Iran admits it shot down plane in error, apologises after denials

Iransaid on Saturday it had mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian plane killing all 176 aboard and voiced deep regret, after initially denying it brought down the aircraft in the tense aftermath of Iranian missile strikes on U.S. targets in Iraq.
Wednesday's crash heightened pressure on Iran after months of friction with the United States and tit-for-tat attacks. A U.S. drone strike had killed an Iranian general in Iraq on Jan. 3, prompting Tehran to fire at U.S. targets on Wednesday.
Canada, which had 57 citizens on board, and the United States both said they believed an Iranian missile brought down the aircraft although they said it was probably an accident.
Canada's foreign minister had told Iran "the world is watching." Responding to Iran's U-turn, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he wanted an official apology and full cooperation, demanding those responsible to be held to account.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wrote on Twitter, promising those behind the incident would be prosecuted. "My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families." Experts said mounting international scrutiny would have made it all but impossible to hide signs of a missile strike in an investigation and Iran may have felt a swift policy reversal was better than battling rising criticism abroad, as well as facing growing anger and grief over the crash at home.
ALSO READ: US targeted another Iranian official in Yemen day it killed Soleimani
Many victims were Iranians with dual nationality.
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter that "human error at time of crisis caused by U.S. adventurism led to disaster," citing an initial armed forces investigation into the crash of the Boeing 737-800.
An Iranian military statement, the first to indicate Iran's shift in position, said the plane had flown close to a sensitive military site belonging to the elite Revolutionary Guards.
It said that, at the time, planes had been spotted on radar near strategic sites which led to "further alertness" in air defence units, adding that responsible parties would be referred to a judicial department in the military.
Tell-tale signs
Ukraine's Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko had said on Friday that the plane was following a normal flight corridor.
Experts said a probe would almost certainly have shown up tell-tale holes and other signs on the remains of the fuselage that a missile was to blame for the incident.
"There's nothing you can do to cover it up or hide it," said Anthony Brickhouse, an air safety expert at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and former U.S. National Transportation Safety Board investigator. "Evidence is evidence." Former U.S. Federal Aviation Administration accident investigator, Mike Daniel, told Reuters: "When the facts and evidence started coming out, I think it was inevitable that the government of Iran (would) accept culpability." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

People look at the tributes inside Borispil international airport outside in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo: AP/PTIPeople look at the tributes inside Borispil international airport outside in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo: AP/PTI
Mobile phone footage posted and circulated by ordinary Iranians on Twitter after the crash had indicated that it came down in a ball of flames and exploded as it struck the ground.
Iran had said on Thursday it would download the information from voice and flight data recorders, known as black boxes, to determine what had happened, although it had said the process could take one to two months.
Tehran had said it could ask Russia, Canada, France or Ukraine for help, saying an investigation could take one or two years.
Public grief
In its initial denials, Iran had said accusations that a missile was to blame were "psychological warfare".
Grief-stricken Iranians and others posted images related to the crash. Many complained Iran's authorities had spent too much time trying to fend off criticism over the disaster instead of offering condolences and sympathising with victims.
One image circulating on social media showed a child's red shoe in the dirt. Another was a selfie of a mother and daughter in their seats, sent to a loved one just before takeoff.
"Why were any civilian airlines flying out of Tehran airport in those conditions?" a user named Shiva Balaghi wrote on Twitter.
ALSO READ: Trump imposes new sanctions on Iran after missile strike on US bases
Ukraine had been looking at various possible causes of the crash, including an attack by a Russian-made missile, a collision, an engine explosion or terrorism.
A U.S. official had said data showed the plane airborne for two minutes after departing Tehran when heat signatures of two surface-to-air missiles were detected. There was an explosion in the vicinity and heat data showed the plane on fire as it fell.
U.S. military satellites detect infrared emissions from heat. U.S. President Donald Trump had said "somebody could have made a mistake."
The disaster had echoes of an incident in 1988, when the U.S. warship USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people. Washington said it was a tragic accident.
Tehran said it was intentional.

Iran seizes foreign oil tanker in Persian Gulf for 'fuel smuggling'

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards seized a foreign oil tanker in the Persian Gulf on July 31, the semi-official Iranian Students’ News Agency reported, compounding already deep concerns about the safety of shipping in a region crucial to oil exports.
The vessel -- the third foreign ship seized by the guards in the Gulf since July 14 -- is suspected of smuggling a large volume of fuel, ISNA reported, without giving any details about the flag or nationality of the ship or its operator. The agency cited the public affairs office of the IRGC’s second naval division.

