
citizens, it may be again.

~~~
ashelmire
I think you have that backwards. It was another Islamic regime until the west
interfered with it. Then it became more progressive due in large part to our
interference. Then the Islamists revolted, wanting to regress back to a less
progressive state, fearing secularism - which gave us the Islamic state we
have today.

~~~
boomboomsubban
This is getting the details incorrect and ignoring a century of interference.

Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive
secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to
regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that
can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading
to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.

~~~
ashelmire
The “progressive secular government” was a despotic dictatorship without a
free press, where political opponents of Reza were assassinated, and rule was
maintained through the military. The progress was progress for the wealthy.
Yes, there was foreign interference before that; but it wasn’t better before
that either.

~~~
boomboomsubban
The progressive secular government was the one under Mosaddegh. Though Reza
was the Shah at the time, he did not have the tyrannical power until after the
US backed coup, and that period is the pro-west regime I mention.

~~~
ashelmire
I was referring to Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza's father, who led Iran for
decades. Reza Shah is generally credited with being an autocrat, but who is
credited with most of Iran's modern nation-building.

Mosaddegh led the nation for two years, half of which he had emergency
dictatorial powers, which he used to forcibly reallocate wealth from
landowners to tenants. And due to nationalizing oil, he faced a British
boycott that caused the economy to fail (and declared the British an enemy...
which was unwise). If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most
rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent
history. The US led coup was only planned 8 months _after_ the emergency
powers were granted to Mosaddegh. 5 months after that, the coup was executed.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and
catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history.

Purely because he resisted Western control over the oil fields. The government
was secular and progressive, but the west only cares if you're pro-western
interests.

