Nations that struck the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, except for the United States, meet on Monday in what many diplomats fear may prove a quixotic effort to keep the agreement alive after U.S. sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports resume in November.

Ministers from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and Iran will gather in New York at 8 p.m. EDT on Monday (0000 GMT Tuesday) to grapple with U.S. President Donald Trump’s May 8 decision to withdraw from the deal and restore the full force of U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Their delicate, and perhaps unrealistic, task is to build a case for Tehran to respect the deal’s limits on its nuclear program even though Washington has pulled out, depriving Iran of many of the economic benefits it was promised.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “needs arguments to defend the deal in the face of the radicals. He needs us to give him ammunition,” said a senior European diplomat, referring to Iranian hard-liners who oppose the agreement.

“We are trying to give him ammunition, but what we can do, to be honest, is limited,” the diplomat added.

The crux of the deal, negotiated over almost two years by the Obama administration, was that Iran would restrain its nuclear program in return for the relaxation of sanctions that had crippled its economy. Trump considered it flawed because it did not include curbs on ballistic missiles or regional activity.

The United States began reimposing economic sanctions this summer and the most draconian measures, which seek to force Iran’s major customers to stop buying its oil, resume Nov. 5.

Their impending return has contributed to a slide in Iran’s currency. The rial has lost about two-thirds of its value this year, hitting a record low against the U.S. dollar this month.

The European Union has implemented a law to shield European companies from U.S. sanctions. Still, there are limits to what it can do to counter the oil sanctions, under which Washington can cut off from the U.S. financial system any bank that facilitates an oil transaction with Iran.

‘Hurt them more than us’

Many European companies are withdrawing or have withdrawn from Iran because of U.S. sanctions that could cut them off from the American market if they stay.

Iran believes the United States acted in bad faith by withdrawing from the deal even as Tehran has adhered to its terms and has rejected U.S. overtures to meet.

The most recent confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. watchdog, found Iran had stayed within the main limitations imposed under the deal, whose formal name is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In recent weeks, Iranian officials have begun arguing that if the Europeans cannot preserve trade with Iran, perhaps Tehran should reduce, but not eliminate, its compliance with the accord.

On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as telling Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine that Iran could “reduce its implementation” and possibly increase uranium enrichment activities if the deal was jeopardized by “the actions of the Americans and the passivity of the Europeans.”

European diplomats wish to avoid this. Hoping to keep Iran’s nuclear program in check, they have told Tehran that if it stops carrying out the deal to the letter, they will have no choice but to restore their own sanctions.

“They keep telling us the situation is horrible, they are going to leave the accord or just keep partially implementing the deal. It’s the same old music, but for now they continue to implement the JCPOA,” said a second senior European diplomat.

“We [are] warning them that if they were to pull out it would hurt them more than us,” he added.

 

 
…

your ad here

A World Trade Organization arbitrator will step into a years-old dispute brought by China over U.S. anti-dumping measures.

A trade official said Friday the arbitration was triggered automatically after the U.S. objected to Beijing’s request for authorization to retaliate against more than $7 billion worth of U.S. goods in the case.

The case originated with a Chinese challenge nearly five years ago over 40 U.S. anti-dumping rulings against Chinese goods, which the U.S. says were sold below market value.

In 2017, the WTO’s appellate body ruled largely in favor of China. Beijing insists the U.S. has not complied.

The arbitrator has until Oct. 21 to rule on the issue, but such cases often go past the deadline.

The standoff comes amid a high-profile showdown between China and the Trump administration over trade.
…

your ad here

The United States is getting “very, very close” to having to move forward on its trade deal with Mexico without Canada, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Friday.

There is just over a week to go before an Oct. 1 deadline to publish the text of a deal to update the North American Free Trade Agreement and the United States and Canada have still not agreed on terms, Hassett told Fox News Channel.

“We’re still talking to Canada, and we’re getting very very close to the deadline where we’re going to have to move ahead with Mexico all by themselves,” said Hassett, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

“I’m a little surprised that the Canadians haven’t signed up yet,” Hassett added. “I worry that politics in Canada is trumping common sense because there’s a very good deal that was designed by Mexico and the U.S. to appeal to Canada. And they’re not signing up and it’s got everybody over here a little bit puzzled.”

 
…

your ad here

The United States is prepared to go on the offensive in cyberspace to ensure adversaries know there is a price to pay for hacks, network intrusions and other types of attacks.

President Donald Trump signed a new National Cyber Strategy on Thursday, calling for a more aggressive response to the growing online threat posed by other countries, terrorist groups and criminal organizations.