The ship was carrying 700,000 liters of smuggled fuel when it was seized near Farsi Island in the western part of the Persian Gulf, off Iran’s southwestern coast near the Iraq border, ISNA reported, citing the IRGC’s public affairs office. That’s about 400 miles (640 kilometers) from the Strait of Hormuz, which has been at the center of Iran’s standoff with the West in recent weeks.
Tensions have flared in the strait as Iran resists US sanctions that are crippling its all-important oil exports and lashes out after the July 4 seizure of one of its ships near Gibraltar. Iran impounded a British tanker, the Stena Impero, in the passageway 15 days later and continues to hold it.
Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, accounts for about a third of the world’s seaborne oil flows.
The announcement of the ship’s seizure coincides with a joint meeting between the Iranian and Qatari coast guards in Tehran aimed at improving and developing maritime cooperation between the Gulf neighbors, state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported earlier Sunday. That gathering follows a rare meeting between the coast guards of Iran and the UAE last week.

India asks Iran to release three remaining crew members of a seized tanker

Iran has freed nine Indian crew members of a Panama-flagged tanker it seized this month, the Indian foreign ministry said on Saturday, and it appealed for the release of three remaining crew members held from the same ship. Dozens of Indian crew members on ships in the Gulf have been caught up in rising tensions between Iran and the West.
The MT Riah was detained by the Iranian coastguard on July 13, with 12 Indian crew members on board, the Indian foreign ministry said.
"Nine crew members have been released and they will be on their way to India soon," foreign ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar said.
"Our mission in Iran has requested the concerned Iranian authorities for the release of remaining crew members." No reason was provided as to why the three were being held.
Iranian state TV aired footage of the vessel a few days after it was seized, saying it had been detained by Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards for smuggling fuel.
Indian and Iranian authorities said this week Iran had granted India consular access to 18 Indian crew seized on another ship, the British-flagged Stena Impero, that Iran seized in the Strait of Hormuz on July 19.
The seizure of the British tanker in the world's most important waterway for the oil trade has deepened a crisis between Iran and the West that was triggered in May when the United States tightened sanctions, effectively barring all countries from buying Iranian oil.
Iran said it had seized the Stena Impero because it had collided with a fishing boat.
India's junior foreign minister, V Muraleedharan, said India was pushing for the release of the Indian crew on the British vessel.
India has had long-standing political and energy ties with Iran, but it has cut off all its oil supplies from it because of U.S. sanctions.

Amid Iran's threat of withdrawal, why Nuclear NPT is still important?

Iran recently exceeded the limits on uranium enrichment set out in its nuclear deal with the US and five other countries. Iran’s move was in response to the US‘s renunciation of the same deal last May.
Possession of the uranium doesn’t put Iran much closer to developing a nuclear weapon, but it does raise troubling questions about the future of nuclear nonproliferation.
Iran’s leadership has also twice threatened to withdraw from a separate pact that limits the spread of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran does withdraw from the treaty, it will be just the second country to do so, after North Korea in 2003, whose withdrawal has never been formally accepted.

