The tensions in West Asia means bad news for the global economy and the business community. Many international airlines have been re-routed, oil prices have risen sharply and volatility grips the equity markets. This report looks at some key numbers. #US #Iran #Gravitas #GlobalEconomy

Gravitas: US-Iran conflict, Impact on global economy

Almost a week after the US drone strike killed Iran's most powerful general, Soleimani, the war clouds seem to have receded for now in West Asia. Last night, US President Trump hinted at de-escalation of tensions with Iran. Is the crisis in West Asia truly over? @Palkisu explains. #Gravitas #India #US #Iran

Gravitas: Iran, US pull back from brink of war

As far as the US-Iran conflict is concerned, India has managed a very difficult balancing act. India's ties with the U.S. and Iran are independent of each other. Will this crisis force India to take some tough decisions? This report explores. #Gravitas #US #Iran #India

Gravitas: US vs Iran, India's balancing act

As far as the US-Iran conflict is concerned, India has managed a very difficult balancing act. India's ties with the U.S. and Iran are independent of each other. Will this crisis force India to take some tough decisions? This report explores.

Amid West Asia conflict US wants India to cut ties with Iran

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to approve a resolution aimed at restraining the President's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval, amid simmering tensions between the US and the country.

House votes to restrain Trump's Iran war powers

US-Iran conflict is a tricky situation for India. India maintains strong ties with both the US & Iran. This presents India an opportunity to broker peace in West Asia. Can & Will India play peacemaker? On Wion Edit Palki Sharma explores. #Gravitas #India #US #Iran

Wion Edit: US-Iran conflict: Can India play peacemaker?

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management.

That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.

Hobbled by harsh US economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations, as well as, acts of political violence, an approach that the United States has yet to come to grips with.

Iran’s firing of missiles at two US bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation.

The Iranian missiles targetting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge.

Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing the further US and Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh US response.

Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a "slap in the face" of the United States.

Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of US forces from the Middle East.&nbsp;

"Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America's corrupt presence must come to an end in this region," he said.

In a televised address, Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.”

Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and extolling American military and economic might, President Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”

He noted that the US and Iran had a common interest in fighting the Islamic State, one reason why Soleimani was a popular figure in Iran and went on to say that “We should work together on this and other shared priorities.”

Determined not to get embroiled in another Middle East war, Trump’s acknowledgement of the Iranian gesture hardly comes as a surprise.

Trump has in the past nine months exercised in military terms the kind of strategic patience that Iran adopted in the first 18 months after the United States withdrew in 2018 from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and imposed its economic sanctions.

Iran in May/June of last year switched its posture to one of calibrated escalation after Europe, Russia and China proved unwilling and/or incapable of salvaging the nuclear accord in a way that Iran would be at least partially compensated for the severe impact of the sanctions.

Trump refrained from responding militarily to numerous attacks, including last year’s Iranian downing of a US drone, attacks on tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and two key Saudi oil facilities.

Those attacks were the ones that caught the most international attention, but were, according to US officials, only the tip of the iceberg.

The officials said there had been some 90 attacks on US targets in Iraq since May 2019 carried out by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, including Kataeb Hezbollah, whose leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed alongside Soleimani.

The attacks were intended not only to force the US to escalate tensions by provoking a military response in the hope that it would lead to a return to the negotiating table but also an environment conducive to a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government and/or public pressure.

“The nearly eight months in which the United States did not respond forcefully to a series of military provocations and attacks almost certainly contributed to the increasingly assertive and audacious actions by Iran and its proxies,” said Michael Eisenstadt, an expert on the military and strategy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Trump’s apparent, so far disproven, belief that bluster and intimidation will force his adversaries coupled with television images of the besieged US embassy in Baghdad is likely what persuaded him to respond disproportionately to the killing of a US contractor by assassinating Soleimani.

Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energise efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table.

To do so, the third party with leverage on both sides of the divide like Oman would have to bridge a gap on the terms of reviving negotiations aimed at reinstituting the nuclear accord that has been widened by Soleimani’s killing.

Revival of the agreement would have to involve revised terms that include Iran’s controversial ballistic missiles programme and support for proxies across the Middle East, the core of its defence strategy.

Dialling down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time. It does not solve anything.

Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran.

Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation. It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed.

Said The Washington Post in an editorial prior to Trump’s latest remarks: “The way to avoid these outcomes is to work with allies and other intermediaries to offer Iran a diplomatic solution before the slide toward war becomes irreversible. In short, what’s needed is Pompeo’s ‘de-escalation,’ not Trump’s reckless threats.”

Trump has proven that he can go either way. 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management. That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management. That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard. Hobbled by harsh US economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations, as well as, acts of political violence, an approach that the United States has yet to come to grips with. Iran’s firing of missiles at two US bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation. The Iranian missiles targetting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge. Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing the further US and Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh US response. Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a "slap in the face" of the United States. Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of US forces from the Middle East. "Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America's corrupt presence must come to an end in this region," he said. In a televised address, Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.” Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and extolling American military and economic might, President Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.” He noted that the US and Iran had a common interest in fighting the Islamic State, one reason why Soleimani was a popular figure in Iran and went on to say that “We should work together on this and other shared priorities.” Determined not to get embroiled in another Middle East war, Trump’s acknowledgement of the Iranian gesture hardly comes as a surprise. Trump has in the past nine months exercised in military terms the kind of strategic patience that Iran adopted in the first 18 months after the United States withdrew in 2018 from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and imposed its economic sanctions. Iran in May/June of last year switched its posture to one of calibrated escalation after Europe, Russia and China proved unwilling and/or incapable of salvaging the nuclear accord in a way that Iran would be at least partially compensated for the severe impact of the sanctions. Trump refrained from responding militarily to numerous attacks, including last year’s Iranian downing of a US drone, attacks on tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and two key Saudi oil facilities. Those attacks were the ones that caught the most international attention, but were, according to US officials, only the tip of the iceberg. The officials said there had been some 90 attacks on US targets in Iraq since May 2019 carried out by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, including Kataeb Hezbollah, whose leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed alongside Soleimani. The attacks were intended not only to force the US to escalate tensions by provoking a military response in the hope that it would lead to a return to the negotiating table but also an environment conducive to a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government and/or public pressure. “The nearly eight months in which the United States did not respond forcefully to a series of military provocations and attacks almost certainly contributed to the increasingly assertive and audacious actions by Iran and its proxies,” said Michael Eisenstadt, an expert on the military and strategy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Trump’s apparent, so far disproven, belief that bluster and intimidation will force his adversaries coupled with television images of the besieged US embassy in Baghdad is likely what persuaded him to respond disproportionately to the killing of a US contractor by assassinating Soleimani. Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energise efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table. To do so, the third party with leverage on both sides of the divide like Oman would have to bridge a gap on the terms of reviving negotiations aimed at reinstituting the nuclear accord that has been widened by Soleimani’s killing. Revival of the agreement would have to involve revised terms that include Iran’s controversial ballistic missiles programme and support for proxies across the Middle East, the core of its defence strategy. Dialling down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time. It does not solve anything. Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran. Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation. It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed. Said The Washington Post in an editorial prior to Trump’s latest remarks: “The way to avoid these outcomes is to work with allies and other intermediaries to offer Iran a diplomatic solution before the slide toward war becomes irreversible. In short, what’s needed is Pompeo’s ‘de-escalation,’ not Trump’s reckless threats.” Trump has proven that he can go either way. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why did Iran and US step back from all-out war

By Rockford Weitz

Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general.

Oil prices climbed on news of the fatal airstrike, reflecting concern that any fallout could disrupt shipping in the narrow seaway through which 21 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes.

Meanwhile, the US Maritime Administration issued an alert over potential Iranian action against “Maritime interests in the region” and the UK announced that the Royal Navy would resume escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz as a precaution.

As a researcher who studies strategic maritime chokepoints like this one in the Middle East, I have seen how past skirmishes in this waterway have fit into Iran’s use of hybrid warfare – unconventional tactics that achieve strategic goals without triggering conventional military retaliation. In fact, Iranian leaders will likely feel tremendous political pressure to ratchet up maritime hybrid warfare in response to the drone strike that killed the general.

A 21-mile-wide waterway

This 21-mile-wide channel connects the Indian Ocean with the Gulf. For all of recorded history, it has connected Arab and Persian civilisations with the Indian subcontinent and Pacific Asia. For example, before the rise of European seaborne empires in the 15th and 16th centuries, porcelain from China and spices from the Indochina peninsula often passed through the strait on the way to Central Asia and Europe.

Today the Strait of Hormuz separates Iran from the countries of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, which have strong military ties with the United States.

All shipping traffic from energy-rich Gulf countries converges in the strait, including crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

This maritime chokepoint became an arena of conflict during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Each side in the so-called “Tanker War” tried to sink the other’s energy exports. To avoid being targeted, Kuwaiti oil tankers were reflagged under the US&nbsp;shipping registry, obscuring their true ownership. Although crude oil continued to flow, marine insurance rates for vessels operating in the strait spiked by as much as 400 per cent.

Why is the strait a concern now? 
 
The US killing of General Qasem Soleimani has sparked fears that Iran could take action in the Strait of Hormuz as part of a retaliatory move – as they have threatened before.

Recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz arose after the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. When Iran struck that accord in 2015 with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, it agreed to restrict its nuclear development in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against it.

By July 2018, Iran had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to retaliate against the ratcheting up of US&nbsp;sanctions against it.

By engaging in hybrid warfare, Iran appeared to be disrupting trade flows through the Strait, raising diplomatic stakes in the process.

Notably, in June 2019 attacks on Japanese and Norwegian-owned oil tankers coincided with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Tehran. Iran denied any involvement, but the US&nbsp;released video footage it said showed Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the tanker’s hulls. If Iran was behind the attacks, it could have been a signal to Japan and China that they need to pressure the Trump administration to ease its sanctions against Iran – or risk disruptions to vital oil and gas exports to Asia transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Could Iran close the strait?

In my view, Iran would certainly have trouble stopping all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Modern cargo vessels are massive and difficult to disable. Unlike in the 1980s, most oil tankers now have double hulls, making them harder to sink. Furthermore, earlier this year the US assembled a multinational coalition to monitor and respond to threats to commercial shipping in the strait.

Iran will also be wary of the impact that closing the Strait of Hormuz could have on its relations with important economic partners, such as China. It is estimated that 76 per cent of crude oil passing through the waterway is destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore among the largest markets.

In the past both the US and Iran have pivoted back to diplomatic solutions when tensions have become too high, suggesting that neither side wants to see the conflict escalate from hybrid warfare into a full-blown war.

 
(Rockford Weitz is Professor of Practice &amp; Director, Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-iran-us-tensions-mean-troubled-waters-ahead-in-the-strait-of-hormuz-129508">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By Rockford Weitz Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general.

By Rockford Weitz Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general. Oil prices climbed on news of the fatal airstrike, reflecting concern that any fallout could disrupt shipping in the narrow seaway through which 21 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes. Meanwhile, the US Maritime Administration issued an alert over potential Iranian action against “Maritime interests in the region” and the UK announced that the Royal Navy would resume escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz as a precaution. As a researcher who studies strategic maritime chokepoints like this one in the Middle East, I have seen how past skirmishes in this waterway have fit into Iran’s use of hybrid warfare – unconventional tactics that achieve strategic goals without triggering conventional military retaliation. In fact, Iranian leaders will likely feel tremendous political pressure to ratchet up maritime hybrid warfare in response to the drone strike that killed the general. A 21-mile-wide waterway This 21-mile-wide channel connects the Indian Ocean with the Gulf. For all of recorded history, it has connected Arab and Persian civilisations with the Indian subcontinent and Pacific Asia. For example, before the rise of European seaborne empires in the 15th and 16th centuries, porcelain from China and spices from the Indochina peninsula often passed through the strait on the way to Central Asia and Europe. Today the Strait of Hormuz separates Iran from the countries of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, which have strong military ties with the United States. All shipping traffic from energy-rich Gulf countries converges in the strait, including crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This maritime chokepoint became an arena of conflict during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Each side in the so-called “Tanker War” tried to sink the other’s energy exports. To avoid being targeted, Kuwaiti oil tankers were reflagged under the US shipping registry, obscuring their true ownership. Although crude oil continued to flow, marine insurance rates for vessels operating in the strait spiked by as much as 400 per cent. Why is the strait a concern now? The US killing of General Qasem Soleimani has sparked fears that Iran could take action in the Strait of Hormuz as part of a retaliatory move – as they have threatened before. Recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz arose after the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. When Iran struck that accord in 2015 with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, it agreed to restrict its nuclear development in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against it. By July 2018, Iran had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to retaliate against the ratcheting up of US sanctions against it. By engaging in hybrid warfare, Iran appeared to be disrupting trade flows through the Strait, raising diplomatic stakes in the process. Notably, in June 2019 attacks on Japanese and Norwegian-owned oil tankers coincided with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Tehran. Iran denied any involvement, but the US released video footage it said showed Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the tanker’s hulls. If Iran was behind the attacks, it could have been a signal to Japan and China that they need to pressure the Trump administration to ease its sanctions against Iran – or risk disruptions to vital oil and gas exports to Asia transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Could Iran close the strait? In my view, Iran would certainly have trouble stopping all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Modern cargo vessels are massive and difficult to disable. Unlike in the 1980s, most oil tankers now have double hulls, making them harder to sink. Furthermore, earlier this year the US assembled a multinational coalition to monitor and respond to threats to commercial shipping in the strait. Iran will also be wary of the impact that closing the Strait of Hormuz could have on its relations with important economic partners, such as China. It is estimated that 76 per cent of crude oil passing through the waterway is destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore among the largest markets. In the past both the US and Iran have pivoted back to diplomatic solutions when tensions have become too high, suggesting that neither side wants to see the conflict escalate from hybrid warfare into a full-blown war. (Rockford Weitz is Professor of Practice & Director, Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Could Iran-US tensions mean troubled waters ahead in the Strait of Hormuz?

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.

