Carpets self made They differ from each other not only in their ornamentation. One of the important differences is the manufacturing technology, namely, the types of knots that make up any carpet.

There are 4 types of knots in carpet weaving:

• asymmetrical (Persian);
• symmetrical (Turkish);
• jofti (a variety of Persian and Turkish);
• Tibetan.

What is each of them?

Asymmetrical knot

The Persian knot is woven using two warp threads. A loop is created on the first thread of the warp yarn, and under the second vertical string the thread lies freely. After each completed row of knots, one or more weft threads are left.

This type of knot allows you to weave carpets with a high knot density and a fine pattern. This knot is found in handmade carpets from Iran, India, Turkey, China, Egypt, etc.

Symmetrical (Turkish) knot

The symmetrical knot was originally used in Turkish carpets, hence its second name. To create this knot, weavers wrap the yarn around the warp threads in such a way as to create two symmetrical loops, that is, a loop on each string. Rows of symmetrical knots are separated by one or more weft threads.

A symmetrical knot is used in cases where the thickness of the carpet is important. It is found primarily in Turkish carpets, but also in carpets woven in the Caucasus, Turkey, Europe, and in products of Kurdish tribes.

Jofti knot

Jofti (jufti) is a type of symmetrical and asymmetrical knots. The only difference between the jofti knot is that the yarn is tied into a knot not on one, but on two warp threads at once. In symmetrical weaving, two identical loops are created around each pair of warp threads; in the case of asymmetrical weaving, one loop is created.

The advantage of this method of weaving knots is that it saves time. Carpets are woven twice as fast. But by using the Jofti knot, the weaver sacrifices the quality of the carpet and its density. The number of knots is several times less than when using a Turkish or Persian knot. The finished carpet seems slightly “shaggy” and, of course, costs less. The jofti knot is found in carpets from Iran.

Tibetan knot

The Tibetan knot is completely different from other types of knots in its structure and weaving technology. It is performed using an auxiliary tool - a rod. The rod is located perpendicular to the warp threads on the front side of the carpet. To create a knot, a long yarn is wrapped around two warp strands, then around a shank, and so on. When the row is completely completed, the weaver cuts the loops on the rod and begins the next row. Making Tibetan carpets is considered one of the most difficult.

You can see the type of knot by examining the underside of the carpet with a magnifying glass.

Photo source: Carpetencyclopedia.com.

IN last days The most talked about Middle Eastern news was the Syrian issue. The US attempt to pass a resolution on Syria through the UN Security Council, similar to the Libyan one, failed. It was blocked by the Russian Federation and China, which caused extreme dissatisfaction among the Americans. In response, Russian diplomacy made active efforts to prevent a Libyan scenario in Syria.

Willingness to support our Syrian brothers, not to sit idly by while reactionary circles, including some, are plotting around Arab countries, in collusion with Israel, Iranian Ambassador to the Russian Federation Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi expressed at a recent press conference at RIA Novosti. He also hopes for cooperation with Russia, especially in the military-technical sector. The Russian Federation previously concluded an agreement to supply Iran with S-300 anti-missile systems. But due to sanctions from the Security Council, the UN did not fulfill its obligations, for which it paid a penalty. Although Iran needs weapons, not money, which, by the will of the global ruler, has become the hottest spot in the Middle East.

The Iranian knot began to tighten intensively after the United States demanded that Tehran close its nuclear program. But they were refused. “Our program is exclusively peaceful,” Ahmadinejad said. The Americans threatened to tighten sanctions. The European Union, bowing to the will of the United States, promised to stop purchasing Iranian oil from July of this year. Iran, whose budget consists of 80% of oil revenues, responded that it would block and perhaps even mine the Strait of Hormuz. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made it clear that he will not allow navigation on this vital transport artery to be impeded.