But what is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And how serious is Iran’s threat of withdrawal?
190 countries have signed
In 1961, 16 years after US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, a UN resolution called for a treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The fear was that without such a treaty, as many as 25 countries could acquire nuclear weapons.
The UN resolution prompted the US and the Soviet Union to prepare drafts that became the basis for negotiations.
The treaty was opened for signing in 1968 and came into force in 1970 when 46 states had ratified it, including the US, UK and USSR. Today, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has 190 parties – more than any other arms limitation treaty.
The treaty prohibits states that don’t have nuclear weapons from acquiring them. It also prohibits the five nuclear state parties from helping others to acquire them, while pledging to work toward nuclear disarmament themselves. Compliance with the treaty is verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency and enforced by the UN Security Council.
Five states that possess nuclear weapons have signed the treaty: the US, UK, France, Russia and China.
Four additional nuclear states are not parties to the treaty: India, Pakistan, Israel and – most recently – North Korea.
With the 50th anniversary of the treaty around the corner, the Iran and North Korea crises are once again raising the specter of rapid proliferation – casting into doubt the value of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As a law professor who studies multilateral approaches to peace and security, I can identify some worrying signs.
For example, last year Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman said “if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit.” He said this even though Saudi Arabia signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1988.
If Saudi Arabia joins Iran and Israel as a member of the nuclear club in the Middle East, how will Egypt, Turkey and others in the region respond?
If talks with North Korea on denuclearizing the Korean peninsula go nowhere and it is allowed to keep its current stockpile of 10-20 weapons for the indefinite future, how will Japan and South Korea react?
What’s worse: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty isn’t the only nuclear treaty on shaky ground.
President Trump announced in February 2019 that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty unless Russia eliminates one category of nuclear missiles that the US claims exceed the treaty limit.
And the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is due to expire in 2020. National Security Adviser John Bolton has called its extension “unlikely.”
The end of these two important treaties could undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by reinforcing a perception among nonnuclear parties that the nuclear states are not fulfilling their obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith … on nuclear disarmament.”
Reasons for optimism
While worry about future proliferation is certainly warranted, I’d still argue that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is alive and well.
Arguments to the contrary are based on two misconceptions.
The first is that the viability of the treaty depends primarily on fulfillment of the “grand bargain” embodied in it: that nonnuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear states agreeing to eventually disarm and to assist other parties to develop peaceful nuclear energy.
But the policies of nuclear states are not what motivates the nuclear decisions of other Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty parties. Most are motivated by regional security threats or by a conventional weapons attack by a perceived enemy.
For North Korea, going nuclear may look like the answer to perceived threats from the US and South Korea. For many, however, strengthening the global norm against proliferation through nuclear abstinence is a more promising approach.
The second misconception is that the treaty is suffering from a “crisis of noncompliance.” The argument here is that the treaty didn’t stop Iraq, Libya or North Korea from starting programs or prevent Iran from building substantial nuclear capacity, so it must be useless.
Yet perfect compliance is too demanding a measure of success of any law. Our society still values laws against thievery and tax evasion even though people break them every day.
Moreover, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s record of compliance even in Iraq, Libya and North Korea is far from an unmitigated failure. The UN Security Council imposed a comprehensive disarmament regime on Iraq. Libya voluntarily gave up its program. North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty led to sanctions. Iran has never come within a year of being able to build a bomb.
How much of this is due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is open to debate, but pointing to a few cases of noncompliance does not prove its irrelevance.
As I argue in my book about the power of deliberation, a better way of gauging the value of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is to ask whether it tips the scales against proliferation. Parties to the treaty will pay a price if caught cheating. They may decide the price is worth paying, but it is not cost-free. Compliance becomes the default position.
The Conversation logo
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty may have been bent by recent hits, but it is not broken.
Ian Johnstone, Dean ad interim and Professor of International Law, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How rising US-Iran tensions might hit India's oil import, economy

India, which is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil, is looking on with increasing apprehension as the US and Iran flirt with war.
The country imported 84 per cent of its crude in the last financial year, government data show, and two of every three of those barrels was sourced from the conflict-prone region. A major war in the Middle East threatens to push up consumer prices, widen the nation’s external deficits, and potentially derail Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bid to revive flagging economic growth.

Every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of crude widens India’s current-account deficit by about 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product, said Sonal Varma, chief India economist at Nomura Holdings Inc. The country is already struggling to replace Iranian barrels lost due to US sanctions, she said.
Around 10 per cent of Indian oil imports came from the Persian Gulf nation in the year through March, according to government data.
Brent oil has risen around 8 per cent from a low in mid-June as attacks on tankers near the Persian Gulf and Iran’s downing of a US drone pushed the two countries to the brink of war. India’s 39.1 million barrels of emergency crude reserves are only capable of meeting its needs for 9.5 days. By comparison, China is estimated to have stockpiles of about 550 million barrels, while the US has 645 million.
Prime Minister Modi is trying to address the problem, and is planning to add two new reserves with a combined capacity of 47.6 million barrels.
India’s navy deployed two ships to the Persian Gulf to provide security to Indian-flagged vessels last week, while the nation’s oil minister has reached out to Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ coalition to ensure they work to maintain crude prices at reasonable levels.
Once the fastest-growing Asian economy, expansion slowed to 5.8 per cent in the three months through March from a year earlier, well below the 6.3 per cent forecast in a Bloomberg survey. Inflation has accelerated to 3.05 per cent in May from 1.97 per cent in January. India is also struggling with high unemployment and problems with its shadow banking system.

