Kamis, 11 Juli 2019

Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate shadowing the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached British Heritage and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose were trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off, US media reported. The boats heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage - which is registered at the port of Douglas, in the Isle of Man - was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached by the Iranian boats.

HMS Montrose had been shadowing British Heritage from a distance but came to its aid once the Iranian boats began harassing the tanker, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.

Although Abu Musa is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

"There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones," the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an oil tanker because of evidence it was carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if the detained ship was not released.

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow another British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," Mr Rouhani said.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

This is enough to provide reassurance, but probably not to deal with a crisis, the BBC's Jonathan Beale said.

"HMS Montrose will not be able to provide protection for every commercial vessel in the Gulf with links to the UK," he added.

"Ministers will now have to contemplate sending another Royal Navy warship to the region. But in doing so, that may only further escalate tensions with Iran, which is something the government wants to avoid."

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

What about US-Iran relations?

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create a multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen.

The news followed the Trump administration's decision to pull out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme and reinforce punishing sanctions against Iran.

European allies to the US, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran's ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions.

Tehran has begun to nudge the levels of its enriched uranium beyond the limits of a nuclear deal agreed with a group of world powers, in small and calculated steps.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC, Iran would move to the "third phase" of its stepped-up uranium enrichment programme unless the Europeans kept promises to uphold the economic benefits of the accord.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 09:05:43Z
52780330365006

Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate escorting the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached British Heritage and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose were trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off, US media reported. The boats heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage - which is registered at the port of Douglas, in the Isle of Man - was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached and harassed by the Iranian boats.

Although the island is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

"There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones," the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an oil tanker because of evidence it was carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if the detained ship was not released.

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow another British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," Mr Rouhani said.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in the region.

This is enough to provide reassurance, but probably not to deal with a crisis, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.

"HMS Montrose will not be able to provide protection for every commercial vessel in the Gulf with links to the UK," he added.

"Ministers will now have to contemplate sending another Royal Navy warship to the region. But in doing so, that may only further escalate tensions with Iran, which is something the government wants to avoid."

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

What about US-Iran relations?

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create a multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen.

The news followed the Trump administration's decision to pull out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme and reinforce punishing sanctions against Iran.

European allies to the US, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran's ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions.

Tehran has begun to nudge the levels of its enriched uranium beyond the limits of a nuclear deal agreed with a group of world powers, in small and calculated steps.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC, Iran would move to the "third phase" of its stepped-up uranium enrichment programme unless the Europeans kept promises to uphold the economic benefits of the accord.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 08:37:30Z
52780330365006

Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose moved between the three boats and the tanker British Heritage before issuing verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached the British Heritage tanker and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose, the British frigate escorting the tanker, were reportedly trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off. They heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached and harassed by the Iranian boats.

Although the island is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

"There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones," the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an Iranian oil tanker because of evidence it was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if its detained ship was not released.

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow a British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," Mr Rouhani said.

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

What about US-Iran relations?

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create an multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen.

The Trump administration - which has pulled out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme - has reinforced punishing sanctions against Iran.

Its European allies, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran's ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions - otherwise Iranians will continue to exceed limits on their nuclear fuel production.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 07:05:16Z
52780330365006

Iranian boats 'tried to intercept British tanker' - BBC News

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose moved between the three boats and the tanker British Heritage before issuing verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached the British Heritage tanker and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose, the British frigate escorting the tanker, were reportedly trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off. They heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached and harassed by the Iranian boats.

Although the island is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC's Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC "denies claims by American sources" that it tried to seize British Heritage.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims "for creating tension".

"These claims have no value," Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system - the Revolutionary Guard Corps's naval arm, or whatever - are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump's hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an Iranian oil tanker because of evidence it was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

In response, an Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if its detained ship was not released.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a "form of piracy".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow a British tanker in the Gulf.

"You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later," he added.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

This latest row comes at a time of escalating tensions between the US and Iran.

The Trump administration - which has pulled out of an international agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme - has reinforced punishing sanctions against Iran.