In the Arabian Sea, closer to the Hormuz main “neck” 54 kilometers wide and 195 kilometers long, through which 40% of Arab oil for the West passes through, the United States sent an armada of its navy, and is pulling up aircraft carrier groups led by the Carl Vinson. and the USS Enterprise of the US Fifth Fleet. Iran is not silent. It demonstrates its readiness to protect its interests and conducts military exercises. The Iranian Navy includes: 14 diesel submarines, an anti-ship cruise missile, short-range missiles "Nasr" and "Nur", 20 missile boats, radar installations, self-produced complexes "Mersad", two destroyers "Jamaran" - 1, 2, four small frigate and three corvettes. Iran has six naval bases in the Persian Gulf, the most strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz in Bandar Abbas. Iran is conducting its second military exercise to test the combat readiness of its forces. Will they be able to protect the independence of their country?

Or maybe it will still be possible to avoid another military conflict in the Middle East? Is the Iranian nuclear program really that dangerous for the world? It's not about the program, says the architect of the American foreign policy G. Kissinger. Iran upsets the balance in US Middle East policy. The Americans already control seven oil-rich states in the Middle East. Iran will be next, it will become “the last nail in the coffin of China and Russia,” the Regnum agency quotes Kissinger with reference to the Daily Squib. The dissonance in the US leadership in the oil-bearing region was the rejection of the Syrian resolution. Russia, a nuclear power, took a hard line. Will this be a deterrent for Western hawks?

(Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally in Tehran )

The situation is analyzed in an interview with Galina Platova by the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Leonid Ivanovich KALASHNIKOV (CPRF):

Should not be given great importance dispute over the Syrian resolution. Its meaning boiled down to criticism of the leadership of Bashar al-Assad. Russia did not agree with the one-sided accusation of the Syrian authorities. The Russian Federation believes that the opposition, which is supported by the United States, is equally responsible for destabilizing the situation in this country. According to objective data, the majority of those killed in Syria are military personnel trying to maintain law and order. They are shot, killed from around the corner.

- The resolution was rejected. What might the West do?

The West will take advantage of the introduction of economic, political, and military sanctions. This happened with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Apparently they want to do the same with Syria. The current discussion on the Syrian resolution, which has not resolved anything, only adds a certain political shade to the position of the Russian leadership. Putin, running for president, wants to look patriotic, to give himself the appearance of a strong-arm politician. But it seems to me that the elections will take place and the Russian Federation will surrender both Syria and Iran.

- Will Iran be able to defend itself?

First of all, we must say that the initiators of the threats are the United States and the West. They want to organize a second Libya in Iran. There were even attempts to introduce the idea of ​​extending humanitarian intervention to other countries through the UN. The US is allegedly concerned about non-proliferation nuclear weapons. But it is not the fate of humanity that worries Americans, but the desire to dictate their will to countries, to punish the disobedient, and so that they cannot fight back. Many countries, from Korea to the Middle East and the African region, have realized that nuclear weapons are becoming a guarantee of security and protection from attack by the United States and NATO.

At one time, Gaddafi was one step away from possessing nuclear technology. They could have been given to him by the famous father of Pakistani nuclear bomb Abdul Kadir Khan. But the Libyan leader refused the offer, succumbing to the friendly rhetoric of the West. Then, of course, he bit his elbows. And we saw how he severely paid for his shortsightedness... He went to the production of nuclear weapons North Korea and protected itself from military intervention. Now the United States is only conducting a dialogue with Pyongyang; in extreme cases, it can apply sanctions.

But Iran has not crossed the technological threshold in the production of defensive weapons. Therefore, there is another game going on around him. The US threatens him with bombing so-called nuclear facilities. Iran is ready to host observers from the IAEA. But he warned: if you dictate terms beyond those accepted in the IAEA system, we, like any sovereign state, will not agree with this. Then the Americans switched from economic sanctions to force. When Israel wanted to strike Iran, the United States harshly reprimanded Netanyahu. And now they themselves do not deny the possibility of such attacks. It is no coincidence that US naval vessels are gathering for the Persian Gulf. All this suggests that the threat of using force against Iran is growing. And she is very real.

