No, only the US designated him as a terrorist and IIRC on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria). EU only personally sanctioned him.
>there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran
These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted.
>Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government
The call was aimed at the government, which due to the US pressure ignored will of the Iraqi people represented by the democratically elected parliament.
>since ISIS still exists
ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Not only it weakened Iraq by direct invasion, but it also fueled the Syrian civil war. Syria is perfectly able to not let ISIS reappearance with the Russian help and negotiated relationship with the Kurds, but I don't see the US leaving Syria any time soon.
Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'.
>These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted.
These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October.
>ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region.
Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. The weight of the state behind them and absurdity of the act. But the US government has decided to stretch definition of terrorism (and frankly deflating its value even further in the process) to somehow limit actions of IRGC, which were clearly outplaying the US in the ME region, not in the last because of the Soleimeini's masterful leadership.
>These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October.
Sigh... Read the sources, ok?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-t...
>The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue -1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) –simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V.
In October expired the UN arms embargo, which is irrelevant to the 1747 resolution affecting Soleimeini. If you read news just a little at the time, you may recall that economic sanctions against Iran have been lifted long before this October.
>Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
Wow. Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? And that Assad is from the Alawite minority, who is also Shia? If anyone has supported al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war it's the US and Turkey. The former has acknowledged indirect "accidental" support of the al-Qaeda branch via "moderate" rebels.
To conclude: you demonstrate utter lack of knowledge in this area.
Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. It turns out Iran not even bothering with cover makes designation very easy.
>Read the sources, ok?
You're mixing JCPOA (not a UN text) and several different types of sanctions.
>Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni?
ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
Yeap, and the US is not included into this list of the "most countries" as well. Simply instead of "resistance" they call them "pro-democratic rebels" and they have a long tradition in this area (e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama). So we got back to the starting point.
>You're mixing JCPOA and several different types of sanctions.
Again, I've linked the document, which clearly lists the 1747 resolution as to be terminated. AFAIK it is the only UN resolution affecting Soleimeini. So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"?
>ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims Syria was already for two years in the midst of the hot civil war, Asad was losing territories to the Sunni rebels supported by the US, Iran at the time tried to help Assad by supporting Shia militia, but its supply lines got disrupted by ISIS, which motivated them to persuade Russians to help Assad.
If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state. One of the big American goals in Iraq is to prevent creation of so-called Shia Crescent and the Suni rebellion was a great way to achieve it. This is why you haven't seen much US action against it until they started to threaten Bagdad, and even after ISIS lost all its territories the US supported "moderates" which are close to the Syrian Al-Qaeda branch. Though in the end it spiraled out of control. As usual... Controlled chaos rarely stays controlled for long.
If your next message will be as ignorant as the last two, I no longer see the need to continue this discussion.
Which is mostly accurate (the rebels part, we have no idea what regime they would have set up). Iran officially supported Hamas and Hizbollah, the former even after it's been declared a terrorist org. When one does those things so openly, it's no wonder the designations follow.
>(e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama).
Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban) didn't even exist at the time.
>So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"?
Your original comment mixed JCPOA (a text at most binding members who signed it but does not override UN resolutions), nuclear sanctions (removed under UN 2231, not the JCPOA), economic sanctions (not all removed, since quite a bit is not nuclear), terror sanctions (e.g. Solemani), etc.
>LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims...
ISIS existed before they made 'claims'. The organization is what Al-Qaeda in Iraq evolved into once they got radical beyond even what Bin Laden wanted (Bin Laden opposed targeting Shiites). Al-Qaeda in Iraq was supported by Assad and Iran. Just recently someone assassinated an Al-Qaeda head in Tehran.
>If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state.
Ah, yes, the US created ISIS conspiracy theory. Lets remember the US left Iraq and was happy to be out until ISIS called it back. ISIS then took over Mosul first, and only then became a quasi-state. The holding in Syria came later, and it was the US (with SDF) which threw them out.
You mean this "conspiracy theory" from the Independent[0] and the Guardian[1] and the New York Times[2]?
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-i...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/camp-bu...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/opinion/how-america-helpe...
“[al-Baghdadi] was respected very much by the US army,” Abu Ahmed said. “If he wanted to visit people in another camp he could, but we couldn’t. And all the while, a new strategy, which he was leading, was rising under their noses, and that was to build the Islamic State. If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
Now, if Assad and the Mullahs didn't support Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the first place, or if they got their Iraqi pawns to keep the lid after the US left, maybe the jihadists wouldn't have been strong enough to create ISIS later on.
>Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia...
He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list, and there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran.
>And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government
Iran has military bases and militias on Syria predating the US ones, these took direct part in the mass civilian deaths there.
>Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops.
Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government (imagine the GOP Senate calling for something ignoring President Biden's wishes). The US army does not wish to withdraw since ISIS still exists, we saw what happened last time Iraq tried to deal with them alone.