Experts say that this was aimed at satisfying the domestic audience in Tehran.&nbsp;

With missile attacks, Iran's Supreme Leader has used a dangerous language, "Slap on the face of the US, but such military actions are not enough".

Iran's strikes were highly symbolic. It happened around the same time as Soleimani's killing on Friday - 1.30 am.

Like Donald Trump, many Iranian officials tweeted pictures of the national flag. And Iranian media is hailing the strikes, but there is no clarity on the casualties.

Upon closer look, it is clear that Iran targetted bases that were on high alert. Foreign Minister of Iran says that the strikes were in 'self-defence' and 'within the boundaries of international law'.

Meanwhile, after the attacks, President Trump tweeted "All is well", "So Far So Good". He also highlighted America's military might.

The 'All is Well' comment does not mean that the US will not attack Iran if provoked further. Right now, there is a chance for both the parties to de-escalate the conflict.&nbsp;

But the question is, will the US take that chance? Will Iran refrain from further attacks?

These are the important questions, but it is unwise to look for clear answers at this juncture. There are many reasons for this lack of clarity.

First, Iran did not show any regard for Iraq's sovereignty. This could be a sign of things to come.

Iran runs many proxy wars in the region outside the range of the US counter strikes - the Houthis in Yemen,&nbsp;Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Iran could initiate conflicts in these regions simultaneously. Second, Iran can continue with its typical dangerous tactics, like rocket strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and cyber warfare.

Three, if US President Donald Trump is unpredictable, then Iran's Supreme Commander Khamenei wants more revenge.

While most countries have urged both the countries to calm down, the chances of a full-blown conflict remain at large. Israel has given its complete backing to the US.

But now, it is a game of who-blinks-first. Iran wants to end the presence of America in the region, but Trump won't take any attack from Iran lying down.

Both the sides have an option now to de-escalate, but the rhetoric from Tehran is worrisome - for regional peace, global peace and global economy.

(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)&nbsp;

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani. Experts say that this was aimed at satisfying the domestic audience in Tehran. With missile attacks, Iran's Supreme Leader has used a dangerous language, "Slap on the face of the US, but such military actions are not enough". Iran's strikes were highly symbolic. It happened around the same time as Soleimani's killing on Friday - 1.30 am. Like Donald Trump, many Iranian officials tweeted pictures of the national flag. And Iranian media is hailing the strikes, but there is no clarity on the casualties. Upon closer look, it is clear that Iran targetted bases that were on high alert. Foreign Minister of Iran says that the strikes were in 'self-defence' and 'within the boundaries of international law'. Meanwhile, after the attacks, President Trump tweeted "All is well", "So Far So Good". He also highlighted America's military might. The 'All is Well' comment does not mean that the US will not attack Iran if provoked further. Right now, there is a chance for both the parties to de-escalate the conflict. But the question is, will the US take that chance? Will Iran refrain from further attacks? These are the important questions, but it is unwise to look for clear answers at this juncture. There are many reasons for this lack of clarity. First, Iran did not show any regard for Iraq's sovereignty. This could be a sign of things to come. Iran runs many proxy wars in the region outside the range of the US counter strikes - the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran could initiate conflicts in these regions simultaneously. Second, Iran can continue with its typical dangerous tactics, like rocket strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and cyber warfare. Three, if US President Donald Trump is unpredictable, then Iran's Supreme Commander Khamenei wants more revenge. While most countries have urged both the countries to calm down, the chances of a full-blown conflict remain at large. Israel has given its complete backing to the US. But now, it is a game of who-blinks-first. Iran wants to end the presence of America in the region, but Trump won't take any attack from Iran lying down. Both the sides have an option now to de-escalate, but the rhetoric from Tehran is worrisome - for regional peace, global peace and global economy. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: US-Iran conflict - what's next?

Where not to be in case of World War 3: The riskiest countries in the world

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel. And, of course, its pit bull-like head honcho Roger Ailes, played by a wonderfully made up Crowe. &nbsp;

When it was launched, all the other News TV channels in America were competing for the left-of-centre eyeballs, leaving the entire 50 of the field that spoke to middle-America, open to Fox. And unlike in other countries that favoured newspapers, Americans preferred to get their news from 24x7 TV channels. Fox News soon topped the charts in cable news TV.&nbsp;

Though, The Loudest Voice TV serial takes you back to 9/11 and the George W Bush- Dick Cheney era, it does remind you of one thing more. It reminds you that the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) charge put on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a complete myth. &nbsp;

America decided to use 9/11 to effect regime change in Iraq, a matter treated as 'unfinished business' from the term of George Walker Bush, Dubya’s father. Fox was privy to this government objective and worked hard to propagate its merits.&nbsp;

Iraq was a Sunni minority-run country under Saddam and his Ba’ath Party, but quite unrelated to America’s &nbsp;9/11, or the Al Qaeda that perpetrated it. If anything, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the authors of 9/11 and not Iraq. But America was not keen to put them in the dock owing to overlapping and multifarious common interests.&nbsp;

Nevertheless, today, when we see war clouds hovering over West Asia after the US drone strike killing of General Qasem Soleimani five days ago, one has to wonder why it was done at this time. What intelligence input does America have? Soleimani, a military man, was the de facto no. 2 of Iran.&nbsp; &nbsp;

The simple answer is that Soleimani was held responsible as the mastermind of multiple terrorist strikes against Americans. But, his elimination poses a threat to the stability of the present regime. That the strike took place outside Baghdad airport is remarkable. And while an unstable, unhappy, ruined, and insurgency-torn Iraq is now under a Shi’ite administration- it is not doing very well. But it is close to Iran, a country that Saddam fought an eight-year war within his time. &nbsp;

Iran has been firing missiles ever since at the US bases in Iraq. Present reports mostly state that these Iranian strikes have not resulted in the loss of Allied lives. Others, from Iran, indicate 80 American soldiers have been killed. &nbsp;

President Trump has not addressed the nation on his next move as yet, apart from debunking the report of casualties by tweeting “All is well”. &nbsp;

But the Russians and Chinese are warning against retaliatory strikes by America. Russia has raised the bogey of nuclear war. Britain has spoken up in support of the American action. Israel is in strong support. France and Germany too are advising caution. As is India, eyeing the 5 per cent escalation in petroleum prices already. Iran has asked India to help in the de-escalation process. Other international voices too, from the Gulf and elsewhere, almost unanimously, are clamouring for de-escalation.&nbsp;

But what does America want? It eliminated Soleimani unilaterally despite the near-certainty of strong reaction. The desired end result, backed no doubt by Saudi Arabia and Israel, from the near region, is to see the back of the Khamenei regime. &nbsp;

This is not the first time the West has intervened to bring about regime change in Iran. It installed the Shah when his predecessor nationalised the oil fields. Much later, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini broke the link of American influence. Now, successor Ali Khamenei and his cohorts must go, to be replaced by an order more favourable to the US and its friends. &nbsp;

The economic sanctions placed on Iran by the US and its allies to stop it going nuclear are hurting the ordinary people. Most of Iran’s 80 million are fed up with its rulers. As a consequence, there have been large protests, put down harshly. The grass-roots in Iran may be quite ready and ripe to get rid of the puritanical mullahs, but they don’t have the strength to do it by themselves. &nbsp;

America’s attempt to bring about regime change by military means in different countries has generally succeeded; but not in bringing a consequent peace and prosperity to the natives. However, this has never stopped it from pushing ahead with its perceived strategic objectives.&nbsp;

The main one, with regard to Iran, is to stop it becoming a nuclear power fearing that this will make it unmanageable. But is it too late? What was that seismic activity near Iran’s nuclear weapons development site? &nbsp;

Will the other major powers intervene militarily on the side of Iran if America attacks it? It seems very unlikely because both China and Russia cannot afford to precipitate war against America. &nbsp;

As a consequence, while oil prices will be very volatile going forward, President Trump will probably be able to attack Iranian strategic assets and nuclear facilities and drive the current regime out of office, if it acts quickly. And yes, undertaking this aggression successfully will see to it that President Trump will be re-elected to his second term. &nbsp;

The impeachment drama is already deleted from the news cycles, and most recent opinion polls show an uptick in support for President Donald Trump. &nbsp; &nbsp; 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel.

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel. And, of course, its pit bull-like head honcho Roger Ailes, played by a wonderfully made up Crowe. When it was launched, all the other News TV channels in America were competing for the left-of-centre eyeballs, leaving the entire 50 of the field that spoke to middle-America, open to Fox. And unlike in other countries that favoured newspapers, Americans preferred to get their news from 24x7 TV channels. Fox News soon topped the charts in cable news TV. Though, The Loudest Voice TV serial takes you back to 9/11 and the George W Bush- Dick Cheney era, it does remind you of one thing more. It reminds you that the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) charge put on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a complete myth. America decided to use 9/11 to effect regime change in Iraq, a matter treated as 'unfinished business' from the term of George Walker Bush, Dubya’s father. Fox was privy to this government objective and worked hard to propagate its merits. Iraq was a Sunni minority-run country under Saddam and his Ba’ath Party, but quite unrelated to America’s 9/11, or the Al Qaeda that perpetrated it. If anything, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the authors of 9/11 and not Iraq. But America was not keen to put them in the dock owing to overlapping and multifarious common interests. Nevertheless, today, when we see war clouds hovering over West Asia after the US drone strike killing of General Qasem Soleimani five days ago, one has to wonder why it was done at this time. What intelligence input does America have? Soleimani, a military man, was the de facto no. 2 of Iran. The simple answer is that Soleimani was held responsible as the mastermind of multiple terrorist strikes against Americans. But, his elimination poses a threat to the stability of the present regime. That the strike took place outside Baghdad airport is remarkable. And while an unstable, unhappy, ruined, and insurgency-torn Iraq is now under a Shi’ite administration- it is not doing very well. But it is close to Iran, a country that Saddam fought an eight-year war within his time. Iran has been firing missiles ever since at the US bases in Iraq. Present reports mostly state that these Iranian strikes have not resulted in the loss of Allied lives. Others, from Iran, indicate 80 American soldiers have been killed. President Trump has not addressed the nation on his next move as yet, apart from debunking the report of casualties by tweeting “All is well”. But the Russians and Chinese are warning against retaliatory strikes by America. Russia has raised the bogey of nuclear war. Britain has spoken up in support of the American action. Israel is in strong support. France and Germany too are advising caution. As is India, eyeing the 5 per cent escalation in petroleum prices already. Iran has asked India to help in the de-escalation process. Other international voices too, from the Gulf and elsewhere, almost unanimously, are clamouring for de-escalation. But what does America want? It eliminated Soleimani unilaterally despite the near-certainty of strong reaction. The desired end result, backed no doubt by Saudi Arabia and Israel, from the near region, is to see the back of the Khamenei regime. This is not the first time the West has intervened to bring about regime change in Iran. It installed the Shah when his predecessor nationalised the oil fields. Much later, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini broke the link of American influence. Now, successor Ali Khamenei and his cohorts must go, to be replaced by an order more favourable to the US and its friends. The economic sanctions placed on Iran by the US and its allies to stop it going nuclear are hurting the ordinary people. Most of Iran’s 80 million are fed up with its rulers. As a consequence, there have been large protests, put down harshly. The grass-roots in Iran may be quite ready and ripe to get rid of the puritanical mullahs, but they don’t have the strength to do it by themselves. America’s attempt to bring about regime change by military means in different countries has generally succeeded; but not in bringing a consequent peace and prosperity to the natives. However, this has never stopped it from pushing ahead with its perceived strategic objectives. The main one, with regard to Iran, is to stop it becoming a nuclear power fearing that this will make it unmanageable. But is it too late? What was that seismic activity near Iran’s nuclear weapons development site? Will the other major powers intervene militarily on the side of Iran if America attacks it? It seems very unlikely because both China and Russia cannot afford to precipitate war against America. As a consequence, while oil prices will be very volatile going forward, President Trump will probably be able to attack Iranian strategic assets and nuclear facilities and drive the current regime out of office, if it acts quickly. And yes, undertaking this aggression successfully will see to it that President Trump will be re-elected to his second term. The impeachment drama is already deleted from the news cycles, and most recent opinion polls show an uptick in support for President Donald Trump. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US wants no less than regime change in Iran

Other Asian markets also tumbled following news of the airstrikes, in which the head of Iran's elite Quds Force and a top Iraqi militia leader were killed early on Friday at Baghdad airport. #Iran #India #US

Amid escalating tensions in West Asia Indian stock markets close in the red

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout.&nbsp;

World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason. There is a threat of a major escalation.

There's no denying the situation is precarious. People over the world are concerned if there will be a war, and if their country will be sucked into it.

The killing of Qasem Soleimani is no small matter. The US may have labelled him a terrorist, but unlike other terrorists America has killed - Soleimani was a state actor.

He was part of a legitimate government - a cult figure and his killing is an attack on a government. Iran has a difficult needle to the thread and its choices are limited.

Not acting is not an option, but the action comes at a cost. And frankly, Iran doesn't have the money.

The Iranian government cannot afford a war with a country like America. The United States has the world's biggest and best-equipped military force.

The US spends more on defence than any other country in the world and it is number one in the rank of power.

Iran which is slowed by sanctions stands at the 13th position. The military budget of the US is more than six hundred billion dollars.

Iran has a military budget of fourteen billion dollars. The US has over one million active personnel as compared to Iran which has over five hundred thousand active military personnel.

So there will be counter-strikes but they may not qualify as a traditional all-out war.&nbsp;

Experts say Iran will go for American soft targets. As for America, it may not have the appetite for a straightforward invasion from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq.

America has failed miserably every time it has tried to capture territory. It's at best, a very effective disruptor.

The definition of war today has changed, conflicts come in many shapes and with deadlier consequences.

So to answer the question we began with - will this lead to the third world war? No, but that doesn't mean there won't be bloodshed and casualties. 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout. World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason.