- Why is Iran important for China?

A tenth of Iranian oil supplies come from China. Maintaining these supplies is vital for China. Moreover, the opportunity to receive hydrocarbons from Libya and North Africa was knocked out of him, and the Chinese invested significant funds in its raw materials sector. Without energy resources, China's economy will not be able to develop.

Following Kissinger, Obama announced that the United States intends to extend its force strategy to the Asia-Pacific region. America is no longer in words, but in deeds, interfering in conflicts occurring in the Asia-Pacific region, for example, between China and Taiwan, between China and Vietnam - over the oil-bearing Paracel Islands.

- Why are American military actions against Iran dangerous for Russia?

Iran is the underbelly of Central Asia, and this is the zone of our natural interests. Our diplomats speak rather sheepishly about American expansion. They refer to the assurances of the Americans that they have only temporarily placed their bases there. But the temporary has already become permanent. Moreover, the United States plans to redeploy its military bases towards Asia upon leaving Afghanistan...

A parallel arises: when we were withdrawing our troops from the GDR, we were assured that NATO would not expand to the East. However, we now have military bases around Russia and 17 new NATO members. As we see, words are worthless. And Kissinger is already extremely frank. The planned scenarios, he says, will be implemented, and all of them are aimed at weakening Russia.

One of the scenarios has almost already been realized. During the so-called actions to “democratize” the regimes, the Libyan events, seven states of the Middle East became controlled by America. The turn of Syria and Iran has come. And after that, the United States will remain the only global player in the world and will dictate its will to everyone. To achieve this goal, the Iranian knot is tied.

- Does this mean that Russia can also become a military training ground?

For now, the United States is pursuing the tactics of using “soft power,” that is, surrounding Russia with bases and hotbeds of military conflicts. This tactic brings tangible results. We become accommodating. And then the “partners” will dictate their terms to us.

Our government has a completely unclear position. Or rather, for me it is clear. If representatives of the authorities and their oligarchic entourage keep their capital THERE, then they will always be guided by the interests of their clan and their capital. We are seeing how the authorities of other states are taking drastic measures to stop American power. The Pakistanis, after the Americans allegedly bombed their checkpoint by mistake (there were many casualties there), closed this checkpoint and have not opened it until now. Although this is the main transit route from Afghanistan through Pakistan for the US and NATO.

And in response to the missile defense threat, we cannot afford to withdraw from the START treaty. Our government is afraid to take even one radical step in defense of its state, and not to please its “partners.” If we had not closed the radar station in Lourdes, Cuba, the United States would not have come close to our borders with its missile defense system.

- The ruling elite does not want to risk its interests?

In fact of the matter. Money - THERE, apartments, houses - THERE...

- And in Russia there are still fears that the communist Zyuganov may win the presidential elections...

That's it. After which politics in Russia will be reoriented towards state interests, rather than clan ones. This is well understood in the West as well. They don't need us to have public policy. Therefore, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has no allies there. Western strategists can only support Putin, no matter how much they criticize him.

For the United States, it is extremely important to fragment Russia, plunge it into chaos, into the capitalist mode of production, and prevent the revival of socialist forces. There is another pole: China with its communist party, there are the Vietnamese with their Communist Party who are making impressive progress. It is precisely what the socialist system provides - economic growth, the social orientation of the state - that is a restraining counterweight for the United States and the West.

Our salvation lies in the socialist path of development and in unity with other peoples former USSR. Imagine that Zyuganov won. He says that we have no other path other than the socialist one. We will unite our peoples in a renewed Union and build relationships with other countries, in particular with China, on a friendly basis. Then our enemies will not risk talking to us from a position of strength. This is salvation for Russia.

* * *

Last Saturday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised that this week Iran will tell the world about its great achievements in the field of nuclear development. “Allah willing, in a few days the world will see great achievements in the nuclear field,” said the Iranian President, speaking at a rally of thousands in Tehran on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

In a speech broadcast on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad did not specify the details, but stressed that the country would not stop the uranium enrichment program. According to him, Iran will never bend to the West and will not be afraid of the “language of force and insults.”

