Pompeo warns Iran on nuclear arms; hopes military force will never be needed

[rooster59]

Pompeo warns Iran on nuclear arms; hopes military force will never be needed

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo participates in a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and members of congress in the Cabinet Room about immigration at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 20, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday warned Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, saying it would face the "wrath of the entire world" if it did so, but added that he hoped it would never be necessary for the United States to take military action against the country.

 

In an interview with political columnist Hugh Hewitt conducted on Friday and broadcast the following day on MSNBC, Pompeo said that whatever the fate of the international nuclear deal with Iran, it would not be in Tehran's interest to seek nuclear arms.

 

"I hope they understand that if they begin to ramp up their nuclear program, the wrath of the entire world will fall upon them," he said.

 

"Wholly separate from if they spin a couple of extra centrifuges, if they began to move to a weapons program, this is something the entire world would find unacceptable and we’d end up down a path that I don’t think is in the best interests of Iran," Pompeo said.

He said, however, he was not talking about a U.S. military response.

 

"When I say wrath, don’t confuse that with military action. When I say wrath, I mean the moral opprobrium and economic power that fell upon them. That's what I'm speaking to. I'm not talking to military action here. I truly hope that that’s never the case. It’s not in anyone’s best interests for that."

 

Pressed on whether the United States would do whatever it had to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Pompeo said: "President Trump has been unambiguous in his statements that say Iran will not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-24

[sirineou]

26 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

warned Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, saying it would face the "wrath of the entire world"

Wow! who would expect him to say that? 

Stop the presses!! 

Edited June 24, 2018 by sirineou

[poanoi]

Iran is every bit as entitled to pursue nukes as USA,

and i hope they do so USA can finally shove it up their ar$e

Edited June 24, 2018 by poanoi

[BuaBS]

More reason for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

[zakk9]

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

"wrath of the entire world"

The "entire world" as seen from DC. Not very big. The USA, the UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia?

 

Stay independent, Iran, stay strong.

[Chomper Higgot]

The US is counting on allies at a time when the President has gone out of his way to attack the US’s allies while simultaneously demonstrating values and actions that no civilized societies can support.

 

Good luck asking for troops to fight another ‘wrong’ American war.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The US is counting on allies at a time when the President has gone out of his way to attack the US’s allies while simultaneously demonstrating values and actions that no civilized societies can support.

 

Good luck asking for troops to fight another ‘wrong’ American war.

In this case easy, Israel will fight this war.

[lionsincity]

sounds like a replay of NK.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, zakk9 said:

The "entire world" as seen from DC. Not very big. The USA, the UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia?

 

Stay independent, Iran, stay strong.

A bit like the "world series" in base ball.

[Kiwiken]

Iran is not Iraq. An Air war cannot win the War. And Troops on the ground would be the same as Vietnam. Israel could strike but not knock Iran Out. And even israel knows the Iranian response would be more fanatical than the Arab responses. The USA is all bluster. its time as the Self appointed World Police is ending its tenure. Brace for a World of shifting sands as new Groupings emerge. Given the USA declaration of a Tariff imposition (many on Military Allies) . It can count on few Allies in the World Its only friends Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States of Australia. The UK I would put in brackets depending on future events

[nobodysfriend]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"I hope they understand that if they begin to ramp up their nuclear program, the wrath of the entire world will fall upon them," he said.

Who does he think he is ?

He has no right to talk for the "entire world " .

[otherstuff1957]

Trump seems to want a war.  Attacking N. Korea would have pissed off China and Japan too much, and Venezuela is too close to home, so Iran is the obvious target.  Plus, driving up the price of oil will please his mega-rich friends who can invest to win after he gives them a heads up.

 

A Saudi - Israeli alliance is unlikely, so the war would probably be fought with the USAF operating out of Saudi Arabia.  A ground war would probably not be successful, so he will probably settle for destroying Iran's industrial base & infrastructure from the air & then declaring a victory.  ?

[Srikcir]

46 minutes ago, car720 said:

Not so. 

They are Persians. Not even a member of the Arab League of Nations.