“My administration will use all available means to keep America safe from cyber threats,” Trump said in a statement, calling the new strategy an “important step.”

Other key officials called the new strategy an important and badly needed change.

“We’re not just on defense,” National Security Adviser John Bolton told reporters. “We’re going to do a lot of things offensively, and I think our adversaries need to know that.”

“Our hands are not tied as they were in the Obama administration,” he added.

Strategy effective immediately

The strategy, which takes effect immediately, is being billed by the Trump administration as the first “fully articulated” cyberstrategy in 15 years, providing direction to various departments and agencies on how best to protect their data as well as the private data of millions of Americans.

The internet has brought prosperity and productivity to American lives and those across the world, Bolton said. 

“We must do more to ensure it is secure and remains an engine of American growth,” he added.

He said the ultimate goal is “to create the structures of deterrence that will demonstrate to adversaries that the cost of their engaging in operations against us is higher than they want to bear.”

​Midterm elections

The new strategy comes less than two months before the U.S. midterm elections Nov. 6, and as key security and intelligence officials have amplified their warnings that Russia and other adversaries, such as China, Iran and North Korea, may seek to use cyber means to interfere.

“I remain deeply concerned about threats from several countries,” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said during a security conference outside Washington earlier this month, warning the threats are even more pervasive.

“Influence efforts online are increasingly being used around the globe,” Coats said. “The weaponization of cybertools and the relative lack of global guardrails significantly increases the risk.”

Promoting responsible behavior

The new U.S. cyberstrategy seeks to allay some of those concerns by promoting responsible behavior in cyberspace, urging nations to adhere to a set of norms, both through international law and voluntary standards.

It also calls for specific measures to harden U.S. government networks from attacks, like the June 2015 intrusion into the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which compromised the records of about 4.2 million current and former government employees, an attack attributed to China.

And the strategy calls for the U.S. to continue to name and shame bad cyber actors, calling them out publicly for attacks when possible, along with the use of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

“Not every response to a cyberattack would be in the cyber world,” Bolton said, calling offensive cyber tools “part of the range of instruments of national power that we have.”

​Obama directive reversed

As for what offensive cyber measures might look like, Bolton would not say. But White House officials contend they have already made it easier for the military to hack back by reversing a directive from the Obama administration known as PPD-20, which created what they describe as a lengthy approval process for any offensive operation.

Military officials have said that newfound flexibility is being put to use.

“We are engaged every single day against our adversaries,” U.S. Cyber Command Commander General Paul Nakasone said at a security conference earlier this month.

“It may not be readily apparent because we are doing this very closely held,” Nakasone said, adding, “the forces that are working are well-trained, extremely capable and ready to do what’s necessary.”

Earlier criticism

The Trump administration has come under criticism at times for its approach to cybersecurity, raising concerns earlier this year when it eliminated the National Security Council’s cybersecurity coordinator.

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office also said that the administration’s efforts lacked “a more clearly defined, coordinated and comprehensive approach,” a charge repeated by some members of Congress.

But Bolton said the new strategy should ease such concerns.

“I’m satisfied that this allows us the comprehensive look at strategy across the entire government,” Bolton said. “Each agency knows its lane and is pursuing it vigorously.”

The new strategy also places a heavy emphasis on working with allies.

“There will be consultations, there have been already, with friends and allies because many of us are vulnerable to the same hostile actions,” Bolton said. “It’s very important that we work through our alliance structures where we can do that.”

White House Bureau Chief Steve Herman contributed to this article.
…

your ad here

A substantial percentage of U.S. military vets store guns loaded and ready to use, according to an American study that could have implications for suicide prevention.

“American veterans have a higher suicide risk than demographically matched U.S. adults and most of their suicides are actually related to firearm injury,” said lead author Dr. Joseph Simonetti of the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Colorado.

“On average, about 20 veterans die every day by suicide and about two-thirds of those suicides are firearm-related,” he told Reuters Health.

Simonetti and colleagues surveyed a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in 2015, including 1,044 who had served in the military.

About 45 percent of veterans said they owned firearms and one in three of those gun owners reported storing at least one weapon loaded and unlocked.

Only about one in five gun-owning veterans kept all their guns locked and unloaded.

Storing weapons loaded and unlocked was reported by 34 percent of male veterans who own firearms and by 13 percent of female vets who were gun owners, according to the study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Personal beliefs an influence

Respondents’ personal beliefs tended to influence their storage decisions, the authors found. For example, storing a firearm loaded and unlocked was more common among people who said guns were not useful for protection if someone had to take the time to load or unlock them. This group also felt having a gun at home increased safety.