Last week, Barack Obama said the United States would work closely with Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The US President is attacking the international order. Does Europe have anything to answer and will it respond?

Already on next week The US will announce new, “incredible sanctions” against Iran. As White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said, these measures are intended to “put maximum pressure on Tehran,” since, from Trump’s point of view, the restrictions introduced before the conclusion of the nuclear deal did not bring a tangible effect.

Although the outlines of future sanctions are already visible, the American administration has not announced their key detail. As a diplomatic source in Brussels explained to RIA Novosti, if Washington uses so-called extraterritorial restrictive measures against Tehran, this will mean that European companies will have to make a choice between exporting to Iran and exporting to the United States. And the European Union will have to make the most difficult decision for it, whether to take retaliatory action against American business if The White house will restrict the rights of Old World producers who continue to work with Tehran. Such a scenario would lead to a full-scale trade war with Washington, which European officials would like to avoid at all costs.

However, even if the sanctions imposed against the Iranians at this stage do not directly threaten European companies, a psychological effect will inevitably take place, which Pascal Delcominet, a representative of the Belgian Walloon export agency, called “the Sword of Damocles for business.” Fear of the various consequences that disobedience to Washington could entail will force most EU manufacturers to curtail cooperation with Tehran, even if formally nothing threatens them today.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif expects to soon hold meetings with colleagues from France and Britain regarding the prospects for the Joint Plan of Action, signed in 2015. Until now, the position of united Europe regarding the nuclear deal with Iran has looked encouraging in words. Almost all influential leaders of the Old World expressed regret over Washington’s withdrawal from the agreement and announced their readiness to continue to comply with its terms. However, such promises do not provide Tehran with absolute guarantees that it will be able to continue to benefit from the economic benefits it received by freezing its uranium enrichment program. In addition, having made such promises in words, the leadership of the European Union is not able to influence the policy of private business if it withdraws from joint projects with Iran in order to maintain partnerships with the United States.

Agence France-Presse reported that the leaders of France and Iran had agreed to urgently set up “working groups” to provide assurances that European companies would continue to work with Iran. But these framework plans, agreed upon in a telephone conversation at the highest level, in practice do not mean that such guarantees will be prepared and, most importantly, implemented. The position of the Elysee Palace, as well as other European signatories of the 2015 Iran Agreement, appears ambivalent. On the one hand, the countries of the Old World do not want the collapse of the Joint Action Plan with Tehran. On the other hand, the same French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly stated the need to improve the previously concluded agreement so that it covers “Iran’s missile activities in the region.” It can be assumed that European leaders will link the economic guarantees that Iranian leaders insist on to the “broader framework of the nuclear agreement.” But it is also obvious that official Tehran will not take this step - President Hassan Rouhani is already harshly criticized within the country for making too many concessions to the West. As General Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said on Thursday, for Iran “not diplomacy, but resistance is the only way to counter enemies.” So the Joint Action Plan of 2015 after the US withdrawal from the treaty looks doomed to gradual oblivion with all the ensuing consequences.

“The United States’ European allies will accept that their efforts to preserve the Iran deal will come to nothing,” Robert Joseph, former US Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control, told The Washington Times. It seems that most media in the Old World do not believe that the agreement with Tehran, despite all the encouraging words said on this matter at the highest European level, will be preserved. As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung cynically wrote, “the deal with Iran will not cost a penny,” no matter how much the Europeans try to continue to hold on to the agreement. But the consequences for the world order caused by Trump’s decision to terminate the treaty look, from the point of view of the European press, catastrophic.

The French Le Monde gives at least three explanations for this. First, the actions of the White House could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a particularly explosive zone of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia already announced its desire to acquire a “non-peaceful atom” on Thursday. Secondly, Trump has pulverized the basic principle international law, which goes like this: “Treaties must be respected.” And finally, thirdly, with his unilateral decisions, contrary to the opinions of his allies, Trump called into question the existence of the transatlantic community.