But as Alexander the Great knew, they are masters at manipulating Arabs.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday warned Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons

Pompeo threatens Iran that does not now represent a nuclear threat having no nuclear weapons and agreed to verifiable deterrents to developing nuclear weapons. On the other hand North Korea that does have nuclear weapons has been given royal treatment from POTUS Trump and deferred economic sanctions with no promise to give up its nuclear weapons much less even an inventory of its nuclear capability.  

If there's a threat in the Middle East it's Trumps' web of incomprehensible and conflicting foreign policies. 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, poanoi said:

Iran is every bit as entitled to pursue nukes as USA,

and i hope they do so USA can finally shove it up their ar$e

 

Iran isn't "entitled" to pursue "nukes", not even "as USA". Posters doubting this may want to refresh their knowledge of what the NPT is about. Might not be "fair", but it is what it is. And Iran signed it.

 

Regardless of how one feels about the US and its foreign policy, it would be hard to substantiate the positive effect of yet another military nuclear capable actor, especially in an already volatile region.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, zakk9 said:

The "entire world" as seen from DC. Not very big. The USA, the UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia?

 

Stay independent, Iran, stay strong.

 

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The US is counting on allies at a time when the President has gone out of his way to attack the US’s allies while simultaneously demonstrating values and actions that no civilized societies can support.

 

Good luck asking for troops to fight another ‘wrong’ American war.

 

9 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Who does he think he is ?

He has no right to talk for the "entire world " .

 

Pompeo was not referring to international military action or cooperation. That does seem unlikely under the current circumstances, which are mainly the product of Trump's "policies". But be that as it may, there is a wide international agreement that a military nuclear capable Iran is bad news. Perhaps more so when it comes to European and ME countries. So while there might not be a high level of cooperation, Pompeo's comments are correct when it comes to describing the general international views.

 

Countries having issues with the current US administrations' "policies", doesn't automatically make them support all other opposing interests and views.

 

[Morch]

I doubt the US (or rather, the Trump administration) is actually interested in a full scale war (well, a regional full scale war, whatever). Starting wars is easy enough, harder to control how things pan out, and rewards aren't always as great as imagined. Limited military operation, with expected low casualty figures yes - a prolonged effort, nah.

 

Trump's way of engagement seems to revolve around creating high stakes crises. Them crises are nurtured, escalated, and eventually funnel into a showdown, where the threat of the US's economic, political and military might brutal application is supposed to make opponents cave in. Not an endorsement, nor an assessment of of how well-thought or effective this mode of engagement is.

 

Accordingly, I think this is more likely to be played out by increasing pressure on the already struggling Iranian economy, continuous issuing of bellicose statements, and military posturing (without crossing certain lines). Some would say that such measure would have been more effective if the US enjoyed international cooperation. That may be so - but on the other hand, operating pretty much solo does release the US from having to coordinate with other countries, or taking their (sometimes differing) positions under consideration.

 

International reactions to many of the Trump administration's would imply that the US is isolated, an in a sense this is true. Then again - I don't think this applies to each and every instance of international diplomacy. Most governments seem to operate on a somewhat more cerebral level than certain posters assume or advocate, and aren't as quick to adopt simplistic takes on things. Then, like it or not, there's this thing about the US being too big to "ignore". Hence, even under current circumstances, the US still have considerable diplomatic leverage, and interests are internationally shared regardless of other differences.

 

[poanoi]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran isn't "entitled" to pursue "nukes", not even "as USA". Posters doubting this may want to refresh their knowledge of what the NPT is about. Might not be "fair", but it is what it is. And Iran signed it.

 

Regardless of how one feels about the US and its foreign policy, it would be hard to substantiate the positive effect of yet another military nuclear capable actor, especially in an already volatile region.

it would be easy to substantiate the positive effect

of iran going nuclear: while US no doubt will keep bullying forever,

it will be toothless bullying limited to trade wars only

[puck2]

If it wouldn't be so serious: aren't the USA now under Trump a laughing stock? The masters of contradictions and lies.

 

First, Trump canceled the Iranian nuclear deal.

Second, Pompeo warns Iran on nuclear arms; hopes military force will never be needed.

 

Like master, like man. The USA are now very, very far away of reliability, common sense.

 

When Tump and his submissive underlings open their mouths, brain and memory are closed assuming there exists some at all.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, poanoi said:

it would be easy to substantiate the positive effect

of iran going nuclear: while US no doubt will keep bullying forever,

it will be toothless bullying limited to trade wars only

 

It might be "easy to substantiate" - but you haven't actually done so. From a global point of view, increasing the number of nuclear weapons is not a good thing.