Its European allies, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Nonetheless, the relationship between the UK and Iran has also become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was "almost certainly" responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051

2019-07-11 06:53:06Z
52780330365006

Rabu, 10 Juli 2019

Iran nuclear deal breaches are extortion, says US - BBC News

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US has accused Iran of a "crude and transparent attempt to extort payments from the international community" by violating the 2015 nuclear deal.

The US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no credible reason for Iran to breach two key commitments on uranium enrichment.

Iran has said the steps were a response to the sanctions the US reinstated when it abandoned the deal last year.

It has vowed to reverse them if it is given compensation for economic losses.

European powers still party to the deal have set up a mechanism for facilitating legitimate trade without direct financial transactions that they hope will circumvent the US sanctions. However, Iran has said it does not meet its needs.

Iran's representative to the UN in New York told the BBC that the Europeans could do more, and that if they did not Iran would take further steps.

"If nothing happens in the next 60 days we will have to go to the third phase. The elements of the third phase are not known yet, but when it comes to that we will announce what we are going to do," Majid Takht-Ravanchi warned.

At Wednesday's special meeting of the IAEA board of governors in Vienna, diplomats were reportedly told that the global watchdog's inspectors had verified Iran was enriching uranium to 4.5% concentration - above the 3.67% limit set by the nuclear deal.

The country announced the step three days ago, saying it wanted to be able to produce fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

The IAEA was also said to have verified that Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium had grown since the 300kg (660lb) limit was exceeded on 1 July.

Low-enriched uranium, which typically has a 3-5% concentration, can be used to produce fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Weapons-grade uranium is 90% enriched or more.

Experts have said the breach of the stockpile limit does not pose a near-term proliferation risk, but that enriching uranium to a higher concentration would begin to shorten Iran's so-called "break-out time" - the time required for it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

Iran insists it has never sought to develop a nuclear weapon. But the international community does not believe Iran, and negotiated a nuclear deal to prevent it from doing so.

US President Donald Trump said the deal did not go far enough to restrict Iran's nuclear programme and unilaterally withdrew from the accord in May 2018.

He wants to replace it with one that would also curb Iran's ballistic missile programme and its involvement in regional conflicts. But Iran has so far refused.

At the IAEA meeting, US ambassador Jackie Wolcott said Iran's recent actions and statements were deeply concerning, and affected security and stability.

"Iran's current nuclear posture is clearly aimed at escalating tensions rather than defusing them, and underscores the serious challenges Iran continues to pose to international peace and security," she said.

"Such brinkmanship and extortion tactics will neither resolve the current impasse nor bring Iran sanctions relief. The path the regime is now on will only deepen its international isolation and raise the dangers it faces."

Ms Wolcott said it was imperative that Iran's "misbehaviour" not be rewarded.

"For if it is, Iran's demands and provocations will only escalate - as has happened all too often in the past," she warned.

The ambassador called on Iran to reverse its nuclear steps and halt any plans for further advancements in the future.

"The United States has made clear that we are open to negotiation without preconditions, and that we are offering Iran the possibility of a full normalisation of relations," she added.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Iran's actions were "lawful" under the deal, which allows one party to "cease performing its commitments… in whole or in part" in the event of "significant non-performance" by other parties.

President Trump later alleged in a tweet that Iran had been "secretly 'enriching' uranium in total violation" of the deal made by his predecessor, Barack Obama, and promised that sanctions would "soon be increased, substantially".

Mr Trump did not give any further details. But the IAEA had repeatedly verified Iran's compliance with the deal until this month and Iran's ambassador to the agency, Kazim Gharib Abadi, said it had "nothing to hide."

Meanwhile, the top diplomatic adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron held talks in Tehran with Iranian officials to try to avoid further escalation.

Emmanuel Bonne was told by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that Iran had "kept the path of diplomacy and talks completely open" and that it hoped other parties to the nuclear deal would be able to "use this opportunity properly".

