Comey hired possible witness as his lawyer to block testimony, DOJ says

The government has asked the court to approve a “filter protocol” to allow a neutral team to review seized communications between James Comey and several lawyers, including Michael Fitzgerald, to determine whether the material is privileged or evidence of misconduct.

“Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information,” prosecutors wrote.

### A Case Rooted in 2017 Memo Leaks

Comey, 64, was indicted on September 25 for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. He pleaded not guilty earlier this month, insisting he never authorized leaks to the press and accusing the Justice Department of mounting a vindictive prosecution encouraged by former President Trump.

According to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from August 2019, Comey leaked copies of his personal memos—documenting conversations he had with Trump—to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Michael Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. He later tapped all three as his personal lawyers. These memos contained detailed accounts of Oval Office meetings and one-on-one calls in which Trump allegedly urged leniency for then-national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Prosecutors now argue that Comey is repeating the pattern that started with that arrangement. Because Fitzgerald is now representing Comey in the criminal case stemming in part from those very disclosures, the government says Fitzgerald’s presence on the defense team “raises a question of conflict and disqualification.”

### Classified Information and the Breach

The FBI later concluded that some of the memos shared with the trio contained information classified at the “confidential” level and moved to delete them from the attorneys’ computers in early 2018, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.

“Before litigating any issue of conflict or disqualification, the parties should have access to all relevant and non-privileged information,” prosecutors wrote in their Sunday night filing. “The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court.”

### OIG Found Comey ‘Set a Dangerous Example’

Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report described Comey’s actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he “set a dangerous example” for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for “a personally desired outcome.” The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so.

Although the Horowitz report found no evidence that Comey or his lawyers shared classified information with the media, it concluded that his handling of official records violated FBI policy and DOJ regulations. Prosecutors at the time declined to bring charges, citing a lack of proof that Comey intentionally mishandled classified material.

One of the leaked memos described Comey’s February 2017 Oval Office meeting with Trump, in which the president allegedly said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go.” The contents of that memo, leaked through Richman to The New York Times, helped trigger the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Prosecutors have since charged Comey with lying to Congress about leaking, although the details of the DOJ’s case remain unclear.

### How the Leaks Were Shared

The inspector general reported that Comey emailed four memos from a personal account to Fitzgerald within days of his May 2017 firing. Fitzgerald then forwarded the messages to Kelley and Richman, both of whom were advising Comey at the time. Separately, Comey sent Richman a photograph of the Flynn memo from his cellphone.

Copies of the memos later released to Congress showed that four were classified as either “secret” or “confidential” following an FBI review led by counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap. Comey disputed the secret designation for one of them, though investigators found he never sought classification guidance from the bureau before sharing the material.

In a 2019 FBI interview, Richman said Comey had not authorized him to discuss the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation with reporters but acknowledged Comey knew he sometimes engaged with the press.

### First Pretrial Standoff Comes to the Forefront

Comey’s same 2017 relationships with close confidants are now at the heart of the government’s latest inquiry into whether Comey can keep his current lead counsel. Fitzgerald’s own involvement in transmitting Comey’s memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client.

### Jack Smith’s Former Right-Hand Man Joins Comey’s Defense Team

The government’s disqualification effort comes on the heels of Comey’s move last Friday to hire an additional attorney, Mueller counselor Michael Dreeben, who also assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his case against Trump last year over alleged election interference.

Dreeben’s involvement could present another unique conflict, though the government has yet to raise a specific issue with him being on the case.

Comey’s team has also accused the DOJ of mishandling privileged materials and is preparing to argue that the prosecution itself was politically motivated in additional filings expected Monday afternoon.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3857132/comey-hired-possible-witness-as-lawyer-patrick-fitzgerald-doj-says/

Trump suggests US will buy Argentinian beef to bring down prices for American consumers

**President Trump Considers Importing Argentinian Beef to Lower U.S. Prices**

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Donald Trump announced Sunday that the United States could purchase beef from Argentina as a strategy to reduce beef prices for American consumers.

“We would buy some beef from Argentina,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One during a flight from Florida to Washington. “If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”

Trump made this statement amid efforts to tackle inflation, promising earlier in the week that he would address the issue of high beef prices. U.S. beef costs have remained stubbornly high due to several factors, including drought conditions and a reduction in imports from Mexico. The decline in Mexican beef imports is partly attributable to a flesh-eating pest affecting cattle herds there.