 

And while you may consider "trade wars" to be "toothless bullying", I doubt Iran's leadership sees things this way, what with the current state of the Iranian economy.

[Morch]

 

@puck2

 

I don't think Iran is laughing. Posturing, perhaps. But doubt they aren't taking statements by the Trump administration seriously.

 

The Trump administration walking away from the Iran Deal does not imply an Iranian "right" to pursue military nuclear capability. There's the Iran Deal, and then there's the NPT.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Morch

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Iran isn't "entitled" to pursue "nukes", not even "as USA". Posters doubting this may want to refresh their knowledge of what the NPT is about. Might not be "fair", but it is what it is. And Iran signed it.

 

Regardless of how one feels about the US and its foreign policy, it would be hard to substantiate the positive effect of yet another military nuclear capable actor, especially in an already volatile region.

 

Of course they are, as is any other country.

 

The USA does not and never has ruled the world. It didn't even stop Israel building nuclear weapons.

 

If Israel has them then why shouldn't Iran especially for defensive purposes when their close neighbour already has them.?

[Trouble]

13 hours ago, poanoi said:

Iran is every bit as entitled to pursue nukes as USA,

and i hope they do so USA can finally shove it up their ar$e

That's really rational thought.  So you want Iran to have some nukes to punish the USA!  Does it really not occur to you that it probably won't be the USA that gets attacked as they could retaliate with 1,000 times the force.  Iran probably is not he problem. Unfortunately, the most likely the scenario would be that Iran might sell,  give or loose the technology to some or many terrorist groups and then the nukes end up in the hands of any number of fanatics just waiting to use them for any countless number of reasons.  Doesn't just take a missile to use a nuke.  I would guess the Middle East and Europe would more likely be the targets of some fanatic group without missiles. Be careful of what you wish for.

[billd766]

16 minutes ago, Trouble said:

That's really rational thought.  So you want Iran to have some nukes to punish the USA!  Does it really not occur to you that it probably won't be the USA that gets attacked as they could retaliate with 1,000 times the force.  Iran probably is not he problem. Unfortunately, the most likely the scenario would be that Iran might sell,  give or loose the technology to some or many terrorist groups and then the nukes end up in the hands of any number of fanatics just waiting to use them for any countless number of reasons.  Doesn't just take a missile to use a nuke.  I would guess the Middle East and Europe would more likely be the targets of some fanatic group without missiles. Be careful of what you wish for.

 

I am careful of what I wish for.

 

I would rather trust the Iranian government with nuclear weapons than the current POTUS and his war hungry bootlickers.

 

The combination of Trump, Bolton and Pompeo scares the crap out of me far more than Iran with nuclear weapons.

 

To start with it will take Iran some time to get there.

 

The USA has over 7,000 nuclear weapons available right this minute.

Edited June 24, 2018 by billd766

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Of course they are, as is any other country.

 

The USA does not and never has ruled the world. It didn't even stop Israel building nuclear weapons.

 

If Israel has them then why shouldn't Iran especially for defensive purposes when their close neighbour already has them.?

 

Again, may want to read up on the NPT and what it implies. Essentially it amounts to a "no" with regard to your first line.

 

There wasn't any claim about the US "ruling the world". That said, the US is still the most powerful country around, and like it or not, its interests and views carry more weight than those of other countries. Such is life. Whether one approves of Trump's policies got little to do with it.

 

The topic isn't really about Israel (although, obviously, that's the deflection of choice). That said, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, while Iran is - with all that is implied. Countries already possessing military nuclear capability are a PITA to deal with. The wisdom of having yet another nuclear player in an already volatile region is debatable. The reasoning touted would mean a position supportive of nuclear proliferation, whereas most international efforts are actually heading the other way.

 

 

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I am careful of what I wish for.

 

I would rather trust the Iranian government with nuclear weapons than the current POTUS and his war hungry bootlickers.

 

The combination of Trump, Bolton and Pompeo scares the crap out of me far more than Iran with nuclear weapons.

 

To start with it will take Iran some time to get there.