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout. World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason. There is a threat of a major escalation. There's no denying the situation is precarious. People over the world are concerned if there will be a war, and if their country will be sucked into it. The killing of Qasem Soleimani is no small matter. The US may have labelled him a terrorist, but unlike other terrorists America has killed - Soleimani was a state actor. He was part of a legitimate government - a cult figure and his killing is an attack on a government. Iran has a difficult needle to the thread and its choices are limited. Not acting is not an option, but the action comes at a cost. And frankly, Iran doesn't have the money. The Iranian government cannot afford a war with a country like America. The United States has the world's biggest and best-equipped military force. The US spends more on defence than any other country in the world and it is number one in the rank of power. Iran which is slowed by sanctions stands at the 13th position. The military budget of the US is more than six hundred billion dollars. Iran has a military budget of fourteen billion dollars. The US has over one million active personnel as compared to Iran which has over five hundred thousand active military personnel. So there will be counter-strikes but they may not qualify as a traditional all-out war. Experts say Iran will go for American soft targets. As for America, it may not have the appetite for a straightforward invasion from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. America has failed miserably every time it has tried to capture territory. It's at best, a very effective disruptor. The definition of war today has changed, conflicts come in many shapes and with deadlier consequences. So to answer the question we began with - will this lead to the third world war? No, but that doesn't mean there won't be bloodshed and casualties. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: Are US and Iran on the brink of war?

As tensions with Iran escalated <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-foreign-troop-presence-272342">post-Qasem Soleimani's</a> assassination, President Trump on Sunday should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back and perhaps in a "disproportionate manner".&nbsp;

"These media posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back, and perhaps in a disproportionate manner."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly &amp; fully strike back, &amp; perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!" The US President made it clear that he didn't need Congressional approval even as the move was criticised by House Speaker Pelosi.

"As Speaker of the House, I reiterate my call on the Administration for an immediate, comprehensive briefing of the full Congress on military engagement related to Iran and next steps under consideration," Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Watch Video:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iraq-parliament-votes-to-expel-us-troops-272345/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

In a tweet earlier, the President had said that " the United States just spent two trillion dollars on military equipment, if Iran attacks an American base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way, adding," without hesitation!"

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/soleimanis-killing-how-was-the-operation-carried-out-and-what-are-the-consequences-272077">In Pics: How operation to kill Soleimani was carried out and what are the consequences?</a>

Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament passed a motion calling for the expulsion of US troops after the killing&nbsp;of Iran's General Soleimani.

At least six thousand US troops are based in Iraq, however, after Friday's US drone attack on Baghdad airport the Iraq parliament decided to expel US troops from the country, in fact, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had earlier called on Parliament to end foreign troop presence as soon as possible.

Trump, however, said that the US would impose sanctions on Iraq if US troops were made to exit, stating: "If they do ask us to leave -- if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis -&nbsp;we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before."

"It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," the President asserted. The president told reporters that US base in Iraq as "extraordinarily expensive" to maintain and he wanted the Iraqis to pay back.

On Iran, the US president said: "If they do anything there will be major retaliation. They’re allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn't work that way," the US president said while threatning&nbsp;to attack Iran's cultural sites.

As tensions with Iran escalated post-Qasem Soleimani's assassination, President Trump on Sunday should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back and perhaps in a "disproportionate manner".

As tensions with Iran escalated post-Qasem Soleimani's assassination, President Trump on Sunday should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back and perhaps in a "disproportionate manner". "These media posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly and fully strike back, and perhaps in a disproportionate manner." These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020 × "Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!" The US President made it clear that he didn't need Congressional approval even as the move was criticised by House Speaker Pelosi. "As Speaker of the House, I reiterate my call on the Administration for an immediate, comprehensive briefing of the full Congress on military engagement related to Iran and next steps under consideration," Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. Watch Video: In a tweet earlier, the President had said that " the United States just spent two trillion dollars on military equipment, if Iran attacks an American base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way, adding," without hesitation!" In Pics: How operation to kill Soleimani was carried out and what are the consequences? Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament passed a motion calling for the expulsion of US troops after the killing of Iran's General Soleimani. At least six thousand US troops are based in Iraq, however, after Friday's US drone attack on Baghdad airport the Iraq parliament decided to expel US troops from the country, in fact, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had earlier called on Parliament to end foreign troop presence as soon as possible. Trump, however, said that the US would impose sanctions on Iraq if US troops were made to exit, stating: "If they do ask us to leave -- if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis - we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before." "It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," the President asserted. The president told reporters that US base in Iraq as "extraordinarily expensive" to maintain and he wanted the Iraqis to pay back. On Iran, the US president said: "If they do anything there will be major retaliation. They’re allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn't work that way," the US president said while threatning to attack Iran's cultural sites.

Should Iran strike, US will quickly strike back, says Trump

India reached out to global capital on Sunday evening in the backdrop of growing tensions in West Asia after the US killed top Iranian general - <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-foreign-troop-presence-272342">Qasem Soleimani</a> of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) last week. This even as Washington told New Delhi about Iranian "threats" to which US won't "hesitate" to act.

India's external affairs minister S Jaishankar spoke to Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Oman's FM Yusuf Alawi and UAE's FM Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Top Indian government sources said, "We are closely following the developments in the West Asia region. We are engaged with all important stakeholders on the prevailing situation given our deep interest in the stability and security of the region."&nbsp;

"In this context, today EAM had a telephonic conversation with his counterparts from Iran, UAE, Oman and the United States to discuss ways to reduce the rising level of tension in the region," sources added.

The external affairs ministry highlighted "India's stakes and concern" with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking about "Iran’s continued threats and provocations", explained that "Trump administration won’t hesitate to act to keep American lives, and those of our friends and allies, safe."&nbsp;

With three West Asian countries, Iran, Oman and UAE, the focus was on how the developing situation can impact the region. EAM during his talks with Iranian counterpart noted that developments "have taken a very serious turn" and New Delhi remains "deeply concerned" about the levels of tension. With Oman, both sides, "reaffirmed" the "shared interest in the stability and security of the Gulf."

Jaishankar's last visit in 2019 was to Iran and Oman and foreign ministers of three countries had met in the Omani capital Muscat on December 24 with focus on increasing connectivity in the region.

Meanwhile, the Iranian mission in a statement expressed its "gratitude" to all "individuals, groups, elites, &nbsp;media outlets, organizations and foreign missions" in India who have expressed their "sympathy and solidarity" with Tehran.

India has huge stakes in the stability of the region with the presence of large diaspora and energy security and connectivity linkages. India's key connectivity programme - the Chabahar project and North-South Transport corridor that will help it connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia and Moscow could get impacted with instability in the region.&nbsp;

New Delhi's oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and tensions in the region will impact consumers in the country, already reeling under high onion prices.&nbsp;

India reached out to global capital on Sunday evening in the backdrop of growing tensions in West Asia after the US killed top Iranian general - Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) last week.

India reached out to global capital on Sunday evening in the backdrop of growing tensions in West Asia after the US killed top Iranian general - Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) last week. This even as Washington told New Delhi about Iranian "threats" to which US won't "hesitate" to act. India's external affairs minister S Jaishankar spoke to Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Oman's FM Yusuf Alawi and UAE's FM Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Top Indian government sources said, "We are closely following the developments in the West Asia region. We are engaged with all important stakeholders on the prevailing situation given our deep interest in the stability and security of the region." "In this context, today EAM had a telephonic conversation with his counterparts from Iran, UAE, Oman and the United States to discuss ways to reduce the rising level of tension in the region," sources added. The external affairs ministry highlighted "India's stakes and concern" with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking about "Iran’s continued threats and provocations", explained that "Trump administration won’t hesitate to act to keep American lives, and those of our friends and allies, safe." With three West Asian countries, Iran, Oman and UAE, the focus was on how the developing situation can impact the region. EAM during his talks with Iranian counterpart noted that developments "have taken a very serious turn" and New Delhi remains "deeply concerned" about the levels of tension. With Oman, both sides, "reaffirmed" the "shared interest in the stability and security of the Gulf." Jaishankar's last visit in 2019 was to Iran and Oman and foreign ministers of three countries had met in the Omani capital Muscat on December 24 with focus on increasing connectivity in the region. Meanwhile, the Iranian mission in a statement expressed its "gratitude" to all "individuals, groups, elites, media outlets, organizations and foreign missions" in India who have expressed their "sympathy and solidarity" with Tehran. India has huge stakes in the stability of the region with the presence of large diaspora and energy security and connectivity linkages. India's key connectivity programme - the Chabahar project and North-South Transport corridor that will help it connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia and Moscow could get impacted with instability in the region. New Delhi's oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and tensions in the region will impact consumers in the country, already reeling under high onion prices.

India reaches out to countries in West Asia amid US-Iran tensions

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/should-iran-strike-us-will-quickly-strike-back-says-trump-272374">American airstrike</a> that eliminated Major-General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, drove the region into a deeper state of chaos. With tensions already high in the region, the assassination attempt comes as a ground-shaking event that is bound to have major repercussions.

Taking into consideration Iran's current socioeconomic situation, a large-scale war with the United States would not end well for Tehran; which is why Iranian scholar Hooshang Amirahmadi predicts that war is not likely to happen between the two countries.

Watch:&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/huge-crowds-in-tehran-for-soleimanis-funeral-procession-272540/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"I believe something is going to happen between the US and Iran, and Iran will take physical action against the US I don't know how or where. I don't believe Iran is looking for a war, that's for sure," he said.

Last night, Donald Trump tweeted in what can be considered a direct threat, that 'if Iran attacks an American Base or any American, the United States would send some of their brand new beautiful equipment to fight off Iran, and without hesitation'.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213689342272659456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo justifies the American operation that killed Soleimani by disclosing that the Quds Force commander was involved in operations across the region which had put American lives in harms way multiple times.

Amirahmadi, on the other hand, believed that the United States will harm itself by getting itself into such a situation.

"Killing Soleimani will not add anything to Trump's power or his prestige in the country or the region, it was a losing game that they got involved in," said Amirahmadi.

President Trump celebrated the successful operation that rid the world of Iran's 'terrorist leader', while many members of Congress from the Democratic party opposed the move and accused Trump of not alerting the Congress. Mixed feelings were received across the world on the topic of Soleimani's elimination.

Leaders across the world are calling for de-escalation and hope that war or any conflict can be avoided.

(With inputs from Reuters)

The American airstrike that eliminated Major-General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, drove the region into a deeper state of chaos. With tensions already high in the region, the assassination attempt comes as a ground-shaking event that is bound to have major repercussions.

The American airstrike that eliminated Major-General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, drove the region into a deeper state of chaos. With tensions already high in the region, the assassination attempt comes as a ground-shaking event that is bound to have major repercussions. Taking into consideration Iran's current socioeconomic situation, a large-scale war with the United States would not end well for Tehran; which is why Iranian scholar Hooshang Amirahmadi predicts that war is not likely to happen between the two countries. Watch: "I believe something is going to happen between the US and Iran, and Iran will take physical action against the US I don't know how or where. I don't believe Iran is looking for a war, that's for sure," he said. Last night, Donald Trump tweeted in what can be considered a direct threat, that 'if Iran attacks an American Base or any American, the United States would send some of their brand new beautiful equipment to fight off Iran, and without hesitation'. The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020 × Secretary of State Michael Pompeo justifies the American operation that killed Soleimani by disclosing that the Quds Force commander was involved in operations across the region which had put American lives in harms way multiple times. Amirahmadi, on the other hand, believed that the United States will harm itself by getting itself into such a situation. "Killing Soleimani will not add anything to Trump's power or his prestige in the country or the region, it was a losing game that they got involved in," said Amirahmadi. President Trump celebrated the successful operation that rid the world of Iran's 'terrorist leader', while many members of Congress from the Democratic party opposed the move and accused Trump of not alerting the Congress. Mixed feelings were received across the world on the topic of Soleimani's elimination. Leaders across the world are calling for de-escalation and hope that war or any conflict can be avoided. (With inputs from Reuters)

Something is going to happen, but not war: Expert on US-Iran tension

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order.

The Trump administration has asserted that killing Soleimani was necessary to avert an imminent attack on US targets that allegedly was being planned by Soleimani and Abdul Mahdi al-Muhandis - the leader of an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia - who also died in the attack.

The assertion, yet to be backed up by evidence, served to justify the attack and fend off allegations that the targetted killing violated both the US and international law.

The implication was that Soleimani’s death would thwart an unspecified imminent attack and stop the Iranians in their tracks, an assumption that has little foundation in reality given Iran’s track record, most recently its refusal to buckle under following the imposition in 2018 of harsh US economic sanctions, some of the harshest ever imposed.

The notion that the killing of Soleimani amounted to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law was reinforced by assertions by Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi that he had been asked by Trump to mediate with Iran and that the Iranian military leader had been carrying Iran’s response to a Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was assassinated.

Abdul Mahdi’s allegation that Soleimani was involved in efforts to dial down tensions came in a debate in Parliament in which lawmakers called in a resolution for the removal from Iraq of foreign forces, the bulk of which are Americans.

Abdul Mahdi’s assertion that Iran was responding to a Saudi initiative was all the more noteworthy given that the kingdom had reportedly recently put its indirect outreach to Iran on hold as anti-government protesters in Iraq and Lebanon targeted Iranian influence in their countries.

“Americans, once the most prominent proponents of international law as the regulator of relations between nations, have now fully validated the law of the jungle. We are now likely to experience it," said Chas W Freeman Jr, a former career US State Department official in an email to a private mailing list.

Conservative commentator Robert Kagan warned in a book published last year, bemoaning America’s withdrawal as an enforcer of international law, a notion challenged by an array of critics, that chaos was the world’s historical norm. “The jungle will grow back, if we let it,” Kagan argued.

The sense that Trump, like many of the world’s civilisational leaders, has no regard for international law was evident, particularly to Iranians, in his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates for the killing of Soleimani.

Trump did not specify what he meant by cultural. Some analysts suggested the President may have been referring to symbols like the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic republic.

Legal experts nonetheless warned that attacks on cultural sites amount to a war crime.