Iran will continue exporting crude oil despite US pressure, says Rouhani

Iran will continue to export oil despite US pressure aimed at reducing the country's crude shipments to zero, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday.
"America's decision that Iran's oil exports must reach zero is a wrong and mistaken decision, and we won't let this decision be executed and operational," Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state television.
"In future months, the Americans themselves will see that we will continue our oil exports."
Oil prices hit their highest since November in recent days after Washington said all waivers for sanctions-hit Iranian oil would end this week, pressuring importers to stop buying from Tehran and further tightening global supply.
The United States demanded on April 22 that buyers of Iranian oil stop purchases by May 1 or face sanctions, ending six months of waivers that had allowed Iran's eight biggest customers, most of them in Asia, to import limited volumes.
Rouhani said if the United States can block one method for Iran to export oil, Tehran will find other ways to do so.
On Tuesday, National Iranian Oil Co offered 1 million barrels of heavy crude on the Iran Energy Exchange (IRENEX) in an attempt to attract new, private buyers.
Trading in crude oil is state-controlled in Iran, but to try to work around US sanctions, the government last year started selling to private buyers through the exchange.
Fars news agency reported that 70,000 barrels were sold at $60.68 a barrel.
Iran does not reveal the identity of private buyers on the energy exchange because they might be targeted by US penalties.
President Hassan Rouhani called on Iranian workers Tuesday to boost non-oil exports and import substitution, telling them they were "on the front line" against America and its tightening sanctions.

Last year, President Donald Trump reimposed crippling US sanctions after abandoning a landmark nuclear agreement between major powers and Iran.
Last week, his administration announced that from Thursday it would end oil purchase waivers granted to Iran's main customers including China, India and Turkey.
The move has piled new pressure on Iran's reeling economy that the International Monetary Fund was already projecting would shrink by 6.0 percent this year.
Addressing workers in a south Tehran sports complex on the eve of May Day, Rouhani said that boosting Iran's manufacturing output was vital to shore up the value of the rial.
"Whenever you go for self-sufficiency, you have increased the national currency's value and the more you can increase production for exports, you have increased our foreign currency revenue," Rouhani said in the speech broadcast live on state television.
"America's purpose in cutting oil exports is to reduce our foreign currency revenue and the way to counter it is through the production and export of non-oil goods," he added.
According to Iran's economy minister Farhad Dezhpasand, non-oil exports reached USD 40 billion for 2018-19.
That tops Iran's oil revenues projection for 2019-2020 of USD 30 billion.
But despite regulations in place requiring exporters to repatriate profits, only a quarter of non-oil earnings were returned to Iran.
Rouhani vowed that despite the unilateral measures adopted by the United States, Iran would continue to supply oil to its major customers, all three of whom have expressed anger at Washington's attempt to impose its will.