In addition to these measures, President Trump has been working to support Argentina’s struggling currency. This includes facilitating a $20 billion credit swap line and securing additional financing from sovereign funds and the private sector. These efforts come ahead of midterm elections for his close ally, Argentine President Javier Milei.
https://whdh.com/news/trump-suggests-us-will-buy-argentinian-beef-to-bring-down-prices-for-american-consumers/

JB Pritzker Names Officials Dems Will Prosecute for ‘Authoritarian’ Trump Prosecuting Political Enemies

As usual, another Democrat has been spotted hoping that nobody remembers what happened before January 20th, including all the Left’s lawfare efforts—up to and including attempts to throw Donald Trump in prison so he couldn’t be elected to a second term. These are the same Democrats who had the audacity to accuse Trump of election interference.

Illinois Governor JB “Mr. Vegas” Pritzker joined in with his projection during another lefty-to-lefty therapy session on MSNBC, this time with Jen Psaki. In retribution for Trump holding people accountable and showing Democrats what “no one is above the law” looks like, Pritzker called him an authoritarian who prosecutes political enemies.

Pritzker went further, promising that if the Democrats ever return to power, they’ll—you guessed it—prosecute their political enemies again.

Even more ironically, Pritzker and the Democrats want everyone to believe that if the Trump DOJ stops holding people accountable, the Left won’t go full lawfare the next time they’re in control (which, hopefully, is never).

This week, Karoline Leavitt correctly stated that protecting illegal aliens is among the Democrats’ top priorities, and the Left lost their minds. Then the Democrats spent the rest of their time proving her right.

*****

**Editor’s Note:** The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than putting the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown over healthcare for illegal immigrants. They own this.
https://twitchy.com/dougp/2025/10/17/jb-pritzker-names-officials-dems-will-prosecute-for-authoritarian-trump-prosecuting-political-enemies-n2420481

A war on drugs or a war on terror? Trump’s military pressure on Venezuela blurs the lines

**U.S. Drug War Under Trump Echoes Post-9/11 War on Terror Legal Framework**

**WASHINGTON (AP)** — Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. drug war is increasingly mirroring the war on terror. To support military strikes against Latin American gangs and drug cartels, the Trump administration is relying on a legal argument that gained prominence after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This framework allowed U.S. authorities to use lethal force against al-Qaida combatants responsible for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

However, the criminal groups currently targeted by U.S. strikes represent a very different adversary. These groups, such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, were spawned in prisons and are fueled not by anti-Western ideology but by drug trafficking and other illicit enterprises. Legal scholars warn that Trump’s use of overwhelming military force and authorization of covert action inside Venezuela—possibly aimed at ousting President Nicolás Maduro—push the limits of international law.

This shift comes as Trump expands the military’s domestic role by deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities and expressing openness to invoking the nearly 150-year-old Insurrection Act, which permits military deployment in only exceptional civil unrest cases.

### Lethal Strikes Without Formal War Declaration

So far, U.S. military strikes have killed at least 27 people in five separate incidents targeting vessels alleged to be carrying drugs. The most recent strike occurred on Tuesday, killing six people. These actions have taken place without any legal investigation or a formal war declaration from Congress.

Such circumstances raise questions about the legal justification for these strikes and their potential impact on diplomatic relations, especially with Latin American countries that recall the U.S.’s contentious Cold War-era military interventions.

Meanwhile, the U.S. intelligence community disputes Trump’s central claim that Maduro’s government collaborates with the Tren de Aragua gang to orchestrate drug trafficking and illegal immigration into the United States.

### “You Can’t Just Call Something War”

Trump’s assertion that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels hinges on the same legal authority the Bush administration used to declare a war on terror after 9/11. This authority permits the capture and detention of combatants and the use of lethal force against their leaders.

However, the United Nations Charter expressly forbids the use of force except in self-defense. Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, commented, “You just can’t call something war to give yourself war powers. … It makes a mockery of international law to suggest we are in a noninternational armed conflict with cartels.”

Unlike al-Qaida, which was actively plotting attacks designed to kill civilians after 9/11, the cartels’ primary goal is drug trafficking. Geoffrey Corn, a Texas Tech law professor and former senior Army adviser on law-of-war issues, described the government’s position as politically motivated: “Even if we assume there’s an armed conflict with Tren de Aragua, how do we know everyone in that boat was an enemy fighter? I think Congress needs to know that.”

### Trump Defends Military Strikes and Signals Possible Escalation

When asked at the White House why the U.S. does not use the Coast Guard to intercept Venezuelan vessels and seize drugs, Trump responded, “We have been doing that for 30 years and it has been totally ineffective.”

He also suggested that the U.S. might strike targets inside Venezuela, a move that would markedly escalate tensions and legal concerns. So far, the strikes have occurred in international waters outside any single country’s jurisdiction.

Trump said, “We’ve almost totally stopped it by sea. Now we’ll stop it by land.”