With millions in the streets to welcome the return of Soleimani’s body, Iranians used the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites to respond to the threat by posting online pictures of mosques, museums, monuments, archaeological sites, and other Iranian architectural marvels.

Similarly, with Iraq perceiving the US strikes as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, Iraqis may, alongside Iranians, be one of the few who, perhaps self-serving, factor adherence to international law in their debates.

In line with the comments of Messrs. Freeman and Kagan, the legal aspects of &nbsp;Soleimani’s killing take on a significance that goes far beyond the Middle East in an environment in which civilisational leaders like India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Myanmar’s Win Myint flout international law with impunity.

Violations of international law grounded in the propagation of concepts of a civilizational rather than a nation-state that defines its borders not in terms of internationally recognised frontiers, but blurry lines of civilisational reach, have occurred in recent years fast and furious.

Iraqi assertions of a US violation of sovereignty echo Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. Trump has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions by unilaterally recognising Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Myint stands accused of ethnic cleansing by the United Nations that has prompted hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. Massive evidence documents Jinping’s authorisation of the brutal repression of Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang while Modi appears to be progressively disenfranchising his country’s Muslim minority.

For his part, Soleimani is believed to have been responsible for numerous incidents of political violence, including a 2012 attack on tourists in Bulgaria executed by a Lebanese suicide bomber. Five of the six casualties were Israelis.

Adopting the principle of might is right, civilizational leaders’ abandonment of international law, including guarantees of basic and minority rights, risks creating a global jungle in which wars, political violence, marginalisation of ethnic and religious groups, and destabilising&nbsp;mass migration contribute to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law.

So do Western approaches adopted almost two decades ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Said at the time Robert Cooper, a British diplomat, former advisor to prime minister Tony Blair, a current advisor to the European Commission on Myanmar, and a proponent of the doctrine of new liberal imperialism who in 2011 defended Bahrain’s brutal repression of a popular uprising:

If the world has a civilized core that deserves lawful conduct, there also is a barbarous periphery that warrants “rougher methods of an earlier era… Postmodern states operate on the basis of laws and open co-operative security” but “in the jungle, one must use the laws of the jungle.”

Some two decades after Cooper wrote those words, the jungle rather than the rule of law threatens to become the norm, putting the global community on a dangerous and slippery slope.

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order.

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order. The Trump administration has asserted that killing Soleimani was necessary to avert an imminent attack on US targets that allegedly was being planned by Soleimani and Abdul Mahdi al-Muhandis - the leader of an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia - who also died in the attack. The assertion, yet to be backed up by evidence, served to justify the attack and fend off allegations that the targetted killing violated both the US and international law. The implication was that Soleimani’s death would thwart an unspecified imminent attack and stop the Iranians in their tracks, an assumption that has little foundation in reality given Iran’s track record, most recently its refusal to buckle under following the imposition in 2018 of harsh US economic sanctions, some of the harshest ever imposed. The notion that the killing of Soleimani amounted to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law was reinforced by assertions by Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi that he had been asked by Trump to mediate with Iran and that the Iranian military leader had been carrying Iran’s response to a Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was assassinated. Abdul Mahdi’s allegation that Soleimani was involved in efforts to dial down tensions came in a debate in Parliament in which lawmakers called in a resolution for the removal from Iraq of foreign forces, the bulk of which are Americans. Abdul Mahdi’s assertion that Iran was responding to a Saudi initiative was all the more noteworthy given that the kingdom had reportedly recently put its indirect outreach to Iran on hold as anti-government protesters in Iraq and Lebanon targeted Iranian influence in their countries. “Americans, once the most prominent proponents of international law as the regulator of relations between nations, have now fully validated the law of the jungle. We are now likely to experience it," said Chas W Freeman Jr, a former career US State Department official in an email to a private mailing list. Conservative commentator Robert Kagan warned in a book published last year, bemoaning America’s withdrawal as an enforcer of international law, a notion challenged by an array of critics, that chaos was the world’s historical norm. “The jungle will grow back, if we let it,” Kagan argued. The sense that Trump, like many of the world’s civilisational leaders, has no regard for international law was evident, particularly to Iranians, in his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates for the killing of Soleimani. Trump did not specify what he meant by cultural. Some analysts suggested the President may have been referring to symbols like the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic republic. Legal experts nonetheless warned that attacks on cultural sites amount to a war crime. With millions in the streets to welcome the return of Soleimani’s body, Iranians used the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites to respond to the threat by posting online pictures of mosques, museums, monuments, archaeological sites, and other Iranian architectural marvels. Similarly, with Iraq perceiving the US strikes as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, Iraqis may, alongside Iranians, be one of the few who, perhaps self-serving, factor adherence to international law in their debates. In line with the comments of Messrs. Freeman and Kagan, the legal aspects of Soleimani’s killing take on a significance that goes far beyond the Middle East in an environment in which civilisational leaders like India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Myanmar’s Win Myint flout international law with impunity. Violations of international law grounded in the propagation of concepts of a civilizational rather than a nation-state that defines its borders not in terms of internationally recognised frontiers, but blurry lines of civilisational reach, have occurred in recent years fast and furious. Iraqi assertions of a US violation of sovereignty echo Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. Trump has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions by unilaterally recognising Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Myint stands accused of ethnic cleansing by the United Nations that has prompted hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. Massive evidence documents Jinping’s authorisation of the brutal repression of Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang while Modi appears to be progressively disenfranchising his country’s Muslim minority. For his part, Soleimani is believed to have been responsible for numerous incidents of political violence, including a 2012 attack on tourists in Bulgaria executed by a Lebanese suicide bomber. Five of the six casualties were Israelis. Adopting the principle of might is right, civilizational leaders’ abandonment of international law, including guarantees of basic and minority rights, risks creating a global jungle in which wars, political violence, marginalisation of ethnic and religious groups, and destabilising mass migration contribute to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law. So do Western approaches adopted almost two decades ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Said at the time Robert Cooper, a British diplomat, former advisor to prime minister Tony Blair, a current advisor to the European Commission on Myanmar, and a proponent of the doctrine of new liberal imperialism who in 2011 defended Bahrain’s brutal repression of a popular uprising: If the world has a civilized core that deserves lawful conduct, there also is a barbarous periphery that warrants “rougher methods of an earlier era… Postmodern states operate on the basis of laws and open co-operative security” but “in the jungle, one must use the laws of the jungle.” Some two decades after Cooper wrote those words, the jungle rather than the rule of law threatens to become the norm, putting the global community on a dangerous and slippery slope. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Does the killing of Qasem Soleimani violate international law?

A dramatic escalation came in US-Iran tensions after the United States killed<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-other-free-nations-will-take-revenge-for-soleimanis-killing-from-criminal-america-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-271885"> Qasem Soleimani</a>, the head of the elite Quds Force in a strike at Iraq's Baghdad airport&nbsp;on Friday. An advisor to Soleimani, Muhandis was killed in the strike.

The Soleimani's killing&nbsp;triggered <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitterati-fear-world-war-iii-coming-after-irans-soleimani-killed-in-us-strike-271940">various reactions from across the world</a> and while some Republicans lauded the move other world leaders&nbsp;warned of danger and urged US and Iran&nbsp;for restraint.

So what does this escalation of tensions mean for India?

India heavily depends on crude imports from West Asian nations and the country's&nbsp;slowing economy could be further dented by the spike in crude oil prices owing to the instability.

US-Iran tensions have the potential to heavily and adversely affect stability in the region. The region supplies to a third of the world's oil demand. But while it is not just Iraq, but experts opine that most of the West-Asian nations will either align for or against the United States if the situation does not de-escalate.

According to a report, a 10 dollar rise in crude oil prices will increase India's import bill by 15 billion dollars . a confrontation of this nature has the potential to drag down other such oil-producing countries. &nbsp;

Also, India is one of the world's top recipients of external remittances. Looking at 2017 figures from the reserve bank of India, India received 69 billion US dollars worth remittances.

What can be concerning for India, owing to the escalation of tensions, is that over 50% of the remittances come from countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman, countries that could potentially be affected by the developing situation.

Substantial population from Indian states like Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu look to West Asian countries for better job opportunities. The tensions could affect the prospects of aspiring and existing Indian migrant workers.

A dramatic escalation came in US-Iran tensions after the United States killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in a strike at Iraq's Baghdad airport on Friday.

A dramatic escalation came in US-Iran tensions after the United States killed Qasem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in a strike at Iraq's Baghdad airport on Friday. An advisor to Soleimani, Muhandis was killed in the strike. The Soleimani's killing triggered various reactions from across the world and while some Republicans lauded the move other world leaders warned of danger and urged US and Iran for restraint. So what does this escalation of tensions mean for India? India heavily depends on crude imports from West Asian nations and the country's slowing economy could be further dented by the spike in crude oil prices owing to the instability. US-Iran tensions have the potential to heavily and adversely affect stability in the region. The region supplies to a third of the world's oil demand. But while it is not just Iraq, but experts opine that most of the West-Asian nations will either align for or against the United States if the situation does not de-escalate. According to a report, a 10 dollar rise in crude oil prices will increase India's import bill by 15 billion dollars . a confrontation of this nature has the potential to drag down other such oil-producing countries. Also, India is one of the world's top recipients of external remittances. Looking at 2017 figures from the reserve bank of India, India received 69 billion US dollars worth remittances. What can be concerning for India, owing to the escalation of tensions, is that over 50% of the remittances come from countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman, countries that could potentially be affected by the developing situation. Substantial population from Indian states like Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu look to West Asian countries for better job opportunities. The tensions could affect the prospects of aspiring and existing Indian migrant workers.

How rising tension between US-Iran after Soleimani's killing will affect India

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-tensions-ratchet-up-further-despite-un-efforts-252293">Iran and the United States </a>were close to establishing dialogue at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, but Washington disrupted the process, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-uses-advanced-centrifuges-in-new-nuclear-deal-breach-iaea-252257">Iranian government</a> spokesman Ali Rabiei said Monday.

According to Rabiei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a meeting with European sides to the nuclear deal, clearly said that Tehran is ready for "5 + 1" format talks, which, in addition to Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK, includes the US. However, the condition for this is the lifting of sanctions against Iran.

"However, Trump was not ready to lift sanctions from Iran... First, the United States is not serious enough about the talks. Second, Trump wanted to use sanctions against the people of Iran as a tool during the negotiations," Rabiei told reporters, saying Washington's approach was unacceptable.

"We were close to diplomacy and a final resolution [of the talks' problem], but the US government prevented this from happening. The responsibility for the failure to form the possibility of a dialogue in New York lies directly with the United States," he said.

Iran and the United States were close to establishing dialogue at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, but Washington disrupted the process, Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said Monday.

Iran and the United States were close to establishing dialogue at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly, but Washington disrupted the process, Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said Monday. According to Rabiei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a meeting with European sides to the nuclear deal, clearly said that Tehran is ready for "5 + 1" format talks, which, in addition to Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK, includes the US. However, the condition for this is the lifting of sanctions against Iran. "However, Trump was not ready to lift sanctions from Iran... First, the United States is not serious enough about the talks. Second, Trump wanted to use sanctions against the people of Iran as a tool during the negotiations," Rabiei told reporters, saying Washington's approach was unacceptable. "We were close to diplomacy and a final resolution [of the talks' problem], but the US government prevented this from happening. The responsibility for the failure to form the possibility of a dialogue in New York lies directly with the United States," he said.

We were close to dialogue with US but Trump govt disrupted it: Iran

Iran said on Monday that a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-may-release-british-flagged-tanker-within-hours-swedish-owner-251217"> British-flagged oil tanker</a> is "free" to leave more than two months after it was seized in the Gulf.

"The legal process has finished and based on that the conditions for letting the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iran-releases-7-indian-crew-members-from-seized-british-tanker-247667">oil tanker</a> go free have been fulfilled and the oil tanker can move," government spokesman Ali Rabiei told a news conference.

He did not specify when the Swedish-owned vessel would be allowed to set sail.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps surrounded the Stena Impero with attack boats before rappelling onto the deck of the tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on July 19.

The vessel was impounded at Iran's Bandar Abbas port for allegedly failing to respond to distress calls and turning off its transponder after hitting a fishing boat.

Stena Bulk, the company that owns the tanker, said on Sunday that it expected the vessel to be released soon, but expressed caution about the situation.

"We understand that the political decision has been taken to release the ship," Stena Bulk's chief executive Erik Hanell told Swedish television station SVT.

"We hope it will be able to leave in a few hours, but we don't want to take anything for granted. We want to make sure the ship sails out of Iranian territorial waters," he said.

The ship's seizure came hours after a court in the British overseas territory of Gibraltar said it was extending the detention of the Grace 1, an Iranian oil tanker later renamed the Adrian Darya 1.

At the time, Tehran denied the seizure of the Stena Impero was a tit-for-tat move.

A Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian tanker's release on August 15 despite an 11th-hour US legal bid to keep it in detention. 
&nbsp;

Iran said on Monday that a British-flagged oil tanker is "free" to leave more than two months after it was seized in the Gulf. "The legal process has finished and based on that the conditions for letting the oil tanker go free have been fulfilled and the oil tanker can move," government spokesman Ali Rabiei told a news conference.

Iran said on Monday that a British-flagged oil tanker is "free" to leave more than two months after it was seized in the Gulf. "The legal process has finished and based on that the conditions for letting the oil tanker go free have been fulfilled and the oil tanker can move," government spokesman Ali Rabiei told a news conference. He did not specify when the Swedish-owned vessel would be allowed to set sail. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps surrounded the Stena Impero with attack boats before rappelling onto the deck of the tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on July 19. The vessel was impounded at Iran's Bandar Abbas port for allegedly failing to respond to distress calls and turning off its transponder after hitting a fishing boat. Stena Bulk, the company that owns the tanker, said on Sunday that it expected the vessel to be released soon, but expressed caution about the situation. "We understand that the political decision has been taken to release the ship," Stena Bulk's chief executive Erik Hanell told Swedish television station SVT. "We hope it will be able to leave in a few hours, but we don't want to take anything for granted. We want to make sure the ship sails out of Iranian territorial waters," he said. The ship's seizure came hours after a court in the British overseas territory of Gibraltar said it was extending the detention of the Grace 1, an Iranian oil tanker later renamed the Adrian Darya 1. At the time, Tehran denied the seizure of the Stena Impero was a tit-for-tat move. A Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian tanker's release on August 15 despite an 11th-hour US legal bid to keep it in detention.