“One of the more interesting findings was that we asked veterans whether or not they agreed having a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide for household members and only 6 percent agreed that a firearm in the home was a suicide risk    factor,” Simonetti said.

“But … we also asked veteran firearm owners … ‘If somebody in your household is at risk for suicide, what would you do?’ Eighty-two percent reported they would do something to limit firearm access for that household member. In fact, 25 percent said they would remove the gun from the home in that case.”

‘Really great study’

The results “are confirming what I suspected would be the case,” said Rajeev Ramchand, who studies firearm suicide prevention at research firm RAND Corporation in Washington, DC.

“It is now incumbent upon us to develop communication campaigns and strategies to help shift people’s internal perceptions of risks.”

“It’s a really great study because it really gives us a target for focusing on our suicide prevention campaigns,” Ramchand, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health.

The study was funded in part by the department of Veterans Affairs. VA efforts to prevent suicide among former service members include training health care providers to discuss firearm safety and distributing firearm “cable locks,” which can be attached to a gun to block its barrel or the use of ammunition.

Contentious subject

Gun control of any sort is a contentious topic in the U.S. But Simonetti believes both sides of the debate are likely to support safe storage practices.

“Nearly every gun advocacy organization out there including the NRA actually does promote the idea that guns should be stored safely when not in use,” he said. “I (just) don’t think most organizations have outlined exactly what that means.”

Ramchand is optimistic. “For so long we had a dearth of information about firearm storage. So this was a really great study to help us come up with data-driven policies and recommendations,” he said.
…

your ad here

An attorney for two Native American brothers pulled from a Colorado State University tour earlier this year has demanded the school make policy changes, saying Thursday that campus officers violated the teens’ constitutional rights by patting them down without any suspicion of a crime.

A letter from American Civil Liberties Union attorney Sarah Hinger calls for the university to revisit its campus police policies and training to avoid another situation like the April 30 encounter, which resulted in the teens’ being “humiliated, scared and literally marginalized.”

Police video shows two officers stopping Thomas Kanewakeron Gray and Lloyd Skanahwati Gray, who were then 19 and 17, respectively, during a group admissions tour and checking their pockets. The brothers from New Mexico had called the school their top choice.

Police said a mother on the tour had called 911, saying she was worried because the Grays were “real quiet” and wore dark clothing.

‘False promises’ of change

“My boys were publicly humiliated and told that their looks alone make them suspicious characters,” mother Lorraine Kahneratokwa Gray said in a statement. “We are all disappointed, not only with CSU’s meager response, but also with their false promises to right this wrong.”

The was one of numerous examples of racial profiling to make headlines this year. 

A Smith College employee called police last month on a black student at the all-girls school in Massachusetts because she appeared “out of place.” The school president announced the hiring of an outside investigator and ordered every employee to undergo mandatory anti-bias training. 

Meanwhile, Colorado State University has taken only “small steps” after promises to change protocols for campus tours, the ACLU said.

A message requesting comment from university spokesman Mike Hooker was not immediately returned.

The school previously said it would refund the money that the teens spent on travel and take steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again, including the use of lanyards or badges to identify tour guests.

University President Tony Frank decried the incident, saying the brothers “wound up frightened and humiliated because another campus visitor was concerned about their clothes and overall demeanor — which appears to have simply been shyness.”

The ACLU wants Frank to order additional campus police training and a review of policies dictating how officers and dispatchers respond to “bias-based” reports on campus.

In an interview, Hinger told The Associated Press that the ACLU is not taking “any avenues off the table” — including possible legal action — should the university not follow through on its requests.

“Although they were never suspected of a crime, the Gray brothers were detained and searched by CSU police officers,” Hinger’s letter said. “In addition to violating their constitutional rights, this experience left the brothers humiliated, frightened and with an understanding that they were unwelcome on the CSU campus.”

‘Paranoid’ caller

Police have not identified the 911 caller, except to say she was a white, 45-year-old mother of another prospective student on the tour. In the call, she acknowledged she might be “completely paranoid” about the teens, whom she guessed were Hispanic.

She said their clothing had “weird symbolism or wording,” which turned out to represent metal bands.

She also said they were disinterested and evasive, adding that they wouldn’t provide their names when asked. The older brother said he had approached the tour guide during a stop in the library to introduce himself and his brother after the two had gotten lost on campus and arrived late.

The brothers, both Mohawk, are originally from upstate New York and are graduates of the Santa Fe Indian School, a New Mexico high school.
…

your ad here