Regarding a New York Times report that he authorized a covert CIA operation in Venezuela, Trump declined to confirm whether he had given the CIA authority to take out Maduro, calling it “ridiculous” to answer.

### Legal and Historical Context of Covert Operations

Numerous U.S. laws and executive orders since the 1970s prohibit the assassination of foreign officials. Yet, by declaring Venezuelan criminals “unlawful combatants,” Trump may be attempting to circumvent these restrictions, possibly reviving a historical pattern of covert regime-change operations akin to those in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran.

Finkelstein noted, “If you pose a threat, and are making war on the U.S., you’re not a protected person.”

During Trump’s first term, Maduro was indicted on federal drug-related charges, including narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine. This year, the Justice Department doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, labeling him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”

### Drug Trade Realities and Geographic Focus

Despite the intense focus on Venezuela, the bulk of American overdose deaths stem from fentanyl, primarily transported by land from Mexico. While Venezuela is a significant drug transit zone, about 75% of the cocaine produced in Colombia—the world’s largest producer—is smuggled through the eastern Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.

### Congressional and International Oversight Lacking

Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Yet no indications suggest congressional pushback against Trump’s broad interpretation of presidential authority to target drug cartels blamed for tens of thousands of American overdose deaths annually.

The GOP-controlled Senate recently voted down a war powers resolution sponsored by Democrats, which would have required the president to seek congressional authorization for further military strikes.

Even amid calls from some Republicans for more transparency, the Trump administration has yet to provide compelling evidence to lawmakers that the targeted vessels were carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Senator Angus King (I-Maine) revealed that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were denied access in a classified briefing to the Pentagon’s legal opinion on whether the strikes complied with U.S. law.

### Legal Challenges and International Court Prospects

Legal opposition is unlikely to deter the White House. A 1973 Supreme Court ruling, stemming from a lawsuit aimed at halting the Vietnam War’s spread to Laos and Cambodia, set a high legal threshold for challenging military orders.

Families of those killed in the boat strikes also confront legal hurdles after several high court decisions have limited the ability of foreign citizens to sue in U.S. courts.

The strikes occurred in international waters, which could open the door for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, similar to its probes into alleged war crimes in Russia and Israel—both countries, like the U.S., do not recognize the ICC’s authority.

However, the ICC’s work is currently hampered by a sexual misconduct investigation that led to its chief prosecutor stepping aside. Additionally, U.S. sanctions related to the ICC’s indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have complicated the court’s operations.

### Conclusion

President Trump’s approach to the drug war, invoking a war-on-terror legal framework to justify lethal strikes on Latin American criminal groups, challenges established international and constitutional norms. As this policy unfolds, it raises critical questions about legality, transparency, and long-term geopolitical impacts in the region.
https://ktar.com/national-news/a-war-on-drugs-or-a-war-on-terror-trumps-military-pressure-on-venezuela-blurs-the-lines/5762491/

US, Canada consider reopening Keystone XL pipeline in trade talks – FT

The Canadian government is considering pursuing a restart of the Keystone Pipeline as part of a grand bargain to ease some of President Trump’s tariffs on products such as steel and aluminum.

Canada’s Energy Minister, Tim Hodgson, shared insights into this potential move, highlighting ongoing discussions aimed at improving trade relations between the two countries.

The proposed strategy could serve as a critical step toward resolving tariff disputes and fostering stronger cross-border cooperation in the energy sector.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4505036-us-canada-consider-reopening-keystone-xl-pipeline-in-trade-talks—ft?utm_source=feed_news_all&utm_medium=referral&feed_item_type=news

Trump says he wrapped call with Putin, calls it “very productive”

President Trump posted on social media on Thursday that he had a “very productive” call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-says-he-wrapped-call-with-putin-calls-it-very-productive/

WATCH: President Trump Suggests that Brandon Johnson and JB Pritzker May Face Criminal Charges – DHS Sec Kristi Noem Reveals that Portland Police Were Cheering on Antifa’s Calls for Violence with Their “Fists in the Air”, Says Officials Should be Prosecuted

President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called for the prosecution of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for allegedly perpetuating attacks against law enforcement during a roundtable on ANTIFA at the White House on Wednesday.

As reported by The Gateway Pundit, federal officers from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were recently ambushed by a convoy of roughly ten vehicles in what officials described as a coordinated assault by domestic extremists against law enforcement. Despite the severity of the incident, Chicago police were explicitly ordered to stand down and ignore distress calls from the federal agents.