Iran says seized British-flagged tanker 'free' to leave

Any country that attacks<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-new-us-sanctions-target-iranians-access-to-food-medicine-250961"> Iran </a>will become the "main battlefield", the Revolutionary Guards warned Saturday after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-sending-troops-to-bolster-saudi-defences-after-attack-250910">Washington ordered reinforcements </a>to the Gulf following attacks on Saudi oil installations it blames on Tehran.

Tensions escalated between arch-foes Iran and the United States after last weekend's attacks on Saudi energy giant Aramco's Abqaiq processing plant and Khurais oilfield halved the kingdom's oil output.

Yemen's Huthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the strikes but the US says it has concluded the attacks involved cruise missiles from Iran and amounted to "an act of war".

Washington approved the deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia at "the kingdom's request," Defence Secretary Mark Esper said, noting the forces would be "defensive in nature" and focused on air and missile defence.

But Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Major General Hossein Salami said Iran was "ready for any type of scenario".

"Whoever wants their land to become the main battlefield, go ahead," he told a news conference in Tehran.

"We will never allow any war to encroach upon Iran's territory.

"We hope that they don't make a strategic mistake", he said, listing past US military "adventures" against Iran.

Salami was speaking at Tehran's Islamic Revolution and Holy Defence museum during the unveiling of an exhibition of what Iran says are US and other drones captured in its territory.

It featured a badly damaged drone with US military markings said to be an RQ-4 Global Hawk that Iran downed in June, as well as an RQ-170 Sentinel captured in 2011 and still intact.

'Act of war'

The Guards also displayed the domestically manufactured Khordad 3 air defence battery they say was used to shoot down the Global Hawk.

"What are your drones doing in our airspace? We will shoot them down, shoot anything that encroaches on our airspace," said Salami, noting Iran had defeated "America's technological dominance" in air defence and drone manufacture.

His remarks came only days after strikes on Saudi oil facilities claimed by Yemen's Huthis, but the US says it has concluded the attack involved cruise missiles from Iran and amounted to "an act of war".

Saudi Arabia, which has been bogged down in a five-year war across its southern border in Yemen, has said Iran "unquestionably sponsored" the attacks.

The kingdom says the weapons used in the attacks were Iranian-made, but it stopped short of directly blaming its regional rival.

"Sometimes they talk of military options," Salami said, apparently referring to the Americans.

Yet he warned that "a limited aggression will not remain limited" as Iran was determined to respond and would "not rest until the aggressor's collapse."

'Crushing response'

The Guards' aerospace commander said the US ought to learn from its past failures and abandon its hostile rhetoric.

"We've stood tall for the past 40 years and if the enemy makes a mistake, it will certainly receive a crushing response," Brigadier General Amirali Hajizadeh said.

The United States upped the ante on Friday by announcing new sanctions against Iran's central bank, with President Donald Trump calling the measures the toughest America has ever imposed on another country.

Washington has imposed a series of sanctions against Tehran since unilaterally pulling out of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal in May last year.

It already maintains sweeping sanctions on Iran's central bank, but the US Treasury said Friday's designation was over the regulator's work in funding "terrorism".

The "action targets a crucial funding mechanism that the Iranian regime uses to support its terrorist network, including the Qods Force, Hezbollah and other militants that spread terror and destabilise the region," said US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

The Qods Force is the Guards' foreign operations arm, while Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shiite militant group closely allied with Iran.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the new sanctions meant the United States was "trying to block the Iranian people's access to food and medicine".

It showed the US was in "despair" and that "the maximum pressure policy has reached its end," semi-official news agency ISNA quoted him as saying from New York.

Any country that attacks Iran will become the "main battlefield", the Revolutionary Guards warned Saturday after Washington ordered reinforcements to the Gulf following attacks on Saudi oil installations it blames on Tehran.

Any country that attacks Iran will become the "main battlefield", the Revolutionary Guards warned Saturday after Washington ordered reinforcements to the Gulf following attacks on Saudi oil installations it blames on Tehran. Tensions escalated between arch-foes Iran and the United States after last weekend's attacks on Saudi energy giant Aramco's Abqaiq processing plant and Khurais oilfield halved the kingdom's oil output. Yemen's Huthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the strikes but the US says it has concluded the attacks involved cruise missiles from Iran and amounted to "an act of war". Washington approved the deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia at "the kingdom's request," Defence Secretary Mark Esper said, noting the forces would be "defensive in nature" and focused on air and missile defence. But Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Major General Hossein Salami said Iran was "ready for any type of scenario". "Whoever wants their land to become the main battlefield, go ahead," he told a news conference in Tehran. "We will never allow any war to encroach upon Iran's territory. "We hope that they don't make a strategic mistake", he said, listing past US military "adventures" against Iran. Salami was speaking at Tehran's Islamic Revolution and Holy Defence museum during the unveiling of an exhibition of what Iran says are US and other drones captured in its territory. It featured a badly damaged drone with US military markings said to be an RQ-4 Global Hawk that Iran downed in June, as well as an RQ-170 Sentinel captured in 2011 and still intact. 'Act of war' The Guards also displayed the domestically manufactured Khordad 3 air defence battery they say was used to shoot down the Global Hawk. "What are your drones doing in our airspace? We will shoot them down, shoot anything that encroaches on our airspace," said Salami, noting Iran had defeated "America's technological dominance" in air defence and drone manufacture. His remarks came only days after strikes on Saudi oil facilities claimed by Yemen's Huthis, but the US says it has concluded the attack involved cruise missiles from Iran and amounted to "an act of war". Saudi Arabia, which has been bogged down in a five-year war across its southern border in Yemen, has said Iran "unquestionably sponsored" the attacks. The kingdom says the weapons used in the attacks were Iranian-made, but it stopped short of directly blaming its regional rival. "Sometimes they talk of military options," Salami said, apparently referring to the Americans. Yet he warned that "a limited aggression will not remain limited" as Iran was determined to respond and would "not rest until the aggressor's collapse." 'Crushing response' The Guards' aerospace commander said the US ought to learn from its past failures and abandon its hostile rhetoric. "We've stood tall for the past 40 years and if the enemy makes a mistake, it will certainly receive a crushing response," Brigadier General Amirali Hajizadeh said. The United States upped the ante on Friday by announcing new sanctions against Iran's central bank, with President Donald Trump calling the measures the toughest America has ever imposed on another country. Washington has imposed a series of sanctions against Tehran since unilaterally pulling out of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal in May last year. It already maintains sweeping sanctions on Iran's central bank, but the US Treasury said Friday's designation was over the regulator's work in funding "terrorism". The "action targets a crucial funding mechanism that the Iranian regime uses to support its terrorist network, including the Qods Force, Hezbollah and other militants that spread terror and destabilise the region," said US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Qods Force is the Guards' foreign operations arm, while Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shiite militant group closely allied with Iran. Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the new sanctions meant the United States was "trying to block the Iranian people's access to food and medicine". It showed the US was in "despair" and that "the maximum pressure policy has reached its end," semi-official news agency ISNA quoted him as saying from New York.

Iran issues 'battlefield' warning as US deploys troops

Iran said Saturday it had fired up advanced centrifuges to boost its enriched uranium stockpiles, its latest scaling-back of commitments under a crumbling 2015<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/not-surprised-iran-going-to-violate-nuclear-deal-us-defence-secretary-mark-esper-248268"> nuclear deal</a>.

The Islamic republic was acting on a threat to further abandon its nuclear commitments based on a deadline it set for European powers to do something to shield it from US sanctions.

The country's Atomic Energy Organisation said it had activated 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 advanced centrifuges.

"The centrifuge machines, as they are engaged in research and development, will help with increasing the stockpile," spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said.

"The capacity of these machines is many times more than the previous machines. This started as of yesterday (Friday)," he told a news conference in Tehran.

Watch video

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-to-develop-centrifuges-from-friday-247655/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran was allowed to enrich uranium using only first-generation -- or IR-1 -- centrifuges.

Tensions have been escalating between Iran and the United States since May last year when President Donald Trump pulled out of the accord and began reimposing sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

The arch-foes were on the cusp of confrontation in June when Iran downed a US drone and Trump ordered retaliatory strikes, before cancelling them at the last minute.

Britain, France and Germany have repeatedly said they are committed to saving the deal that gave Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme, but their efforts have so far borne little fruit.

Iran said on Saturday it was capable of enriching uranium beyond 20 per cent but for now it had no plans to do so.

"Our plan is that if the other parties act on their commitments, we too return to our commitments," said Kamalvandi.

Inspections continue

Britain called Iran's move "particularly disappointing at a time when we and our European and international partners are working hard to de-escalate tensions".

The European Union on Friday voiced "great concern" over the country's decision to roll back its commitments and emphasised its own reliance on the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Iran's nuclear activities.

Despite the decision to further step back from the 2015 deal, Kamalvandi said Iran would allow the IAEA to continue monitoring its nuclear facilities in accordance with the 2015 accord.

"Regarding the monitoring and accesses of the IAEA... so that everything is clear (Iran's) commitments regarding transparency will be followed as before," the spokesman said.

In its latest report on August 30, the watchdog said it continues to verify compliance through cameras and on-site inspections.

But in an apparent hint at worries about access, it said "ongoing interactions... require full and timely cooperation by Iran".

US national security advisor John Bolton tweeted on Saturday that the inspection came as the "IAEA informs its Board that #Iran may be concealing nuclear material and/or activities".

He said the US and other IAEA member states were "eager to get a full report as soon as possible".

Early Saturday, the IAEA had noted Iran's latest move and indicated its inspectors were ready to check its compliance.

"Agency inspectors are on the ground in Iran and they will report any relevant activities to IAEA headquarters in Vienna," spokesman Fredrik Dahl said.

Europe 'must hurry'

Iran's new step came after Britain, France and Germany failed to find a way to offset the impact of sanctions against Iran before a September 7 deadline set by the Islamic republic.

"If Europe wants to do something, it must hurry, because returning to the situation before reducing commitments could take time," Kamalvandi said.

Tehran has already hit back twice with countermeasures in response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 deal.

On July 1, it said it had increased its stockpile of enriched uranium to beyond the 300-kilogram maximum set by the deal.

A week later, it announced it had exceeded a 3.67-per cent cap on the purity of its uranium stocks.

Saturday's developments came on the eve of a visit to Iran by the acting head of the IAEA, Cornel Feruta.

Kamalvandi said Feruta would meet the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Iran said Saturday it had fired up advanced centrifuges to boost its enriched uranium stockpiles, its latest scaling-back of commitments under a crumbling 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran said Saturday it had fired up advanced centrifuges to boost its enriched uranium stockpiles, its latest scaling-back of commitments under a crumbling 2015 nuclear deal. The Islamic republic was acting on a threat to further abandon its nuclear commitments based on a deadline it set for European powers to do something to shield it from US sanctions. The country's Atomic Energy Organisation said it had activated 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 advanced centrifuges. "The centrifuge machines, as they are engaged in research and development, will help with increasing the stockpile," spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. "The capacity of these machines is many times more than the previous machines. This started as of yesterday (Friday)," he told a news conference in Tehran. Watch video × Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran was allowed to enrich uranium using only first-generation -- or IR-1 -- centrifuges. Tensions have been escalating between Iran and the United States since May last year when President Donald Trump pulled out of the accord and began reimposing sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy. The arch-foes were on the cusp of confrontation in June when Iran downed a US drone and Trump ordered retaliatory strikes, before cancelling them at the last minute. Britain, France and Germany have repeatedly said they are committed to saving the deal that gave Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme, but their efforts have so far borne little fruit. Iran said on Saturday it was capable of enriching uranium beyond 20 per cent but for now it had no plans to do so. "Our plan is that if the other parties act on their commitments, we too return to our commitments," said Kamalvandi. Inspections continue Britain called Iran's move "particularly disappointing at a time when we and our European and international partners are working hard to de-escalate tensions". The European Union on Friday voiced "great concern" over the country's decision to roll back its commitments and emphasised its own reliance on the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. Despite the decision to further step back from the 2015 deal, Kamalvandi said Iran would allow the IAEA to continue monitoring its nuclear facilities in accordance with the 2015 accord. "Regarding the monitoring and accesses of the IAEA... so that everything is clear (Iran's) commitments regarding transparency will be followed as before," the spokesman said. In its latest report on August 30, the watchdog said it continues to verify compliance through cameras and on-site inspections. But in an apparent hint at worries about access, it said "ongoing interactions... require full and timely cooperation by Iran". US national security advisor John Bolton tweeted on Saturday that the inspection came as the "IAEA informs its Board that #Iran may be concealing nuclear material and/or activities". He said the US and other IAEA member states were "eager to get a full report as soon as possible". Early Saturday, the IAEA had noted Iran's latest move and indicated its inspectors were ready to check its compliance. "Agency inspectors are on the ground in Iran and they will report any relevant activities to IAEA headquarters in Vienna," spokesman Fredrik Dahl said. Europe 'must hurry' Iran's new step came after Britain, France and Germany failed to find a way to offset the impact of sanctions against Iran before a September 7 deadline set by the Islamic republic. "If Europe wants to do something, it must hurry, because returning to the situation before reducing commitments could take time," Kamalvandi said. Tehran has already hit back twice with countermeasures in response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 deal. On July 1, it said it had increased its stockpile of enriched uranium to beyond the 300-kilogram maximum set by the deal. A week later, it announced it had exceeded a 3.67-per cent cap on the purity of its uranium stocks. Saturday's developments came on the eve of a visit to Iran by the acting head of the IAEA, Cornel Feruta. Kamalvandi said Feruta would meet the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Iran fires up advanced centrifuges in latest nuclear step

US defense secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday he was "not surprised" Iran had turned on advanced centrifuges to increase uranium stockpiles, a further breach of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-has-capacity-to-raise-uranium-enrichment-beyond-20-iranian-nuclear-agency-spokesperson-248247">2015 nuclear deal </a>which Washington pulled out of last year.

