Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

End of the road for Iran aviation imports

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

End of the road for Iran aviation imports

Closed Thread

Old 9th May 2018, 02:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 172
End of the road for Iran aviation imports

Everything to be shut down. Airbus, Boeing, ATR and everyone else. It's a great way to kick-off a negotiation.

Boeing, Airbus licences to sell jets to Iran to be revoked: U.S. treasury secretary | CBC News
rotor-rooter is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 07:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 227
End of the road to the West, yes. Iran Air's orders for Airbus and ATR will be cancelled, I guess - not a problem for the US!
Beginning of the road to Moscow? or the Belt and Road to China?
OldLurker is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 07:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,088
Not cancelled, they'll be deferred

so a constant reminder to everyone of US bullying.....
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 08:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Not cancelled, they'll be deferred

so a constant reminder to everyone of US bullying.....
Indeed and it is about time the European countries stood up to it.
The trouble is that such things largely affect the poor and cause yet more isolation; which can never be good.
gcal is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 11:17
  #5 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 68
Posts: 2,365
Not cancelled, they'll be deferred
Indeed . the Trump administration is now at odds( to use a kind word) with its main allies and is unlikely to survive things like this for very long .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 12:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,088
rouble is they do it through the banks - no bank will touch an Iranian deal now nor want to deal with anyone who does.....

Doubt the Europeans can do anything about that TBH
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 12:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
rouble is they do it through the banks - no bank will touch an Iranian deal now nor want to deal with anyone who does.....

Doubt the Europeans can do anything about that TBH
What's to say that the Europeans can't continue to trade with Iran and ignore Trumps populist brain fart?

As far as I'm concerned, Trump can't stop the French selling Iran aircraft and spare parts. America's loss will be Europe's gain IMHO.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 12:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,373
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
Trump can't stop the French selling Iran aircraft and spare parts
Well yes, the French can sell aircraft as long as they don't have any US content. That rules out pretty well all of the Airbus and ATR product line.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 13:00
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,089
What gets me annoyed about this is the hard reality of history: as evidenced by both Pakistan and North Korea, a nation will (if they've a mind to) develop their nuclear capability with a treaty or without one. (Two exceptions being Iraq and Syria, whose plants got bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and 2007).
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 13:14
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 269
To go slightly off topic I wonder if Trump has any idea that he may have made the USA considerably less safe.
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 13:42
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
What gets me annoyed about this is the hard reality of history: as evidenced by both Pakistan and North Korea, a nation will (if they've a mind to) develop their nuclear capability with a treaty or without one. (Two exceptions being Iraq and Syria, whose plants got bombed by the Israelis in 1981 and 2007).
This decision seems to me a way to cut off one's own nose to spite one's face; it harms harms high tech jobs, and overall national trade/commerce both at home, and among our allies.
The only silver lining I see is that any number of observers have opined that "a new deal" being reworked turns all of this back on. OK, if a "new deal" is worked out, and the orders turned back on, all to the good. But I wonder at the timeline on that.
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
And here's the other thing: the opportunity to increase a variety of low level contacts and influence. For example, you've got simulator / training set ups that can establish the kinds of contacts benefit in a variety of multinational efforts ... OK. Nuff said.
You are making the assumption that there will be no replacement deal; in the same way that there is now a replacement deal in the works for North Korea. I suspect that before the larger contracts are unwound (it takes time) that there may well be another deal in place better for both the Iranian people and the rest of the world. It will not be easy, but there was no verification in this deal and with the probable/possible " taqiyyah " approach of the Iranians and their apparent actions, then verification of compliance with an agreement will be necessary.
Ian W is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 14:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 38
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
there was no verification in this deal
Who told you that and why did you believe it? It's patently untrue. https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/P...ust-and-Verify (try page 25 onwards)

The US aren't the only ones who care about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, yet it is only they (well, along Iran's sworn enemies obviously) who insist on blowing up a deal that was doing fine for "something better" (undefined) for no obvious reason. (Of course even in the US there are plenty of well informed people in the government and military who were not in favor of terminating the deal either)

The world is a lot bigger than the US and ignoring long standing relationships with strong allies with this obvious buffoonery is worse for the US than it is for Iran.
JCviggen is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 15:57
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,088
most people beleive Trump's biggest issue with the deal is that it was signed by Obama -
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 16:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 125
Perhaps its time for non US manufacturers to remove US components from their products......
Gilles Hudicourt is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 17:05
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
I am not keen to see the aircraft building industry take a hit, on either side of the pond.
I work for Boeing, so I know what you mean. That being said, both Boeing and Airbus have several years of backlog on the books. That means that there's several years breathing room to work out a new deal with Iran before there's any impact on "the aircraft building industry."
KenV is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 17:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
most people beleive Trump's biggest issue with the deal is that it was signed by Obama -
"Most people?" Who are these mythical "most people" and who made you their spokesperson?
KenV is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 17:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 64
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by JCviggen View Post
Who told you that and why did you believe it? It's patently untrue. https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/P...ust-and-Verify (try page 25 onwards).
Hmmmm. The italics are a direct cut and paste from your linked document:

Three major developments enabled breakthroughs in the negotiations. The first was the election of Barack Obama as US president in November 2008, allowing direct US negotiations with Iran. The second was a shift in P5+1 policy from insistence on the cessation of uranium enrichment by Iran combined with sanctions, to one of containing Iran’s nuclear programme and using the lifting of sanctions as leverage. The third major development was the 2013 election of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran on a platform of sanctions relief and economic recovery."
Containment was a shaky concept to begin with and proven by North Korea to be impossible. Containment, a concept upon which the whole Iran deal is built, is a totally failed and discredited concept.