Most Western commentators are convinced that the collapse of the agreement will return Iran to its previous plans to enrich uranium. In this regard, the explanation of the reasons why the White House withdrew from the nuclear deal given by Trump's national security adviser John Bolton looks very interesting. He, in an article published by The Washington Post, argued: “The US President studied the Iran deal for more than a year and, having concluded that it undermined the security of the American people, ended US participation in it.” Bolton did not even mention the security of the European people, who view the agreement with Iran differently than the White House...

After the end of the Iraq War, Iran became the center of world politics. The attention of the international community was focused on this country and the events around it. The problem of the development of Iranian nuclear energy was discussed by world leaders at the summits in St. Petersburg and Evian, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) analyzed the state of the Iranian nuclear program, and US officials repeatedly made harsh statements to the Iranian authorities. There was even talk that Iran could become a target for the United States in a new military campaign. In Iran itself, large-scale student unrest began, and in European cities, Iranian oppositionists protested by setting themselves on fire.

However, despite some similarities, the situation in Iran is fundamentally different from the pre-war situation around Iraq. During those twelve years, during which the Iraqi economy was depleted by sanctions, Iran overcame the consequences of the Iran-Iraq War - it managed to restore the economy and modernize the army. Therefore, for example, it is hardly worth seriously considering the possibility of an imminent military attack on Iran by the United States. The main difference in the country's situation, perhaps, is that Iran has a positive development program for itself and its neighbors. Compared to Iraq, this fundamentally changes the nature of its relations with the main centers of power.

Before the leap?

Very often, the media portrays the situation in Iran as close to critical, which the United States can use to change the regime. The confrontation between clerical and secular groups of power, unrest among the people, military-political pressure from the United States - all this makes up the picture of such a “crisis”. In fact, the situation in Iran is much more stable than it might seem. Society really demands political reforms and greater openness of the country. There is a colossal mass of politically active population - more than 60% of the country is young people - who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs in the country. However, there are no influential forces inside Iran that would defend the ideas of radical restructuring political system countries or would view the United States as an ally, a force on which Americans could rely in their attempts to change the regime. And the elite is not nearly as divided as it might seem.

"It can hardly be considered that the conflict in Iran between reformers and conservatives has reached dangerous level. Not only among the followers of the imam Khomeini, but even in the liberal camp American policy in the Near and Middle East is not met with enthusiasm. Establishing relations with the EU is another matter, especially in light of the deepening contradictions between Europe and the United States,” says the head of the Center for British Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Gromyko. “It would be a simplification to view the situation in Iran through the prism of conflicts between the “Orthodox-Khomeinist”, “pro-American-pro-Israeli” and “pro-European” groups. Such groups, of course, exist, but they are not what makes the main political difference.

On May 12, the United States unilaterally withdrew from international agreement with Iran on curtailing its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions on Tehran. The day before, on May 8, President Donald Trump explained the decision this way: “In fact, it was a terrible lopsided deal that should never have been made. She brought neither calm nor peace, and never will. Therefore, I am announcing that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal."

From unofficial sources in the US Senate Realist It became known that Trump was convinced to take such a step by National Security Advisor John Bolton, a well-known Republican hawk who replaced General Herbert McMaster in this post just a month and a half ago.

What is the essence of the deal?

Officially, the agreement on the “nuclear deal” with Iran is called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In 2015, in addition to the United States, it was signed by Germany, Great Britain, France, China and Russia. After 12 years of intense negotiations with Tehran, this agreement was supposed to remove the problem of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Then Washington agreed to a “nuclear deal” at Israel’s request. The UN, EU, China and Russia supported it, guided by the problem of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2015, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution No. 2231 approving the agreement. On October 18, 2015, the Resolution entered into force; it is designed for 10 years, during which the JCPOA must be fully implemented.