"I'm not surprised that Iran has announced that it's going to violate the JCPOA," Esper said in Paris, using the official name of the accord signed in Vienna four years ago.

"They had been violating it, they had violated the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fires-up-advanced-centrifuges-in-latest-nuclear-step-248221">nuclear non-proliferation</a> treaty for many years, so it's no surprise that the Iranians are going to pursue what the Iranians have always intended to pursue," he added, following talks with his French counterpart Florence Parly.

Esper was in France after visits to London and Stuttgart, Germany, to meet with NATO allies since taking up his post in July.

Watch Video:

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-to-develop-centrifuges-from-friday-247655/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Parly reiterated France's calls for Tehran to "respect the Vienna accord", adding, "we will continue with all our diplomatic efforts in this direction. We have to continue."

France and other EU nations have been trying to ease tensions in the Gulf region since President Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions that have hit the Iranian economy hard.

President Emmanuel Macron has overseen recent talks between French and Iranian officials, and even secured a potential opening with Trump at last month's G7 summit, when he said he would be willing to meet with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani.

Esper said he had "productive discussions" with Parly, though neither indicated any progress had been made on de-escalating the conflict.

They also agreed to disagree on the US's new "maritime security mission" in the Gulf, aimed at ensuring open passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz after a series of incidents, including ship seizures by Iranian forces.

France has declined to join the US initiative and instead sought out like-minded partners for its own surveillance of the strategic waterway.

"The goal is to rally as many partners and means of surveillance as possible to improve security in the Gulf, and there's absolutely no competition between these initiatives," Parly said.

Esper said the US effort "is about deterring bad behaviour."

"Obviously our preference is that all countries join underneath this broader umbrella," he said.

"But the key thing is that we all work together to defend those common values, those common rights, that we have set up in the wake of World War-II and defend those around the world, whether it's from Iran trying to violate them, or it's China in the South China Sea." 
&nbsp;

US defense secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday he was "not surprised" Iran had turned on advanced centrifuges to increase uranium stockpiles, a further breach of the 2015 nuclear deal which Washington pulled out of last year.

US defense secretary Mark Esper said on Saturday he was "not surprised" Iran had turned on advanced centrifuges to increase uranium stockpiles, a further breach of the 2015 nuclear deal which Washington pulled out of last year. "I'm not surprised that Iran has announced that it's going to violate the JCPOA," Esper said in Paris, using the official name of the accord signed in Vienna four years ago. "They had been violating it, they had violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty for many years, so it's no surprise that the Iranians are going to pursue what the Iranians have always intended to pursue," he added, following talks with his French counterpart Florence Parly. Esper was in France after visits to London and Stuttgart, Germany, to meet with NATO allies since taking up his post in July. Watch Video: Parly reiterated France's calls for Tehran to "respect the Vienna accord", adding, "we will continue with all our diplomatic efforts in this direction. We have to continue." France and other EU nations have been trying to ease tensions in the Gulf region since President Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions that have hit the Iranian economy hard. President Emmanuel Macron has overseen recent talks between French and Iranian officials, and even secured a potential opening with Trump at last month's G7 summit, when he said he would be willing to meet with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani. Esper said he had "productive discussions" with Parly, though neither indicated any progress had been made on de-escalating the conflict. They also agreed to disagree on the US's new "maritime security mission" in the Gulf, aimed at ensuring open passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz after a series of incidents, including ship seizures by Iranian forces. France has declined to join the US initiative and instead sought out like-minded partners for its own surveillance of the strategic waterway. "The goal is to rally as many partners and means of surveillance as possible to improve security in the Gulf, and there's absolutely no competition between these initiatives," Parly said. Esper said the US effort "is about deterring bad behaviour." "Obviously our preference is that all countries join underneath this broader umbrella," he said. "But the key thing is that we all work together to defend those common values, those common rights, that we have set up in the wake of World War-II and defend those around the world, whether it's from Iran trying to violate them, or it's China in the South China Sea."

Not surprised Iran going to violate nuclear deal: US defence secretary Mark Esper

The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on a shipping network it said was run by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-president-hassan-rouhani-set-to-make-new-cut-in-nuclear-commitments-247582">Iran's Revolutionary Guards</a>, saying it sold millions of barrels of oil to benefit Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The sanctions on 16 entities, 10 people and 11 vessels were announced just as Iran was threatening to cut further its commitments under a nuclear deal unless the United States eases its pressure.

The Treasury Department said that the Qods Force, a unit of the elite Revolutionary Guards responsible for external operations, had backed both Assad and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah through crude oil shipments, mostly to Syria.&nbsp;

"The Iranian regime is leveraging a terrorist organization as its chief conduit for obfuscating and selling hundreds of millions of dollars of illicit oil to fuel its nefarious agenda," said Sigal Mandelker, the under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The State Department said separately that it was offering a $15 million reward for information that can disrupt the financial mechanisms of the Revolutionary Guards, including the Qods Force.

The entities that are facing the new sanctions include the Mehdi Group, based in US ally India, and its director Ali Zaheer Mehdi, which the Treasury Department said has managed vessels for Iranian oil.

The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on a shipping network it said was run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, saying it sold millions of barrels of oil to benefit Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on a shipping network it said was run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, saying it sold millions of barrels of oil to benefit Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The sanctions on 16 entities, 10 people and 11 vessels were announced just as Iran was threatening to cut further its commitments under a nuclear deal unless the United States eases its pressure. The Treasury Department said that the Qods Force, a unit of the elite Revolutionary Guards responsible for external operations, had backed both Assad and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah through crude oil shipments, mostly to Syria. "The Iranian regime is leveraging a terrorist organization as its chief conduit for obfuscating and selling hundreds of millions of dollars of illicit oil to fuel its nefarious agenda," said Sigal Mandelker, the under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence. The State Department said separately that it was offering a $15 million reward for information that can disrupt the financial mechanisms of the Revolutionary Guards, including the Qods Force. The entities that are facing the new sanctions include the Mehdi Group, based in US ally India, and its director Ali Zaheer Mehdi, which the Treasury Department said has managed vessels for Iranian oil.

Now, US imposes sanctions on Iran's shipping network over supplying oil to Syria

Turkey said on Friday that an Iranian oil tanker at the centre of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran was headed to Lebanon's waters, but the United States later said the ship was sailing to Syria.

According to Refinitiv tracking data, the Adrian Darya, formerly called Grace 1, after changing course several times headed on Friday for Turkey's Iskenderun port, 200 km (124 miles) north of Syria's Baniyas refinery, the tanker's suspected original destination.

When the ship was released off Gibraltar in mid-August after a five-week standoff, Iran assured Britain that the cargo was not headed to Syria.

The latest twist sets it in the direction of Syria, and raises the possibility that a ship-to-ship transfer of cargo may be attempted once it nears Lebanon's coast.

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a tweet late on Friday: "We have reliable information that the tanker is underway and headed to Tartus, Syria."

Pompeo had earlier said that if the tanker went to Syria, Washington would take every action it could consistent with US&nbsp;sanctions.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said earlier on Friday that despite the tracking data, the tanker was "for sure" not going to Turkish ports but rather towards Lebanese waters.

Earlier on Friday, the minister told Reuters the ship was headed to Lebanon's "main" port. "I didn't mean that this tanker is going to a Lebanese port, but (rather) according to the information coordinates it is heading to the territorial waters of the country," he later told reporters at an Oslo forum.

"It doesn't mean that it is going to reach a Lebanese port," he said of the tanker that was carrying 2 million barrels of oil when released at Gibraltar. "We are monitoring it very closely."

In response, Lebanese Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil said in a separate interview: "We have not been informed of the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya heading (here)."

Western threats

The apparent confusion underlines the risk of reprisal that countries face taking in the tanker, which at 1400 GMT was headed east toward the channel separating Turkey and Cyprus after a series of turns in the Mediterranean Sea, according to tracking data.

The ship had been detained off Gibraltar due to British suspicion that it was carrying Iranian oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions.

The United States says the tanker is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which it considers a terrorist group.

"What's important here is that it is carrying oil that enables the terrorism of (President Bashar al-Assad's) regime," a State Department spokesperson said. The Trump administration has conveyed "our strong position via diplomatic channels to all ports in the Mediterranean that should be forewarned about facilitating" the tanker, said the spokesperson, who declined to be named.

The US&nbsp;Treasury Department on Friday blacklisted the ship and sanctioned its captain.

Washington last year pulled out of a nuclear deal with Iran aimed at blocking its path to a nuclear bomb, and has ramped up sanctions to pressure and isolate Tehran. Iran denies ever having sought to build or acquire a nuclear weapon.

Cavusoglu told Reuters that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan spoke about the ship's coordinates with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday. In a readout of the call, London said the leaders agreed it was vital to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon but did not mention the tanker.

Options ahead

Shipping sources said the tanker would need to conduct a ship-to-ship transfer before being able to enter a port such as Beirut's, which does not have deep water facilities necessary for fully laden supertankers.

It could potentially discharge its cargo offshore towards Lebanon's Tripoli port further north, which is closer to Syria's coastline between Lebanon and Turkey, they said. There is a ship-to-ship transfer anchorage outside of Tripoli port limits.

Beirut and Tripoli ports have both served as transhipment hubs for cargoes bound for Syria in recent years during Syria's conflict.

An Iranian government spokesman was quoted on Monday as saying Iran had sold the oil aboard the tanker and that the vessel's owner, whose identity he did not disclose, would decide its destination.

After its release at Gibraltar, the ship stated that its destination was the Greek port of Kalamata, then Turkey's Mersin. On Thursday, it abruptly changed course, heading first west then south, away from the Turkish coast.

While west of Cyprus on Friday morning, it did a similar manouevre, doubling back on itself.

Turkey said on Friday that an Iranian oil tanker at the centre of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran was headed to Lebanon's waters, but the United States later said the ship was sailing to Syria.

Turkey said on Friday that an Iranian oil tanker at the centre of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran was headed to Lebanon's waters, but the United States later said the ship was sailing to Syria. According to Refinitiv tracking data, the Adrian Darya, formerly called Grace 1, after changing course several times headed on Friday for Turkey's Iskenderun port, 200 km (124 miles) north of Syria's Baniyas refinery, the tanker's suspected original destination. When the ship was released off Gibraltar in mid-August after a five-week standoff, Iran assured Britain that the cargo was not headed to Syria. The latest twist sets it in the direction of Syria, and raises the possibility that a ship-to-ship transfer of cargo may be attempted once it nears Lebanon's coast. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a tweet late on Friday: "We have reliable information that the tanker is underway and headed to Tartus, Syria." Pompeo had earlier said that if the tanker went to Syria, Washington would take every action it could consistent with US sanctions. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said earlier on Friday that despite the tracking data, the tanker was "for sure" not going to Turkish ports but rather towards Lebanese waters. Earlier on Friday, the minister told Reuters the ship was headed to Lebanon's "main" port. "I didn't mean that this tanker is going to a Lebanese port, but (rather) according to the information coordinates it is heading to the territorial waters of the country," he later told reporters at an Oslo forum. "It doesn't mean that it is going to reach a Lebanese port," he said of the tanker that was carrying 2 million barrels of oil when released at Gibraltar. "We are monitoring it very closely." In response, Lebanese Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil said in a separate interview: "We have not been informed of the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya heading (here)." Western threats The apparent confusion underlines the risk of reprisal that countries face taking in the tanker, which at 1400 GMT was headed east toward the channel separating Turkey and Cyprus after a series of turns in the Mediterranean Sea, according to tracking data. The ship had been detained off Gibraltar due to British suspicion that it was carrying Iranian oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions. The United States says the tanker is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which it considers a terrorist group. "What's important here is that it is carrying oil that enables the terrorism of (President Bashar al-Assad's) regime," a State Department spokesperson said. The Trump administration has conveyed "our strong position via diplomatic channels to all ports in the Mediterranean that should be forewarned about facilitating" the tanker, said the spokesperson, who declined to be named. The US Treasury Department on Friday blacklisted the ship and sanctioned its captain. Washington last year pulled out of a nuclear deal with Iran aimed at blocking its path to a nuclear bomb, and has ramped up sanctions to pressure and isolate Tehran. Iran denies ever having sought to build or acquire a nuclear weapon. Cavusoglu told Reuters that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan spoke about the ship's coordinates with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday. In a readout of the call, London said the leaders agreed it was vital to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon but did not mention the tanker. Options ahead Shipping sources said the tanker would need to conduct a ship-to-ship transfer before being able to enter a port such as Beirut's, which does not have deep water facilities necessary for fully laden supertankers. It could potentially discharge its cargo offshore towards Lebanon's Tripoli port further north, which is closer to Syria's coastline between Lebanon and Turkey, they said. There is a ship-to-ship transfer anchorage outside of Tripoli port limits. Beirut and Tripoli ports have both served as transhipment hubs for cargoes bound for Syria in recent years during Syria's conflict. An Iranian government spokesman was quoted on Monday as saying Iran had sold the oil aboard the tanker and that the vessel's owner, whose identity he did not disclose, would decide its destination. After its release at Gibraltar, the ship stated that its destination was the Greek port of Kalamata, then Turkey's Mersin. On Thursday, it abruptly changed course, heading first west then south, away from the Turkish coast. While west of Cyprus on Friday morning, it did a similar manouevre, doubling back on itself.

US says Iranian oil tanker headed towards Syria

US President Donald Trump said Monday he was prepared to meet his Iranian <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-president-hassan-rouhani-makes-case-for-talks-as-g7-gambit-slammed-245689">counterpart Hassan Rouhani</a> within weeks, after talks about Tehran's nuclear programme at the G7 summit in France.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-foreign-minister-zarif-leaves-g7-talks-unclear-if-progress-made-to-ease-tensions-245637"> Javad Zarif </a>had made a surprise appearance on the sidelines of the summit in Biarritz on Sunday at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron.