A mutually acceptable agreement was achieved through dialogue and active diplomacy rather than threats (including of a military strike), isolation and unilateral demands. Both sides achieved their goals: for the P5+1, that of preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons, and for Iran, that of preserving its acquired nuclear know-how and having the sanctions lifted.
Sadly, the recently released mountain of secret documents from Tehran proved that "preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons" was a fiction. And this deal that allows Iran "keeping their nuclear know-how" meant them keeping their nuclear weapon know-how.

The Vienna agreement put into place an unprecedented verification system to ensure that Iran will not enrich uranium above a low level, that the volume of its stockpiles will remain capped, that its capacity to produce enriched uranium will be limited and that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. The IAEA will monitor the whole Iranian fuel cycle, from mining to spent fuel (which Iran will not be able to reprocess).
Again, the recently release mountain of secret documents fro Tehran show the verification system is a farce. The Iranians have in place secret facilities for the enrichment of uranium "above a low level" including to nuclear weapons-grade level. Obama and Kerry promised that after their negotiations and deal with Syria, ALL of Syria's chemical weapons had been "verified" destroyed and their chemical weapon production facilities "verified" to be dismantled. Those "verified" assurances were a total farce.

The lack of mutual trust between Iran and the P5+1 explains this extensive verification system, which follows a “distrust-AND-verify” approach. Iran also had to work with the IAEA to clarify pending questions on the past possible military dimensions of its programme. The monitoring mechanism put in place will ensure joint supervision of the implementation of the commitments (including a Joint Commission and regular ministerial meetings). The JCPOA is a model of a cooperative security approach.
Another farce. The secret documents reveal that Iran did NOT truthfully "clarify pending questions on the past possible military dimensions of its programme." A "model cooperative security approach" depends totally on.......cooperation. The secret documents clearly show that Iran is not engaged in cooperation, but in deception.

The "negotiations" were a farce because the Iranians were not engaged in negotiation but deception, and the resulting deal is an equal farce. Knowing what we know now we can and should negotiate a much tougher deal with much more stringent verification that does not depend on "cooperation." And the end result needs to be much different. The old end result gave Iran unlimited unfettered ability to do whatever they wanted after the agreement expired, which begins in phases in 2023. The new end result must ensure Iran can NEVER produce nuclear weapons.
KenV is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 18:24
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium
Age: 38
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
The "negotiations" were a farce because the Iranians were not engaged in negotiation but deception, and the resulting deal is an equal farce.
Is that why the anti-American hardliners hated it so much and why they celebrated today? They seem to be a weird bunch.

Knowing what we know now we can and should negotiate a much tougher deal
Please. It took years and years the last time and the people involved were actually semi qualified. Also, explain me the strength of the US' negotiating position when even its staunchest allies don't agree with it and are actively keeping the old, terrible, deal alive? How do you see that working, precisely?

The old end result gave Iran unlimited unfettered ability to do whatever they wanted after the agreement expired, which begins in phases in 2023.
From the document I linked to:

Under the agreement the IAEA will have access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities for the
next 20 years. It will continuously monitor the country’s enrichment capability, including
through real-time monitoring of its enrichment facilities and access to its uranium mining
and milling facilities. The IAEA will also supervise the production of uranium concentrate
(“yellow cake”) for the next 25 years. The IAEA seals on disassembled and stored centrifuges
will notify the Agency if they are tampered with. Iran must allow short-notice inspections
of its nuclear facilities – as short as two hours if inspectors are already present at the site.
The JCPOA also outlines a mechanism for gaining access to sites of concern, for example, if there is suspicious activity at an undeclared site. Iran can challenge the IAEA
’s request to inspect the facility, leading to an arbitration process that could take up to 24 days to
resolve.

This provision is intended to close a loophole in the Additional Protocol, which
does not cover what the international community can do if a country refuses to grant
the IAEA access to a suspect facility within 24 hours. While Iran could potentially use that
timeline to hide some evidence of minor illicit activities, the facilities needed to develop
a covert nuclear programme are likely to leave traces of radiation that do not disappear
quickly. In other words, illicit activity at an undeclared site is likely to be detected under the
JCPOA. If Iran decided to “sneak out” it would have to rebuild an entire covert fuel cycle, from
uranium ore to weapons-usable uranium, but it cannot do so and escape detection. Iran is
unable to produce all the parts and components necessary for its programme indigenously.
As a result, it would have either to procure what it needs or divert materials from
authorized procurements. Diversion would likely be detected by the IAEA because of the
intrusive verification system put in place, combined with the existing export control
regimes


The new end result must ensure Iran can NEVER produce nuclear weapons.
At this point I'd be starting to feel safer if the US didn't have any, either.
JCviggen is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 18:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,442
I remember in the 70s the Hazelnuts etc at Christmas came from Iran.

Remember reading it on the label. Realising that the world wasn't actually that big after all.





Once again the warmongers win.
glad rag is offline  
Old 9th May 2018, 19:35
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,089
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
You are making the assumption that there will be no replacement deal;
Actually, I alluded to a new deal, but I have no idea how long such a deal would take to put into place, given the number of principles involved. It would be great if in the next 30-60 days such a deal was arrived at. My crystal ball is hazy ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service