According to the agreement, Tehran must curtail the Iranian nuclear program (INP) under the supervision of the IAEA (UN Atomic Energy Agency). Today, Iran has retained only 5,060 centrifuges out of tens of thousands, while the rest have been dismantled or transferred under the control of the IAEA. The uranium enrichment level is reduced to 3.67%, and the amount of 5% uranium is reduced to 300 kg. The rest was taken to Russia. The heavy water reactor core in the city of Erak is destroyed, and the uranium enrichment plant in the city of Fordo is being converted into a technology center.

In exchange, international sanctions from the UN Security Council, the EU and the US, which blocked the sale of high-tech products to Iran, are gradually being lifted from Tehran. Iran also retains restrictions on arms trade for five years: on the export of all types of weapons and the import of conventional weapons in seven categories of the UN Register. It is possible to sell such weapons to Iran only after receiving permission from the Security Council. Supplies of missile technology to Iran also fall under the same control. Restrictions on the import of nuclear and dual-use products will be in effect for 10 years. Iran also needs special permission from the UN Security Council for these supplies.

If at least one of the countries that signed the “nuclear deal” with Iran declares that Tehran does not comply with its terms and provides the UN Security Council with significant evidence of this, then the Joint Commission of the JCPOA will return the sanctions regime against Iran.

On this moment The United States has only threatened to return sanctions against Iran, but has not yet done anything about it.

MOSSAD outplayed the European Union

Even before his election, Trump sharply criticized the “nuclear deal” with Iran and promised to reconsider it. First, he was outraged that the JCPOA did not cover Iran's improvement program ballistic missiles. But most importantly, Trump is convinced that the agreement allowed Iran to strengthen its militaristic policy in the Middle East, which created unprecedented tension between Israel and Iran. He believes that Tehran, after gaining access to previously frozen assets, is intensively financing military clashes in the region.

Iran really managed to gain a foothold in Syria, where it sent 20 thousand troops to its military bases. With financial support from Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists and Yemeni Houthis have become more active on the border with Saudi Arabia. In Bahrain, Iranian militants are provoking military clashes with the armed forces.

In January 2018, the United States, Germany, Great Britain and France created special group to develop an additional agreement to the JCPOA. But China, Russia and Iran, who also signed the “nuclear deal,” were not invited to this.

Under American law, the president must confirm the suspension of sanctions against Iran every 90 days. In an attempt to save the JCPOA, French President Emannuel Macron went on a three-day visit to Washington in April, during which he presented President Trump and Congress with a draft supplementary agreement, or alternative to the JCPOA. Macron proposed blocking the Iranian nuclear program until 2025, extending the ban on any nuclear activity by Tehran, completely stopping Iran's ballistic program, and also creating conditions for achieving political stability in the Middle East.

The French President convinced Trump that leaving the old agreement in the absence of a new one would only push Tehran to create nuclear weapons. Great Britain and Germany share the same opinion. But Israel outplayed them all...

At the end of April, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated documents stolen by MOSSAD (100 thousand paper and digital sheets) about the military component of Iran's nuclear program. This argument defeated all the arguments of America's European allies. In May, 90 days expired from the start of work on an additional agreement to the JCPOA, on which the parties did not reach an agreement. And Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the agreement.

EU losses

Washington's next step is the return of sanctions against Iran. First of all, they will affect the export of Iranian oil, petrochemical products, natural gas and other products. The operations of Iranian banks in the United States are significantly limited. Foreign states and companies cooperating with Iran in the oil and gas industry, in the field of high technology and mechanical engineering, as well as banks are also subject to restrictions. After the return of American sanctions, all foreign companies must close their businesses in Iran within 3-6 months. President Trump's national security adviser John Bolton warned that European companies would likely be subject to American sanctions for cooperation with Iran.

French Minister of Economy and Finance Bruno Le Maire has already stated: "Many companies in the aviation, pharmaceutical, energy and automotive sectors have invested heavily in Iran. Some have even entered into contracts. These agreements must be respected."