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48938854

2019-07-10 16:43:41Z
52780327063034

Trump's power play on UK envoy sends ruthless message to allies - CNN

Kim Darroch resigned Wednesday for doing his job — sending home blunt diplomatic cables about the US government some of which said Trump's White House had at times been "inept" and that the President was insecure.
He took the honorable course after the cables leaked, and his long and distinguished career was crushed by more powerful men seeking political advantage in a drama that illustrates both Trump's vanity and considerable personal power and a weakened Britain's increasing reliance on the US.
Trump was furious about the criticism in Darroch's work and made clear to London that he should be dismissed by cutting off his access to the White House, making his job impossible.
And Britain's likely next Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wants to forge close ties to Trump, declined to offer his support for Darroch in a leadership debate on Tuesday night. A UK government source said Darroch took his decision to resign after watching Johnson effectively leave his own position untenable.
"The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like," Darroch wrote in his resignation letter.
The episode sent a message to US allies — that unsparing if widely recognizable assessments of Trump's behavior and the conduct of his administration are unacceptable and that flattery is the glue binding strong diplomatic relationships with the US.
It calls into doubt the practice of diplomacy itself — that foreign states have the prerogative to decide exactly who represents them abroad rather than leaders of their host country. Ambassadors often send frank analysis of their host nation and its political personalities back to base. As the mass leak of WikiLeaks disclosures of classified US diplomatic traffic in 2010 showed, US envoys are no exception.
Trump effectively made the point that only a British ambassador who hides the reality of his chaotic, divided administration will be welcome in his White House -- a position that threatens the capacity of foreign nations to get accurate reporting and internal intelligence about what is going on in Washington.
The diplomatic storm over the Darroch cables came only a month after Queen Elizabeth rolled out lavish British pageantry for the President during his state visit to London. It is a reminder that while Trump enjoys such treatment in the moment, it rarely creates a stock of goodwill that can be depended upon to shape his policies and attitudes towards particular countries.

A victory for the President

There was no immediate comment from the President after Darroch's resignation, but his team was digesting a clear political victory for Trump.
"I think the reality was that in light of last few days, his ability to be effective was probably limited so it's probably the right course," Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff Marc Short told reporters.
Darroch's departure shows the danger of getting on the wrong side of a President who blasted the ambassador as "wacky" "a very stupid guy" and a "pompous fool" on Tuesday.
Darroch also became the victim of the meltdown in British politics over the country's vote to leave the European Union and Trump's frequent interventions in UK politics to support it.
And it offered a reward for one of the most damaging recent leaks in British political history, after Darroch's cables ended up emblazoned across the front of this week's "Mail on Sunday" newspaper.
Trump has been outspoken in support of Johnson, who shares his populist, flamboyant and truth-challenged approach to politics, but his treatment of Darroch has left the possible new British prime minister in a difficult spot.
If Johnson wins the Conservative Party leadership election, his attitude towards Trump will come under fearsome scrutiny. If he appoints an ambassador outside Britain's diplomatic service who is sympathetic to Trump, he will be viewed as already under the President's influence.
The head of Britain's Brexit party, Nigel Farage, who wields considerable power on Johnson's right and often boasts of his friendship with Trump was quick to crank up political pressure.
"The right decision, time (to) put in a non-Remainer who wants a trade deal with America," Farage tweeted. Remainers are Britons who do not want to leave the EU and Darroch, a former senior diplomat in Brussels, was seen in the UK as sympathetic to the bloc.
If the UK finally leaves the European Union at the end of October as Johnson has promised, it will be reliant on the US for a swift bilateral trade deal to help offset the loss of preferential treatment to European markets.
Other ambassadors in Washington will now be looking closely at Britain's conduct to see whether intimidation and pressure from Trump will affect its position -- especially on other areas of disagreement with the US including over how to handle Iran.
Johnson, a former British foreign secretary, reacted to Darroch's decision by saying that the leaker had done a "grave disservice" to civil servants while speaking on Sky News.
But unlike other British politicians, he did not praise Darroch for his conduct or make any comments that might anger Trump.
The current British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Johnson's last rival in the leadership race, did praise Darroch — as did the outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May.
"Standing up for Britain means standing up for the finest diplomats (in) the world. It should never have come to this," Hunt wrote on Twitter.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/donald-trump-british-ambassador-diplomacy/index.html