 

The USA has over 7,000 nuclear weapons available right this minute.

 

Would adding Iranian nuclear weapons to the thousands in the US possession make you feel more secure? And I get it you don't like Trump & Co. - we share that sentiment. That by itself doesn't recommend the Iranian leadership as a prime candidate for having its own nuclear weapons, though.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Morch

[billd766]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Again, may want to read up on the NPT and what it implies. Essentially it amounts to a "no" with regard to your first line.

 

There wasn't any claim about the US "ruling the world". That said, the US is still the most powerful country around, and like it or not, its interests and views carry more weight than those of other countries. Such is life. Whether one approves of Trump's policies got little to do with it.

 

The topic isn't really about Israel (although, obviously, that's the deflection of choice). That said, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, while Iran is - with all that is implied. Countries already possessing military nuclear capability are a PITA to deal with. The wisdom of having yet another nuclear player in an already volatile region is debatable. The reasoning touted would mean a position supportive of nuclear proliferation, whereas most international efforts are actually heading the other way.

 

 

 

Whilst I ageee that the USA is the most powerful country around IMHO under Trump it has become less powerful, a little more beligerent and is worrying the world a lot more.

 

Sadly Trump's policies have everything to do with it, assuming that he has long term policies and doesn't just make them up one day and then change them a week or so later.

 

He has got rid of the saner, more careful and more experienced staffers in the White House and has surrounded himself by more dangerous to the world types like Pompeo and Bolton. He has ignored treaties and friendships with allies and enemies alike and IMHO he now believes that he is the most powerful person in the world and can do what ever he wants, whenever he wants with no comeback at all.

 

He believes in his own hype and derides anything he does not like as fake. He has surrounded himself with sycophants, flatterers and boot lickers and I truly believe that this will end badly. Who will suffer the most I am not sure but in my heart I hope that is Donald Trump and his hangers on and not the rest of the world.

 

Most of the Americans I have met are nice friendly people but I haven't met that many and I don't think I have met a Trump supporter in real life.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Whilst I ageee that the USA is the most powerful country around IMHO under Trump it has become less powerful, a little more beligerent and is worrying the world a lot more.

 

Sadly Trump's policies have everything to do with it, assuming that he has long term policies and doesn't just make them up one day and then change them a week or so later.

 

He has got rid of the saner, more careful and more experienced staffers in the White House and has surrounded himself by more dangerous to the world types like Pompeo and Bolton. He has ignored treaties and friendships with allies and enemies alike and IMHO he now believes that he is the most powerful person in the world and can do what ever he wants, whenever he wants with no comeback at all.

 

He believes in his own hype and derides anything he does not like as fake. He has surrounded himself with sycophants, flatterers and boot lickers and I truly believe that this will end badly. Who will suffer the most I am not sure but in my heart I hope that is Donald Trump and his hangers on and not the rest of the world.

 

Most of the Americans I have met are nice friendly people but I haven't met that many and I don't think I have met a Trump supporter in real life.

"Sadly Trump's policies have everything to do with it, assuming that he has long term policies and doesn't just make them up one day and then change them a week or so later."

 

He has been quite consistent here. I think so much so, he will withdraw from Nato in July.

[puck2]

@Morch, - #24

you completely missed my point of view.

 

It's not about laughing Iran, it's about the world laughing at America's liability. The USA together with 7 other countries reached a deal/contract lifting sanctions against the Iran for stopping its atomic program.

 

The USA signed this contract. It doesn't depend who was or is POTUS. As Trump canceled this contract that means the USA isn't reliable. If you make a contract with the USA today be prepared it will cancel the contract tomorrow. Therefore it's better to make no contracts with the USA. It isn't worth the paper used for signing the deal.

 

That is what the Americans under Trump have to consider. A contract with Trump's signature is only useful as a toilet tissue. Trump and America would cry foul, if Kim would breach a NK-US atomic contract within a short time. The world would tell Trump and the USA, that's what you did with the Iran-deal/contract. Do you understand now: the USA a laughing stock?!

 

Do you believe that the other 7 nations would follow Trump and Pompeo into an made-up US-Iran war?

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by puck2

[stevenl]

"A contract with Trump's signature is only useful as a toilet tissue. "

 

Maybe they can take it to Pawn Stars and see what it's worth ?