Thus, the French oil and gas company Total attracted about $5 billion of investment in the South Pars gas field. The Franco-Japanese auto giant Renault planned to build a car plant in Iran with a capacity of 350 thousand cars per year.

In turn, German Minister of Economy Peter Altmaier said that Germany does not have a system of legal protection of business from international or foreign sanctions, so it urgently needs to be developed within the European Union. The German government was also deeply outraged by the new American ambassador to Germany's demand that German firms leave Iran immediately.

After the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Iranian leadership began to blackmail the EU, Russia and China, well aware of the economic losses they would suffer.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that EU countries must guarantee the implementation of the JCPOA, and only “then” Tehran will decide whether to stay in the deal or not.”

Brussels' fragile defense

Despite the fact that if one of the parties withdraws from the JCPOA, the agreement with Iran must be denounced, European leaders decided to preserve it. At the EU-Western Balkans summit held in Sofia on May 17, European Council President Donald Tusk said: “As long as Iran respects the terms of the deal, the EU will respect them.” And European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, in response to Bolton’s threats to punish for cooperation with Iran, said: “The EU has a duty to protect its business, so we will block the extraterritorial effect of American sanctions, in accordance with the 1996 law.” This law was adopted to remove European companies from the blow of secondary American sanctions for cooperation with Cuba, Iran and Libya.

Brussels is considering three ways to overcome US sanctions. The first is to cooperate with Iran through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The second is to ignore secondary US sanctions, as was the case in 1996. The third, least effective, is to pay for Iranian oil supplies in euros. Iran is also very interested in preserving economic relations with the EU, its third trading partner in terms of trade turnover after China and the UAE. But not everything is as simple as Juncker says. US legislation also makes it possible to punish those companies that, bypassing US sanctions, trade with Iran through third countries.

European businesses, not particularly relying on the protection of Brussels, intend to either withdraw their assets from Iran or negotiate separately with the United States. Thus, the world's largest oil and gas French company Total stated that it intends to ask Washington, as in 1996, not to subject it to sanctions, since 30% of its shareholders are Americans, and 90% of its financial transactions are serviced by American banks. But if the US does impose sanctions against it, Total will close its business in Iran.

The large German pharmaceutical company Merck announced the curtailment of its activities in Iran. Chinese firms are still working there: after the French and British leave Iran, they can count on significant benefits.

Russia and China

The Russian leadership did not give extensive comments on the United States’ withdrawal from the “nuclear deal” with Iran, limiting itself to an official statement that it was disappointed with this decision. Obviously, Moscow intends to reach an agreement with the EU, China and Iran on preserving the JCPOA. Russia is also in no hurry to curtail its projects in Iran. “We'll see how the market reacts. We need to understand what specific events will take place. It’s hard to say yet,” he said. O. Minister of Economy of the Russian Federation Alexander Novak. China has taken a similar position. But according to the good old tradition, Beijing is still watching the battle of tigers from the mountain, without making any sharp statements or movements.

Risks for Ukraine

For Ukraine, the tension around Iran in connection with the US withdrawal from the “nuclear deal” is also fraught with losses. In 2016, Ukrainian exports to Iran exceeded $700 million, and imports - almost $40 million. Iranian businessmen purchased products from the steel industry, mechanical engineering and aircraft manufacturing, grain and food products from Ukraine. Now Ukrainian exports to Iran will decrease significantly. In addition, it is possible that Ukraine will have to postpone plans to build transport corridors connecting Asia with Europe.

The United States has not yet explained how it plans to replace the JCPOA. President Trump is only demanding that the “disastrous flaws” of the agreement be corrected and that Iran “cannot even come close to creating nuclear weapons.” Trump’s “cowboy” move with the destruction of the “nuclear deal” with Iran, withdrawal from Paris Agreement on climate, the rupture of the Trans-Pacific trade agreement with Asia could undermine confidence in the United States. But, probably, it is now more important for the Trump Administration to use sanctions to keep Russia and China, Venezuela and the DPRK in the penalty box along with Iran.