India to continue Iran oil imports post US sanctions, to pay in rupees

In the first clear indication of India's willingness to continue trade with Iran despite US sanctions, state refiners have contracted import of 1.25 million tonnes of crude oil from the Persian Gulf nation and are preparing to replace dollar payments with rupee trade.
Top industry sources said Indian Oil Corp (IOC) and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL) have contracted 1.25 million tonnes of Iranian oil for import in November, the month when the US sanctions against Iran's oil sector kick-in.
While India wants to continue importing Iranian oil, albeit a reduced volume, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month stated that Washington would consider waivers on the embargo but made clear that these would be time-limited, if granted.
Sources said IOC is importing the "usual" monthly volumes of oil from Iran. It had planned to import of 9 million tonnes of Iranian oil in the 2018-19 fiscal (April 2018 to March 2019) or 0.75 million tonnes a month.
US sanctions against Iran kick in from November 4, which will block payment routes.
Sources said India and Iran are discussing reverting to rupee trade after November 4.
"Iran has been off-and-on taking rupee payments for oil it sells. This rupee it uses for paying for imports of medicines and other commodities. A similar arrangement is in works," a source said.
Details of the payment mechanism would emerge in the next few weeks, he said.
Oil refiners such as state-owned IOC and MRPL could use UCO Bank or IDBI Bank to route oil payments to Iran, sources said.
ALSO READ: Going extra length to get India substitute oil seller: US on Iran sanctions
India had planned to import about 25 million tonnes of crude oil from Iran in the current fiscal, up from 22.6 million tonnes imported in 2017-18. But the actual volumes imported may be far less as companies like Reliance Industries have totally stopped buying oil from Iran and others, too, are scaling it down in hope of winning a sanction waiver from the US.
Nayara Energy, formerly Essar Oil, too, is stopping import from Iran.
US President Donald Trump in May withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, re-imposing economic sanctions against the Persian Gulf nation. Some sanctions took effect from August 6 while those affecting the oil and banking sectors will start from November 4.
Sources said Iran is open to accepting rupee payment for oil and may use the money to pay for equipment and food items it buys from India.
UCO Bank and IDBI Bank have been identified to route the payment as the two have no exposure to the US financial system.
UCO Bank had in the previous round of sanctions handled rupee payments.
Currently, India pays its third largest oil supplier in euros using European banking channels. These channels would get blocked from November.
ALSO READ: Oil sales to India will continue despite US sanctions, says Iran FM
During the first round of sanctions when EU joined the US in imposing financial restrictions, India initially used a Turkish bank to pay Iran for the oil it bought but beginning February 2013 paid nearly half of the oil import bill in rupees while keeping the remainder pending opening of payment routes. It began clearing the dues in 2015 when the restrictions were eased.
Besides, New Delhi sought to get around the restrictions by supplying goods including wheat, soybean meal and consumer products to Iran in exchange for oil.
Sources said this time around the entire 100 per cent of Iranian oil import bill can be paid in rupees.
Iran is India's third-largest oil supplier behind Iraq and Saudi Arabia. It was India's second biggest supplier of crude oil after Saudi Arabia till 2010-11 but Western sanctions over its suspected nuclear programme relegated it to the seventh spot in the subsequent years. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, India bought 11 million tonnes and 10.95 million tonnes, respectively, from it.
Sourcing from Iran increased to 12.7 million tonnes in 2015-16, giving it the sixth spot. In the following year, the Iranian supplies jumped to 27.2 million tonnes to catapult it to the third spot.
ALSO READ: India will continue to buy Iran's oil, says Iranian foreign minister
Iranian oil is a lucrative buy for refiners as the Persian Gulf nation provides 60 days of credit for purchases, terms not available from suppliers of substitute crudes -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria, and the US.
Besides blocking of banking channels from November, the absence of payment mechanism may pose a challenge to the transportation of the oil as Iranian crude is bought on a CIF basis and shipped on Iranian tankers.
Under Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) mode of shipping, the seller assumes the responsibility of transportation and insurance. The liability and costs associated with successful transit are paid by the seller until the goods are received by the buyer.

India to continue Iran oil imports post US sanctions, to pay in rupees

In the first clear indication of India's willingness to continue trade with Iran despite US sanctions, state refiners have contracted import of 1.25 million tonnes of crude oil from the Persian Gulf nation and are preparing to replace dollar payments with rupee trade.
Top industry sources said Indian Oil Corp (IOC) and Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL) have contracted 1.25 million tonnes of Iranian oil for import in November, the month when the US sanctions against Iran's oil sector kick-in.
While India wants to continue importing Iranian oil, albeit a reduced volume, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month stated that Washington would consider waivers on the embargo but made clear that these would be time-limited, if granted.
Sources said IOC is importing the "usual" monthly volumes of oil from Iran. It had planned to import of 9 million tonnes of Iranian oil in the 2018-19 fiscal (April 2018 to March 2019) or 0.75 million tonnes a month.
US sanctions against Iran kick in from November 4, which will block payment routes.
Sources said India and Iran are discussing reverting to rupee trade after November 4.
"Iran has been off-and-on taking rupee payments for oil it sells. This rupee it uses for paying for imports of medicines and other commodities. A similar arrangement is in works," a source said.
Details of the payment mechanism would emerge in the next few weeks, he said.
Oil refiners such as state-owned IOC and MRPL could use UCO Bank or IDBI Bank to route oil payments to Iran, sources said.
ALSO READ: Going extra length to get India substitute oil seller: US on Iran sanctions
India had planned to import about 25 million tonnes of crude oil from Iran in the current fiscal, up from 22.6 million tonnes imported in 2017-18. But the actual volumes imported may be far less as companies like Reliance Industries have totally stopped buying oil from Iran and others, too, are scaling it down in hope of winning a sanction waiver from the US.
Nayara Energy, formerly Essar Oil, too, is stopping import from Iran.
US President Donald Trump in May withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, re-imposing economic sanctions against the Persian Gulf nation. Some sanctions took effect from August 6 while those affecting the oil and banking sectors will start from November 4.
Sources said Iran is open to accepting rupee payment for oil and may use the money to pay for equipment and food items it buys from India.
UCO Bank and IDBI Bank have been identified to route the payment as the two have no exposure to the US financial system.
UCO Bank had in the previous round of sanctions handled rupee payments.
Currently, India pays its third largest oil supplier in euros using European banking channels. These channels would get blocked from November.
ALSO READ: Oil sales to India will continue despite US sanctions, says Iran FM
During the first round of sanctions when EU joined the US in imposing financial restrictions, India initially used a Turkish bank to pay Iran for the oil it bought but beginning February 2013 paid nearly half of the oil import bill in rupees while keeping the remainder pending opening of payment routes. It began clearing the dues in 2015 when the restrictions were eased.
Besides, New Delhi sought to get around the restrictions by supplying goods including wheat, soybean meal and consumer products to Iran in exchange for oil.
Sources said this time around the entire 100 per cent of Iranian oil import bill can be paid in rupees.
Iran is India's third-largest oil supplier behind Iraq and Saudi Arabia. It was India's second biggest supplier of crude oil after Saudi Arabia till 2010-11 but Western sanctions over its suspected nuclear programme relegated it to the seventh spot in the subsequent years. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, India bought 11 million tonnes and 10.95 million tonnes, respectively, from it.
Sourcing from Iran increased to 12.7 million tonnes in 2015-16, giving it the sixth spot. In the following year, the Iranian supplies jumped to 27.2 million tonnes to catapult it to the third spot.
ALSO READ: India will continue to buy Iran's oil, says Iranian foreign minister
Iranian oil is a lucrative buy for refiners as the Persian Gulf nation provides 60 days of credit for purchases, terms not available from suppliers of substitute crudes -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Nigeria, and the US.
Besides blocking of banking channels from November, the absence of payment mechanism may pose a challenge to the transportation of the oil as Iranian crude is bought on a CIF basis and shipped on Iranian tankers.
Under Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) mode of shipping, the seller assumes the responsibility of transportation and insurance. The liability and costs associated with successful transit are paid by the seller until the goods are received by the buyer.