Macron said the "conditions for a meeting" between Trump and Rouhani "in the next few weeks" had been created through intensive diplomacy and consultations.

"If the circumstances were correct, I would certainly agree to that," Trump said at a press conference with Macron at the end of three days of talks.

Asked if he thought the timeline proposed by his French counterpart was realistic, Trump replied,&nbsp;"It does", adding he thought Rouhani would also be in favour.&nbsp;

"I think he's going to want to meet. I think Iran wants to get this situation straightened out," he added.

Watch: Trump was aware of Iran's FM's visit at G7

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/g7-summit-trump-was-aware-of-irans-fms-visit-at-g7-245730/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump has put in place a policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme via crippling sanctions that are seen as raising the risk of conflict in the Middle East.

The US president last year unilaterally pulled out of a landmark 2015 international deal that placed limits on Tehran's nuclear activities in exchange for trade, investment and sanctions relief.

'Real progress'

Macron has urged the US administration to offer some sort of relief to Iran, such as lifting sanctions on oil sales to China and India, and has raised the possibility of a new credit line to enable exports.

In return, Iran would return to complying with the 2015 deal.

Commenting on the talks about Iran at the G7, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said,&nbsp;"It's a big step forward. Now there is an atmosphere in which talks are welcomed."&nbsp;

Macron and Trump hailed the common ground found by G7 leaders at their summit, which was dominated by the Iranian nuclear crisis, global trade tensions and fires in the Amazon.

"We have managed to find real points of convergence, unprecedented, very positive, that will allow us to go forward in a very useful way," Macron told the press conference.

Trump said Macron had done a "fantastic job" at the G7.

"This was a very special, a very unified two and a half days and I want to thank you," Trump told his host.

Just a few weeks ago, Trump lambasted Macron for sending "mixed signals" on Iran, and at the end of July the US administration imposed sanctions on Zarif.

Macron acknowledged there had been "nervousness" ahead of the summit because of tensions between the US and Europe on a host of issues.

Trade war worries

Commenting on his escalating trade war with China, Trump held out hope of a deal to thaw the bruising year-long dispute that has seen tariffs imposed on billions of dollars' worth of goods by both sides.

"I can say we are having very meaningful talks, much more meaningful, I would say, than at any time," he had said at a press conference with Merkel.

Trump said senior Chinese officials had been in contact.

"I'm not sure they have a choice (on making a deal)," he said. "I don't mean that as a threat. I don't think they have a choice."&nbsp;

There was no detail from China about the talks Trump referred to.

Trump arrived in the famed surfing town of Biarritz on Saturday shortly after upping the ante with a new round of increased tariffs on Chinese goods.

European leaders have lined up to urge caution and warn about the danger of recession from the conflict.

Amazon help

On the final day of the summit, the G7 agenda also included action to help fight fires destroying swaths of the Amazon.

The members agreed to spend $20 million (18 million euros) on the world's biggest rainforest, mainly to send firefighting aircraft to tackle blazes.

Trump was less vocal on this issue than his partners.&nbsp;

He also stood out from the rest of the G7 leaders in his budding friendship with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a former army officer who has given freer rein to industrial farmers and loggers who have made the country an agribusiness power -- at a huge cost to the environment.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged £10 million ($12.3 million) to help Amazon reforestation efforts, including in areas hit by the fires.

Macron has threatened to block an extensive new trade deal between the European Union and Latin America unless Bolsonaro takes serious steps to combat global warming.

Bolsonaro, who on Sunday appeared to endorse a disparaging remark about Macron's wife on Facebook, has denounced the French leader's alleged "colonialist mentality".

US President Donald Trump said Monday he was prepared to meet his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani within weeks, after talks about Tehran's nuclear programme at the G7 summit in France.

US President Donald Trump said Monday he was prepared to meet his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani within weeks, after talks about Tehran's nuclear programme at the G7 summit in France. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had made a surprise appearance on the sidelines of the summit in Biarritz on Sunday at the invitation of French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron said the "conditions for a meeting" between Trump and Rouhani "in the next few weeks" had been created through intensive diplomacy and consultations. "If the circumstances were correct, I would certainly agree to that," Trump said at a press conference with Macron at the end of three days of talks. Asked if he thought the timeline proposed by his French counterpart was realistic, Trump replied, "It does", adding he thought Rouhani would also be in favour. "I think he's going to want to meet. I think Iran wants to get this situation straightened out," he added. Watch: Trump was aware of Iran's FM's visit at G7 × Trump has put in place a policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme via crippling sanctions that are seen as raising the risk of conflict in the Middle East. The US president last year unilaterally pulled out of a landmark 2015 international deal that placed limits on Tehran's nuclear activities in exchange for trade, investment and sanctions relief. 'Real progress' Macron has urged the US administration to offer some sort of relief to Iran, such as lifting sanctions on oil sales to China and India, and has raised the possibility of a new credit line to enable exports. In return, Iran would return to complying with the 2015 deal. Commenting on the talks about Iran at the G7, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, "It's a big step forward. Now there is an atmosphere in which talks are welcomed." Macron and Trump hailed the common ground found by G7 leaders at their summit, which was dominated by the Iranian nuclear crisis, global trade tensions and fires in the Amazon. "We have managed to find real points of convergence, unprecedented, very positive, that will allow us to go forward in a very useful way," Macron told the press conference. Trump said Macron had done a "fantastic job" at the G7. "This was a very special, a very unified two and a half days and I want to thank you," Trump told his host. Just a few weeks ago, Trump lambasted Macron for sending "mixed signals" on Iran, and at the end of July the US administration imposed sanctions on Zarif. Macron acknowledged there had been "nervousness" ahead of the summit because of tensions between the US and Europe on a host of issues. Trade war worries Commenting on his escalating trade war with China, Trump held out hope of a deal to thaw the bruising year-long dispute that has seen tariffs imposed on billions of dollars' worth of goods by both sides. "I can say we are having very meaningful talks, much more meaningful, I would say, than at any time," he had said at a press conference with Merkel. Trump said senior Chinese officials had been in contact. "I'm not sure they have a choice (on making a deal)," he said. "I don't mean that as a threat. I don't think they have a choice." There was no detail from China about the talks Trump referred to. Trump arrived in the famed surfing town of Biarritz on Saturday shortly after upping the ante with a new round of increased tariffs on Chinese goods. European leaders have lined up to urge caution and warn about the danger of recession from the conflict. Amazon help On the final day of the summit, the G7 agenda also included action to help fight fires destroying swaths of the Amazon. The members agreed to spend $20 million (18 million euros) on the world's biggest rainforest, mainly to send firefighting aircraft to tackle blazes. Trump was less vocal on this issue than his partners. He also stood out from the rest of the G7 leaders in his budding friendship with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a former army officer who has given freer rein to industrial farmers and loggers who have made the country an agribusiness power -- at a huge cost to the environment. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged £10 million ($12.3 million) to help Amazon reforestation efforts, including in areas hit by the fires. Macron has threatened to block an extensive new trade deal between the European Union and Latin America unless Bolsonaro takes serious steps to combat global warming. Bolsonaro, who on Sunday appeared to endorse a disparaging remark about Macron's wife on Facebook, has denounced the French leader's alleged "colonialist mentality".

Donald Trump ready to meet Iranian leader Rouhani, raising hopes of breakthrough

The rejection of international law is on the rise, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, during a meeting in Beijing with the Chinese government's top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi.

"Rejection of international law, not just lack of respect for international law, but, in fact, contempt for international law, is on the rise and we need to work together," Zarif told Wang, in comments in front of reporters.

Zarif said he was in Beijing to brief the Chinese official on his recent meetings in France on the Iran nuclear deal, but he gave no details.

Zarif arrived in China after a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-foreign-minister-zarif-leaves-g7-talks-unclear-if-progress-made-to-ease-tensions-245637">visit to the G7 summit for talks with host France</a>, as Paris ramped up efforts to ease the tension between Tehran and Washington, a dramatic diplomatic move that the White House said had surprised it.

The 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers aimed to curb Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of many international sanctions on Tehran.

Since pulling Washington out of the deal last year, US President Donald Trump has pushed a maximum-pressure policy to try to force Iran into a new negotiation that would include its ballistic missile programme and regional activities.

Watch: Iran FM Javad Zarif makes surprise visit to G7 Summit

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-fm-javad-zarif-makes-surprise-visit-to-g7-summit-245625/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

China has close energy and diplomatic ties with Iran, and is one of the signatories to the nuclear deal, which it says must be upheld.

"We are comprehensive strategic partners," Wang said. "That speaks to the high level of our relationship and our close strategic cooperation."

Zarif said he was particularly excited by the Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to recreate the old Silk Road with massive infrastructure spending connecting China with the rest of Asia and beyond.

Iran considers the Belt and Road "to be the future of our region and our global interactions", he added.

The rejection of international law is on the rise, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, during a meeting in Beijing with the Chinese government's top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi.

The rejection of international law is on the rise, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, during a meeting in Beijing with the Chinese government's top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi. "Rejection of international law, not just lack of respect for international law, but, in fact, contempt for international law, is on the rise and we need to work together," Zarif told Wang, in comments in front of reporters. Zarif said he was in Beijing to brief the Chinese official on his recent meetings in France on the Iran nuclear deal, but he gave no details. Zarif arrived in China after a visit to the G7 summit for talks with host France, as Paris ramped up efforts to ease the tension between Tehran and Washington, a dramatic diplomatic move that the White House said had surprised it. The 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers aimed to curb Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of many international sanctions on Tehran. Since pulling Washington out of the deal last year, US President Donald Trump has pushed a maximum-pressure policy to try to force Iran into a new negotiation that would include its ballistic missile programme and regional activities. Watch: Iran FM Javad Zarif makes surprise visit to G7 Summit × China has close energy and diplomatic ties with Iran, and is one of the signatories to the nuclear deal, which it says must be upheld. "We are comprehensive strategic partners," Wang said. "That speaks to the high level of our relationship and our close strategic cooperation." Zarif said he was particularly excited by the Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to recreate the old Silk Road with massive infrastructure spending connecting China with the rest of Asia and beyond. Iran considers the Belt and Road "to be the future of our region and our global interactions", he added.

Rejection of international law on the rise, says Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif

The United States applied on Thursday to seize an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-britain-might-free-oil-tanker-soon-irna-242778">Iranian tanker in Gibraltar,</a> halting its expected release at the last minute and preventing a possible swap for British-flagged tanker held by Iran.

The Grace 1 oil tanker was seized by Royal Marine commandos in a landing in darkness off the coast of the British overseas territory on July 4.

Gibraltar said the tanker was suspected of selling oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions. Two weeks later, Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Gulf on July 19.

Gibraltar was widely expected to release the Grace 1 on Thursday, but just hours before, the US Department of Justice sought to seize it.

"The US Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered," the government of Gibraltar said, adding the matter would return to the supreme court of Gibraltar at 1400 GMT on Thursday.

Watch: Iran-UK Oil Tanker Seizure Row

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/your-story-iran-uk-oil-tanker-seizure-row-242819/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Further details were not immediately released about the grounds for the US Justice Department's application. The US Justice Department was not immediately available for comment.

The Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper, which was first to report the news, said the court's chief justice, Anthony Dudley, made clear that were it not for the US move, "the ship would have sailed".

While both Britain and Iran deny they were planning to swap the vessels for each other, there has been a widespread expectation that the Britsh-flagged ship will not be freed until the Iranian tanker is released.

The two seized tankers - one in Gibraltar and one in Iran - are seen as a pawn in the standoff between Iran and the West, with their fate tangled in the diplomatic differences between the EU's big powers and the United States.

European countries including Britain strongly disagreed with Washington's decision last year to abandon an international agreement that guaranteed Iran access to trade in return for curbs to its nuclear programme.

Washington has imposed sanctions on Iran with the aim of halting its oil exports altogether. European countries have lifted sanctions against Iran itself but still have a ban on selling oil to Syria, in place since 2011.

Gibraltar denies that it was ordered to detain the Grace 1, which was carrying up to 2.1 million barrels of oil, but several diplomatic sources have said the United States asked the United Kingdom to seize the vessel.

Britain, which has insisted its Iran policy will not change under new Prime Minister Boris Johnson who took office last month, has repeatedly indicated it wants a compromise over the tanker.

The captain and three officers of the Grace 1 has been released from arrest.

A source in Gibraltar had told Reuters ahead of Thursday's court hearing that the Grace 1 would probably be allowed to leave, stoking speculation about a possible tanker swap with Iran.

Britain has announced plans to join a US-led maritime security mission in the Gulf.

Iranian navy commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi repeated Iran's longstanding demand that Western navies leave the Gulf, which Iran says should be patrolled only by the countries of the region, ISNA news agency reported on Thursday.

"The enemies of the region, America, England and the Zionist regime and their allies, should know that the time of parading, loitering and putting on a hypocritical show in the Persian Gulf region and the sea of Oman is over,” Khanzadi said, according to ISNA.

"The enemies must leave the region as quickly as possible."

The United States applied on Thursday to seize an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar, halting its expected release at the last minute and preventing a possible swap for British-flagged tanker held by Iran.