President Trump asserted that both Governor Pritzker and Mayor Johnson were aware of the orders to stand down. “The governor knew about it, the mayor knew about it,” Trump told reporters, suggesting criminal liability for their actions. On Truth Social, Trump wrote this morning, “Chicago Mayor should be in jail for failing to protect ICE Officers! Governor Pritzker also!”

When asked whether he had requested the Justice Department to investigate possible charges against the mayor and governor, Trump did not provide a direct answer. However, he described the decision to have police stand down as illegal, and deferred to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for further comment.

Secretary Noem emphatically agreed, stating that elected officials in Illinois “should absolutely be prosecuted.” She also revealed concerning behavior by law enforcement in Portland, Oregon, where ICE officers reportedly witnessed Portland police officers cheering with fists raised alongside ANTIFA protesters who were calling for the murder of ICE agents.

“Noem said, ‘Those kind of individuals who are perpetuating murder should absolutely be prosecuted, in my opinion.’” She recounted that during the Chicago incident, a ten-car caravan trailed ICE officials and pinned them down. When the ICE officers attempted to exit their vehicles, a woman reportedly tried to ram them, resulting in shots being fired to ensure their safety.

Noem highlighted that this pattern of law enforcement complicity with extremist groups is not isolated to Illinois but is also occurring in other states such as Oregon.

In summary, both Trump and Noem condemned the alleged inaction and complicity of local law enforcement and elected officials in enabling attacks against federal agents. They called for accountability and prosecution of those responsible for undermining the safety and security of ICE personnel.

### Key Quotes from the Roundtable:

**Reporter:** “You said the mayor of Chicago and the governor of Illinois should be jailed. Have you asked the Justice Department to look at possible charges?”

**Trump:** “I’ve seen the law, and when you have a group of people where the police call off the safety for ICE officials, I’ve understood that, and I’ve read it today in numerous journals, that that’s illegal. What they did is… I guess it was ICE, Kristi, right? They were under threat, and the police were helping beautifully, it was fine, and then all of a sudden, a woman was on the line, saying, ‘Everybody move back, move back, get out, get out.’ And they were given an order by the second person in the police department, and the governor knew about it, the mayor knew about it. I understand that’s a criminal offense. You want to comment on that, Kristi?”

**Noem:** “Sir, we’re seeing that kind of pattern happen with local law enforcement and state law enforcement, not just in Illinois, but also out in Oregon too. In fact, in Portland, I was there yesterday, but some of the ICE officers were telling me that as they drove by the rioters that were saying, ‘Kill ICE agents, Molotov cocktails melt ICE,’ that the Portland Police were cheering them on and had their fists in the air cheering on the rioters that were threatening their lives.

“So, in Chicago, we had a ten-car caravan trail our ICE officials and pin them down. And those ICE officials to get out of their vehicles, a woman tried to ram them and run them over, and shots were fired to get them to safety. So, it’s happening on a regular basis, and any elected official that allows this to happen and gives cover to those kind of individuals who are perpetuating murder should absolutely be prosecuted, in my opinion.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/watch-president-trump-suggests-that-brandon-johnson-jb/

Judge Won’t Immediately Block President Trump’s National Guard Troop Deployment to Illinois

A federal judge has declined to immediately block President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois.

US District Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, opted not to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) but scheduled a hearing on the case for Thursday.

On Sunday, President Trump ordered 400 Texas National Guard troops to be deployed to Illinois and Oregon to protect ICE agents amid concerns over violent Antifa protesters. Following this, Texas announced it would send a total of 2,000 National Guard troops to Chicago, despite opposition from Illinois Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker.

“I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated. “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott added.

The activation of the National Guard came after violence erupted in Chicago over the weekend. Far-left protesters reportedly used vehicles to box in ICE agents, escalating tensions in the city.

On Monday, Illinois and the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit seeking to block the troop deployment. However, the troops were already en route. “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful,” Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul wrote, according to CBS News.

“Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard,” Raoul added.

Governor Pritzker expressed strong opposition to the troop deployment, saying, “Illinois will not let the Trump administration continue on their authoritarian march without resisting.”

“We will use every lever at our disposal to stop this power grab because military troops should not be used against American communities,” Pritzker emphasized.

Meanwhile, a federal judge on Sunday evening temporarily blocked President Trump’s National Guard troop deployment to Oregon, underscoring the ongoing legal battles surrounding these decisions.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/judge-wont-immediately-block-trumps-national-guard-troop/

If Iran restarts nuclear program, we will deal with that too, Trump warns

Trump Warns: “If Iran Restarts Nuclear Program, We Will Deal With That Too”

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions during a speech at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. The event commemorated the 250th anniversary of the US Navy.