India to cut Iran oil import in Nov; Tehran may lose another major customer

India is not planning to buy any crude oil from Iran in November, raising the prospect that Tehran will lose another major customer as U.S. sanctions hit.
Indian Oil Corp. and Bharat Petroleum Corp. haven’t asked for any Iranian cargoes for loading in November, according to officials at the companies. Nayara Energy also doesn’t plan any purchases, said an industry executive. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. hasn’t made any nominations for that month, but may do so later, a company official said.

Final decisions on purchases aren’t due until early October, so the refiners could still change their minds. The company officials and industry executive asked not to be named citing internal policies.
The rapid drop in Iranian exports has helped to push Brent crude, the global benchmark, to a four-year high above $80 a barrel. Further output losses could push prices even higher as refiners urgently seek replacement barrels elsewhere. Around the world, only Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, United Arab Emirates and Russia, have the capacity to pump more.
Brent hit an intraday high of $82.55 a barrel on Tuesday, up 23 percent this year, just after U.S. President Donald Trump railed against OPEC and demanded the cartel lower oil prices.
Major Buyer
India is the second-largest buyer of Iranian oil, having imported an average of 577,000 barrels a day this year, or about 27 percent of the Middle Eastern country’s exports, according to Bloomberg tanker tracking data. With South Korea, Japan and European nations also cutting imports to zero, the loss of the Indian refiners, even if temporarily, is a major blow for the Islamic republic.
At the same time, the U.S. sanctions that are due to go into effect in early November are creating a major gap in the global oil market just as Brent crude hits a four-year high above $80 a barrel. Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. and Trafigura Group, among the world’s biggest trading houses, are predicting the loss of Iran’s supply will boost prices to $100 a barrel for the first time since 2014.
That risk has been echoed by some of the world’s biggest oil companies. BP Plc Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley sees the sanctions on the OPEC nation having a bigger impact on the market this time than the previous round of restrictions six years ago.
Harder Stance
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is taking a harder stance. It wants all oil imports from Iran to end by November, and it’s unclear if any waivers will be granted. In previous sanctions under Barack Obama, the government had allowed nations to continue purchases at reduced levels.
The tougher attitude is already showing in Iranian barrels vanishing from the market. South Korea became the first of Iran’s top-three oil customers to heed the U.S. diktat by refraining from any purchases last month. Japanese refiners have also temporarily halted loadings.
India and China had held out hope for Iran. It was only about four months ago that India’s foreign minister said that the country won’t adhere to unilateral restrictions and will continue buying Iranian crude. China also made similar comments and was said to have rejected an American request to cut imports.
When Trump in May announced plans to reimpose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, the market estimated a cut of about 300,000 to 700,000 barrels a day, Trafigura’s co-head of oil trading Ben Luckock said this week. However, the consensus has now moved to as much as 1.5 million barrels as the U.S. is “incredibly serious” about its measures, he said.