2019-07-10 16:30:00Z
52780329171254

Trump's power play on UK envoy sends ruthless message to allies - CNN

Kim Darroch resigned Wednesday for doing his job — sending home blunt diplomatic cables about the US government some of which said Trump's White House had at times been "inept" and that the President was insecure.
He took the honorable course after the cables leaked, and his long and distinguished career was crushed by more powerful men seeking political advantage in a drama that illustrates both Trump's vanity and considerable personal power and a weakened Britain's increasing reliance on the US.
Trump was furious about the criticism in Darroch's work and made clear to London that he should be dismissed by cutting off his access to the White House, making his job impossible.
And Britain's likely next Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wants to forge close ties to Trump, declined to offer his support for Darroch in a leadership debate on Tuesday night. A UK government source said Darroch took his decision to resign after watching Johnson effectively leave his own position untenable.
"The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like," Darroch wrote in his resignation letter.
The episode sent a message to US allies — that unsparing if widely recognizable assessments of Trump's behavior and the conduct of his administration are unacceptable and that flattery is the glue binding strong diplomatic relationships with the US.
It calls into doubt the practice of diplomacy itself — that foreign states have the prerogative to decide exactly who represents them abroad rather than leaders of their host country. Ambassadors often send frank analysis of their host nation and its political personalities back to base. As the mass leak of WikiLeaks disclosures of classified US diplomatic traffic in 2010 showed, US envoys are no exception.
Trump effectively made the point that only a British ambassador who hides the reality of his chaotic, divided administration will be welcome in his White House -- a position that threatens the capacity of foreign nations to get accurate reporting and internal intelligence about what is going on in Washington.
The diplomatic storm over the Darroch cables came only a month after Queen Elizabeth rolled out lavish British pageantry for the President during his state visit to London. It is a reminder that while Trump enjoys such treatment in the moment, it rarely creates a stock of goodwill that can be depended upon to shape his policies and attitudes towards particular countries.

A victory for the President

There was no immediate comment from the President after Darroch's resignation, but his team was digesting a clear political victory for Trump.
"I think the reality was that in light of last few days, his ability to be effective was probably limited so it's probably the right course," Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff Marc Short told reporters.
Darroch's departure shows the danger of getting on the wrong side of a President who blasted the ambassador as "wacky" "a very stupid guy" and a "pompous fool" on Tuesday.
Darroch also became the victim of the meltdown in British politics over the country's vote to leave the European Union and Trump's frequent interventions in UK politics to support it.
And it offered a reward for one of the most damaging recent leaks in British political history, after Darroch's cables ended up emblazoned across the front of this week's "Mail on Sunday" newspaper.
Trump has been outspoken in support of Johnson, who shares his populist, flamboyant and truth-challenged approach to politics, but his treatment of Darroch has left the possible new British prime minister in a difficult spot.
If Johnson wins the Conservative Party leadership election, his attitude towards Trump will come under fearsome scrutiny. If he appoints an ambassador outside Britain's diplomatic service who is sympathetic to Trump, he will be viewed as already under the President's influence.
The head of Britain's Brexit party, Nigel Farage, who wields considerable power on Johnson's right and often boasts of his friendship with Trump was quick to crank up political pressure.
"The right decision, time (to) put in a non-Remainer who wants a trade deal with America," Farage tweeted. Remainers are Britons who do not want to leave the EU and Darroch, a former senior diplomat in Brussels, was seen in the UK as sympathetic to the bloc.
If the UK finally leaves the European Union at the end of October as Johnson has promised, it will be reliant on the US for a swift bilateral trade deal to help offset the loss of preferential treatment to European markets.
Other ambassadors in Washington will now be looking closely at Britain's conduct to see whether intimidation and pressure from Trump will affect its position -- especially on other areas of disagreement with the US including over how to handle Iran.
Johnson, a former British foreign secretary, reacted to Darroch's decision by saying that the leaker had done a "grave disservice" to civil servants while speaking on Sky News.
But unlike other British politicians, he did not praise Darroch for his conduct or make any comments that might anger Trump.
The current British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Johnson's last rival in the leadership race, did praise Darroch — as did the outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May.
"Standing up for Britain means standing up for the finest diplomats (in) the world. It should never have come to this," Hunt wrote on Twitter.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/donald-trump-british-ambassador-diplomacy/index.html

2019-07-10 14:37:00Z
52780329171254