Speaking at the Navy 250 Celebration in Norfolk on October 5, 2025, Trump emphasized that if Iran restarts its nuclear program, the United States is prepared to address the challenge decisively.

First Lady Melania Trump was also present, applauding as the president spoke.

Photo credit: REUTERS/JONATHAN ERNST

By Jerusalem Post Staff, Maariv, REUTERS

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-869560

Iran and the Western double standards

The reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran, initially imposed by the Security Council between 2006 and 2010, reflects the continued determination of the US-led West to subject Iran’s nuclear programme to arbitrary controls that go far beyond the requirements of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

These sanctions, alongside others imposed by the US, are ostensibly aimed at nuclear non-proliferation. However, their real objectives include overcoming Iranian opposition to Western hegemony in the Middle East, maintaining the West’s stranglehold on the region’s vast energy resources, controlling vital international trade routes, and ensuring the security of Israel, which serves as the United States’ military outpost in the Middle East.

The Western countries’ selective approach to nuclear non-proliferation is evident in how most of them have turned a blind eye when Israel— not a signatory to the NPT— embarked on its nuclear weapons programme. Countries like France and the UK have directly or indirectly aided Israel in this effort, while the US has tacitly accepted Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. As a result, Israel is widely believed to possess over 80 nuclear warheads.

Regarding Iran, historical records show that during the reign of the Shah—a US ally—negotiations took place between the US and Iran to allow Iran to receive US nuclear technology. In 1975, President Ford approved a policy decision permitting the use of US material and equipment in Iran’s nuclear programme, including the provision of a full nuclear fuel cycle. This would have included plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities under safeguards, as allowed under the NPT.

However, the US position changed dramatically after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, which interrupted the planned sale of US reprocessing and enrichment plants. The main reasons for denying these technologies to Iran were the growing animosity between the two countries, especially following the 1979 hostage crisis; Iran’s revolutionary government’s commitment to the Palestinian cause; and its resistance to American hegemony in the Middle East.

The discovery of clandestine Iranian uranium conversion and enrichment facilities at Isfahan and Natanz in 2002 led to Western pressure on Iran and UN Security Council resolutions demanding the suspension of uranium enrichment. Iran’s refusal to comply with these resolutions resulted in the Security Council imposing sanctions through various resolutions adopted between 2006 and 2010.

In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1—which includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, and the European Union—signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement placed Iran’s nuclear programme under several restrictions to ensure it remained peaceful, in exchange for relief from international sanctions.

However, the reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran threatens to further weaken its economy and may destabilize it internally. In May 2018, President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, citing domestic criticism over the deal’s sunset clauses—allowing restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme to expire—and insufficient restrictions on its ballistic missile programme. He also signed an order reinstating US nuclear sanctions on Iran that had previously been waived under the JCPOA.

In response to the US withdrawal, Iran gradually reduced its compliance with the agreement by exceeding the agreed limits on enriched uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels and by installing advanced centrifuges used for uranium enrichment. Subsequent talks between Iran and the US and European Union failed to resolve the outstanding issues.

Following President Trump’s re-election, additional attempts were made by the US and the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany) to find a mutually satisfactory settlement. These efforts failed mainly due to America’s insistence that Iran completely abandon uranium enrichment. This impasse ultimately led to Israeli and American airstrikes on June 13 and June 22, respectively, causing extensive damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Notably, the US airstrikes severely damaged Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow.

Against this backdrop, the European powers triggered the snapback mechanism about a month ago to reimpose UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, which had been lifted under the JCPOA provisions, accusing Iran of failing to comply with its obligations under the nuclear deal. A resolution tabled by China and Russia to delay the reimposition of sanctions for six months to allow more time for diplomacy failed to secure the necessary support in the Security Council, due to opposition from the US and European powers. Pakistan and Algeria voted in favor of the Sino-Russian resolution.

The reimposed UN Security Council sanctions, which came into effect on September 28, include an arms embargo, asset freezes, travel bans, and prohibitions on transferring sensitive nuclear and missile technologies to Iran. Russia has condemned the reimposition of sanctions as unlawful, while Iran has warned of a harsh response.

The renewed sanctions are likely to further weaken Iran’s economy and increase the risk of internal destabilization. Externally, increased Western pressure may push Iran closer toward political, security, and economic cooperation with China and Russia.

If diplomatic reason prevails, Iran might seek to foster closer, friendly relations with neighboring countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to promote a more secure regional environment.

At the global level, the treatment of Iran sends a stark message: the world appears to be moving toward anarchy, where power rather than international law or morality will prevail, and the United Nations may be sidelined in addressing major issues of war and peace.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1348317-iran-and-the-western-double-standards