With an initial agreement signed by both sides, oil could soon flow again through the Strait of Hormuz. But prospects for a long-term deal on nuclear issues remained murky. Share full articleVideoVance Holds White House Press BriefingLiveVice President JD Vance holds a news conference at the White House.CreditCredit...Doug Mills/The New York Times See more of our coverage in your search results.Encuentra más de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de búsqueda. Add The New York Times on GoogleAgrega The New York Times en Google Latest PinnedLeo Sands Here’s the latest.Energy prices fell further on Thursday as the signing of a cease-fire deal between Iran and the United States offered hope that oil would soon start to flow again through Strait of Hormuz. The agreement commits both countries to begin immediately reopening the waterway, whose closure has roiled global supply chains and caused energy prices to jump. Energy traders showed signs of cautious confidence on Thursday as Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, fell to about $77 a barrel, approaching levels not seen since the early days of the war. The average price of gasoline fell below $4 a gallon for the first time in months in the United States, although that is still about a dollar more than the prewar price. Shipping industry officials struck an optimistic tone, though they said they were awaiting guarantees that their vessels could navigate the strait safely. President Trump and President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran signed the preliminary cease-fire deal remotely on Wednesday, both sides said, setting the stage for a new round of negotiations that could begin as soon as Friday. The agreement allows for at least 60 days of talks and is expected to cover the thorniest issues between the two sides, including Iran’s nuclear future. According to a senior U.S. official who shared the text of the memorandum of understanding with The New York Times, the signed deal outlines a $300 billon plan for Iran’s reconstruction and at least temporarily lifts restrictions on Tehran’s oil exports. And it commits both sides to ceasing hostilities in Lebanon, linking the cease-fire to Israel’s long-running conflict with the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia there. Signing ceremony: A formal signing ceremony scheduled for Friday was in doubt after Iran’s foreign ministry suggested that it would no longer take place because the cease-fire was already signed. A ministry spokesman added that the negotiating teams would still be in Geneva. Lebanon: Israel is not a party to the agreement, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he does not feel bound by its terms, saying that Israel would maintain a troop presence in areas of southern Lebanon. Iran has said it would hold the United States responsible for ensuring that Israel complies with the deal. Rebuilding Iran: Mr. Trump has denied that the United States would invest in a rebuilding fund, but the prospect has still attracted criticism from some Republican lawmakers. Israeli strikes continued sporadically in southern Lebanon on Thursday, according to Lebanon’s state-run news agency. The U.S.-Iran deal has called for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed group. Although the pace and intensity of Israeli attacks has eased, the fighting has not stopped. Gulf states are frustrated by the deal’s failure to tackle Iran’s missiles.ImageA billboard with a photo of a missile and a message saying “Every missile has one message” in Tehran, Iran, earlier this year.Credit...Arash Khamooshi/Polaris for The New York TimesDuring the war in Iran, Persian Gulf nations were targeted by an onslaught of Iranian missile and drone attacks that hit airports, energy facilities, hotels, and military installations. So when the preliminary deal struck this week between Iran and the United States left out a provision on missiles and drones, officials in the region felt a sense of frustration, according to analysts. “They didn’t expect anything, but they’re still disappointed,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, a Washington-based think tank. On Wednesday, President Trump added to the concern by telling a news conference at the Group of 7 summit in France that Iran should be able to have some ballistic missiles because neighboring countries have them too. Mr. Trump’s comments were in stark contrast with comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the early days of the war that the United States was attacking Iran to “eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles.” “They’re not going to have these ballistic missiles and they’re not going to have drones to threaten us,” Mr. Rubio said at the time. The “objective of the mission,” he added, was to “deny them the ability to use ballistic missiles to threaten their neighbors, to threaten our bases, to threaten our presence in the region.” Government officials from Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar did not immediately reply to requests for comment. Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, said excluding Iran’s missiles and drones from the agreement showed that the United States “doesn’t have our best interests in mind.” Mr. al-Saif said he has no doubt that Iran was already rebuilding its missile and drone capacities and that it would use the financial windfall it gets from the deal to acquire more of the weaponry. The agreement, which U.S. and Iranian officials have called a memorandum of understanding, says the Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives. Without limits on Iran’s missile and drone programs, Gulf countries could resort to boosting their investment in air defense technology and increasing diplomacy with the Islamic Republic, according to Marc Sievers, a former senior American diplomat who served in several countries in the Middle East. Mr. Ibish said Gulf governments would likely turn to Ukraine and South Korea for advice on countering missiles and drones. Officials in the region, he added, were increasingly wondering whether they can rely on the United States as a security guarantor, especially after the Trump administration did not heed their warnings about going to war with Iran. “The question is how do they see Washington fitting into their national security doctrine,” he said, referring to the Gulf countries. He said that they were slowly exploring the idea of “really moving on from reliance on the United States, if it doesn’t do anything to reassure them in the next 12 months.” Finding a replacement solution, however, will take a decade or two, Mr. Ibish said, adding that the Gulf countries would have to stay close to the United States in the meantime. Iranian officials were projecting a united front over the preliminary agreement to end the war, after weeks of politial infighting as some hardliners sought to derail a deal. Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a senior government official, said that there were only a “small number” of critics and called Iran the “clear winner” of both the war and negotiations. Esmail Baghaei, the foreign ministry spokesman, compared diplomats’ work to that of troops “behind launchers and in trenches,” and urged Iranians to give them the same support. The aligned messaging was a contrast to the divisions that have opened up in Washington since President Trump signed it, including criticism from members of the Republican party. Hegseth berates NATO allies for a ‘shameful’ response to the war.VideoPete Hegseth Scolds NATO Allies1:34U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday berated NATO allies for not assisting in American strikes against Iran and announced a review of U.S. forces in Europe as a result.CreditCredit...Virginia Mayo/Associated PressDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth berated NATO allies as “shameful” for their reluctance to assist in American strikes against Iran, suggesting on Thursday that the Pentagon would reduce the number of troops it keeps in Europe as a result. He repeated President Trump’s previous description of the military alliance as a “paper tiger” and warned that U.S. support to NATO would not be “a one-way street.” Mr. Hegseth’s 12-minute lecture cast a chill over a meeting that had been designed to set a collaborative agenda for a summit of NATO leaders next month. He scolded allies whom he described as having failed to step up their defense spending, as the alliance agreed to do last summer, under pressure from Mr. Trump. But Mr. Hegseth reserved his harshest remarks for countries that had resisted letting American jets or ships use bases in Europe on their way to attack Iran during the war that the United States and Israel initiated Feb. 28. “Too many of our allies said no, or tried to drown us in arcane legal debates, or criticized us publicly for doing what they aren’t prepared or able to do themselves,” Mr. Hegseth told the other 31 NATO defense ministers gathered at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels. “It was shameful,” added Mr. Hegseth, who did not name the countries he was criticizing. “These allies, they put America’s sons and daughters — our sons and daughters — at risk by denying them the predictable access basing and overflight that never should have been in question at all.” Asked about Mr. Hegseth’s remarks, NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, downplayed any acrimony and credited the Trump administration with putting pressure on Canada and European allies to invest $90 billion more last year in defense priorities. “I am happy he does this because we need to speak the truth to each other,” Mr. Rutte told journalists after the meeting, which he said Mr. Hegseth attended for about two hours before leaving early.
Original Source: NYTimes
0 Comments