The United States applied on Thursday to seize an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar, halting its expected release at the last minute and preventing a possible swap for British-flagged tanker held by Iran. The Grace 1 oil tanker was seized by Royal Marine commandos in a landing in darkness off the coast of the British overseas territory on July 4. Gibraltar said the tanker was suspected of selling oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions. Two weeks later, Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Gulf on July 19. Gibraltar was widely expected to release the Grace 1 on Thursday, but just hours before, the US Department of Justice sought to seize it. "The US Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered," the government of Gibraltar said, adding the matter would return to the supreme court of Gibraltar at 1400 GMT on Thursday. Watch: Iran-UK Oil Tanker Seizure Row × Further details were not immediately released about the grounds for the US Justice Department's application. The US Justice Department was not immediately available for comment. The Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper, which was first to report the news, said the court's chief justice, Anthony Dudley, made clear that were it not for the US move, "the ship would have sailed". While both Britain and Iran deny they were planning to swap the vessels for each other, there has been a widespread expectation that the Britsh-flagged ship will not be freed until the Iranian tanker is released. The two seized tankers - one in Gibraltar and one in Iran - are seen as a pawn in the standoff between Iran and the West, with their fate tangled in the diplomatic differences between the EU's big powers and the United States. European countries including Britain strongly disagreed with Washington's decision last year to abandon an international agreement that guaranteed Iran access to trade in return for curbs to its nuclear programme. Washington has imposed sanctions on Iran with the aim of halting its oil exports altogether. European countries have lifted sanctions against Iran itself but still have a ban on selling oil to Syria, in place since 2011. Gibraltar denies that it was ordered to detain the Grace 1, which was carrying up to 2.1 million barrels of oil, but several diplomatic sources have said the United States asked the United Kingdom to seize the vessel. Britain, which has insisted its Iran policy will not change under new Prime Minister Boris Johnson who took office last month, has repeatedly indicated it wants a compromise over the tanker. The captain and three officers of the Grace 1 has been released from arrest. A source in Gibraltar had told Reuters ahead of Thursday's court hearing that the Grace 1 would probably be allowed to leave, stoking speculation about a possible tanker swap with Iran. Britain has announced plans to join a US-led maritime security mission in the Gulf. Iranian navy commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi repeated Iran's longstanding demand that Western navies leave the Gulf, which Iran says should be patrolled only by the countries of the region, ISNA news agency reported on Thursday. "The enemies of the region, America, England and the Zionist regime and their allies, should know that the time of parading, loitering and putting on a hypocritical show in the Persian Gulf region and the sea of Oman is over,” Khanzadi said, according to ISNA. "The enemies must leave the region as quickly as possible."

United States seeks to seize Iranian vessel in Gibraltar: Report

President Trump on Thursday hit out at French President Macron for giving "mixed signals" to Iran as the US president asserted that "no one is authorised in any way, shape or form to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/flags-of-inconvenience-noose-tightens-around-iranian-shipping-238568">represent to the US</a>."

"Iran is in serious financial trouble. They want desperately to talk to the US, but are given mixed signals from all of those purporting to represent us, including President Macron of France," the US president said, adding,"No one is authorised in any way, shape, or form, to represent us!"

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Iran is in serious financial trouble. They want desperately to talk to the U.S., but are given mixed signals from all of those purporting to represent us, including President Macron of France....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159522492324687877?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As tensions continue between US and Iran, US officials have told commercial vessels that they should <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-tells-commercial-vessels-to-send-gulf-transit-plans-in-advance-241517">send transit plans in advance</a> to American and British naval authorities if they intend to sail in Gulf waters following several incidents over tankers involving Iran.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
....I know Emmanuel means well, as do all others, but nobody speaks for the United States but the United States itself. No one is authorized in any way, shape, or form, to represent us!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159522493801123840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Heightened military activity and increased political tensions in this region continue to pose serious threats to commercial vessels," the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) said in an advisory on Wednesday.

"Associated with these threats is a potential for miscalculation or misidentification that could lead to aggressive actions," it added.

Ships should also alert the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations in the event of any incident or suspicious activity. It warned they could face interference to their global positioning systems (GPS).

Meanwhile, Britain's P&amp;O Cruises said it had cancelled cruises around Dubai and the Gulf because of the increased tensions. 
&nbsp;

President Trump on Thursday hit out at French President Macron for giving "mixed signals" to Iran as the US president asserted that "no one is authorised in any way, shape or form to represent to the US.

President Trump on Thursday hit out at French President Macron for giving "mixed signals" to Iran as the US president asserted that "no one is authorised in any way, shape or form to represent to the US." "Iran is in serious financial trouble. They want desperately to talk to the US, but are given mixed signals from all of those purporting to represent us, including President Macron of France," the US president said, adding,"No one is authorised in any way, shape, or form, to represent us!" Iran is in serious financial trouble. They want desperately to talk to the U.S., but are given mixed signals from all of those purporting to represent us, including President Macron of France.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2019 × As tensions continue between US and Iran, US officials have told commercial vessels that they should send transit plans in advance to American and British naval authorities if they intend to sail in Gulf waters following several incidents over tankers involving Iran. ....I know Emmanuel means well, as do all others, but nobody speaks for the United States but the United States itself. No one is authorized in any way, shape, or form, to represent us! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 8, 2019 × "Heightened military activity and increased political tensions in this region continue to pose serious threats to commercial vessels," the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) said in an advisory on Wednesday. "Associated with these threats is a potential for miscalculation or misidentification that could lead to aggressive actions," it added. Ships should also alert the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations in the event of any incident or suspicious activity. It warned they could face interference to their global positioning systems (GPS). Meanwhile, Britain's P&O Cruises said it had cancelled cruises around Dubai and the Gulf because of the increased tensions.

Iran given mixed signals from of those purporting to represent us, including Macron: Trump

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hassan-rouhani-says-iran-favours-talks-but-us-must-lift-sanctions-241008">Iran</a> asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday to push back against the United States after it imposed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-on-iranian-foreign-minister-mohammad-javad-zarif-239805">sanctions on Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif</a>, describing the move as "a dangerous precedent."

In a letter to Guterres, Iran`s UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi accused the United States of a "brazen violation of the fundamental principles of international law" and urged the international community to condemn the US behaviour.&nbsp;

"Coercing nations into complying with the United States` illegal demands threatens multilateralism, as the foundation of international relations, and sets a dangerous precedent, paving the way for those who aspire to rather divide, not unite, nations," he wrote.&nbsp;

Ravanchi asked Guterres to "to play your active role in preserving the integrity of the United Nations in line with your responsibility to counter the current dangerous trend" but it is not clear what Guterres could do in response to the Iranians.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to comment on the letter. When asked about the US sanctioning of Zarif, Guterres told reporters on Thursday: "When I ask for maximum restraint, I ask for maximum restraint at all levels."

The US sanctions imposed on Zarif last week would block any property or interests he has in the United States, but the foreign minister said he had none.

"The illegal imposition of sanctions on the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran also violates the principle of sovereign equality of States," Ravanchi said.&nbsp;

Longtime US-Iran strains have worsened since US President Donald Trump last year quit a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran`s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. Zarif was a critical figure in the nuclear deal.

The United States also imposed unusually tight travel restrictions on Zarif when he visited New York last month to speak at a UN meeting. He was only able to travel between the United Nations, the Iranian UN&nbsp;mission, the Iranian UN ambassador`s residence and John F. Kennedy airport.&nbsp;

The sanctions on Zarif were imposed two weeks after he visited New York. Zarif posted on Twitter on Monday that he believed the United States was not interested in talks with Tehran and instead wanted Iran`s submission.&nbsp;

Iran asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday to push back against the United States after it imposed sanctions on Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, describing the move as "a dangerous precedent.

Iran asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday to push back against the United States after it imposed sanctions on Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, describing the move as "a dangerous precedent." In a letter to Guterres, Iran`s UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi accused the United States of a "brazen violation of the fundamental principles of international law" and urged the international community to condemn the US behaviour. "Coercing nations into complying with the United States` illegal demands threatens multilateralism, as the foundation of international relations, and sets a dangerous precedent, paving the way for those who aspire to rather divide, not unite, nations," he wrote. Ravanchi asked Guterres to "to play your active role in preserving the integrity of the United Nations in line with your responsibility to counter the current dangerous trend" but it is not clear what Guterres could do in response to the Iranians. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to comment on the letter. When asked about the US sanctioning of Zarif, Guterres told reporters on Thursday: "When I ask for maximum restraint, I ask for maximum restraint at all levels." The US sanctions imposed on Zarif last week would block any property or interests he has in the United States, but the foreign minister said he had none. "The illegal imposition of sanctions on the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran also violates the principle of sovereign equality of States," Ravanchi said. Longtime US-Iran strains have worsened since US President Donald Trump last year quit a 2015 international agreement to curb Iran`s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. Zarif was a critical figure in the nuclear deal. The United States also imposed unusually tight travel restrictions on Zarif when he visited New York last month to speak at a UN meeting. He was only able to travel between the United Nations, the Iranian UN mission, the Iranian UN ambassador`s residence and John F. Kennedy airport. The sanctions on Zarif were imposed two weeks after he visited New York. Zarif posted on Twitter on Monday that he believed the United States was not interested in talks with Tehran and instead wanted Iran`s submission.

Iran asks UN chief to push back against US sanctions on foreign minister

Iran's President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rouhani-says-childish-of-us-to-sanction-iran-foreign-minister-zarif-239925">Hassan Rouhani</a> said on Tuesday that Tehran favours talks with Washington but the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-struggles-to-build-willing-coalition-amid-hormuz-tensions-240671">United States</a> must first lift sanctions it imposed on the Islamic republic.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran favours<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ready-for-negotiations-but-will-not-surrender-rouhani-on-standoff-with-us-238156"> talks and negotiations </a>and, if the US really wants to talk, before anything else it should lift all sanctions," Rouhani said in a&nbsp;televised speech.

Rouhani, speaking at the foreign ministry after meeting with his top diplomat, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Iran was ready for talks regardless of whether or not the US was party to a landmark nuclear deal.

"Whether they want to come into the JCPOA or not, it’s up to them," said Rouhani, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

He also added, " Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars".

The Iranian foreign minister on Monday confirmed reports that he had turned down an offer from a US senator to meet President Donald Trump at the White House.

Tehran and Washington have been locked in a battle of nerves since May 2018 when Trump withdrew the United States from a landmark 2015 deal placing limits on Iran's nuclear programme and began reimposing sanctions.

Tensions have soared since the Trump administration began stepping up a US campaign of "maximum pressure" against Iran, with drones downed and tankers mysteriously attacked in Gulf waters.

At the height of the crisis, Trump called off airstrikes against Iran at the last minute in June after the Islamic republic's forces shot down a US drone.

Iran said on Sunday its forces seized a "foreign" tanker carrying smuggled fuel in what would be the third such seizure in less than a month in Gulf waters - a conduit for much of the world's crude oil.

On July 18, the Guards said they had detained the Panama-flagged MT Riah for alleged fuel smuggling. A day later, they announced they had impounded the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz for breaking "international maritime rules".

In response to such incidents, the United States has been seeking to form a coalition whose mission - dubbed Operation Sentinel - it says is to guarantee freedom of navigation in the Gulf.

However, it has been struggling to build such a coalition, with European countries reticent and believed to be concerned about being dragged into a possible conflict.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that Tehran favours talks with Washington but the United States must first lift sanctions it imposed on the Islamic republic.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that Tehran favours talks with Washington but the United States must first lift sanctions it imposed on the Islamic republic. "The Islamic Republic of Iran favours talks and negotiations and, if the US really wants to talk, before anything else it should lift all sanctions," Rouhani said in a televised speech. Rouhani, speaking at the foreign ministry after meeting with his top diplomat, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Iran was ready for talks regardless of whether or not the US was party to a landmark nuclear deal. "Whether they want to come into the JCPOA or not, it’s up to them," said Rouhani, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He also added, " Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars". The Iranian foreign minister on Monday confirmed reports that he had turned down an offer from a US senator to meet President Donald Trump at the White House. Tehran and Washington have been locked in a battle of nerves since May 2018 when Trump withdrew the United States from a landmark 2015 deal placing limits on Iran's nuclear programme and began reimposing sanctions. Tensions have soared since the Trump administration began stepping up a US campaign of "maximum pressure" against Iran, with drones downed and tankers mysteriously attacked in Gulf waters. At the height of the crisis, Trump called off airstrikes against Iran at the last minute in June after the Islamic republic's forces shot down a US drone. Iran said on Sunday its forces seized a "foreign" tanker carrying smuggled fuel in what would be the third such seizure in less than a month in Gulf waters - a conduit for much of the world's crude oil. On July 18, the Guards said they had detained the Panama-flagged MT Riah for alleged fuel smuggling. A day later, they announced they had impounded the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz for breaking "international maritime rules". In response to such incidents, the United States has been seeking to form a coalition whose mission - dubbed Operation Sentinel - it says is to guarantee freedom of navigation in the Gulf. However, it has been struggling to build such a coalition, with European countries reticent and believed to be concerned about being dragged into a possible conflict.

Iran favours talks but US must lift sanctions: Hassan Rouhani

us-iran-conflict

Us Iran Conflict, News on Us Iran Conflict, stories on Us Iran Conflict, articles on Us Iran Conflict, Us Iran Conflict stories at Wion, Us Iran Conflict news, Us Iran Conflict latest news

us iran-conflict

Gravitas: US-Iran conflict, Impact on global economy

Gravitas: Iran, US pull back from brink of war

Gravitas: US vs Iran, India's balancing act

Amid West Asia conflict US wants India to cut ties with Iran

House votes to restrain Trump's Iran war powers

Wion Edit: US-Iran conflict: Can India play peacemaker?

Why did Iran and US step back from all-out war

Could Iran-US tensions mean troubled waters ahead in the Strait of Hormuz?

WION Edit: US-Iran conflict - what's next?

Where not to be in case of World War 3: The riskiest countries in the world

US wants no less than regime change in Iran

Amid escalating tensions in West Asia Indian stock markets close in the red

WION Edit: Are US and Iran on the brink of war?

WION Edit: Are US and Iran on the brink of war?

Should Iran strike, US will quickly strike back, says Trump

India reaches out to countries in West Asia amid US-Iran tensions

Something is going to happen, but not war: Expert on US-Iran tension

Does the killing of Qasem Soleimani violate international law?

How rising tension between US-Iran after Soleimani's killing will affect India

We were close to dialogue with US but Trump govt disrupted it: Iran

Iran says seized British-flagged tanker 'free' to leave

Iran issues 'battlefield' warning as US deploys troops

Iran fires up advanced centrifuges in latest nuclear step

Not surprised Iran going to violate nuclear deal: US defence secretary Mark Esper