Advice on Visa agency needed

[webfact]

Trump adopts aggressive posture towards Iran after missile launch

By Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick

REUTERS

 

National security adviser General Michael Flynn (R) delivers a statement next to Press Secretary Sean Spicer during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington U.S., February 1, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House put Iran "on notice" on Wednesday for test-firing a ballistic missile and said it was reviewing how to respond, taking an aggressive posture towards Tehran that could raise tensions in the region.

 

While the exact implications of the U.S. threat were unclear, the new administration signalled that President Donald Trump intended to do more, possibly including imposing new sanctions, to curb what he sees as defiance of a nuclear deal negotiated in 2015 by then-President Barack Obama.

 

The tough talk commits the administration to back up its rhetoric with action, which could cast doubt on the future of the Iran agreement and sow further uncertainty in an already chaotic Middle East, experts said.

 

Trump has frequently criticized the Iran nuclear deal, calling the agreement weak and ineffective.

 

Officials declined to say whether the military option was on the table, although Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood said: "The U.S. military has not changed its posture in response to the Iranian test missile launch" on Sunday.

 

A fiery statement from Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, marked some of the most aggressive rhetoric by the administration that took office on Jan. 20, making clear that Obama's less confrontational approach towards Iran was over.

 

Flynn said that instead of being thankful to the United States for the nuclear deal, "Iran is now feeling emboldened."

 

"As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice," he told reporters in his first appearance in the White House press briefing room.

 

He said the launch and an attack on Monday against a Saudi naval vessel by Iran-allied Houthi militants off the coast of Yemen underscored "Iran’s destabilising behaviour across the Middle East."

 

Iran confirmed it had tested a new missile but said it did not breach a nuclear accord reached with world powers or a U.N. Security Council resolution that endorsed the pact.

 

'HOW WOULD U.S. RESPOND?'

 

Analysts said Iran could interpret Flynn's warning as bluster given that the Trump administration is still formulating a response.

"It's a vague way of drawing a line in the sand," said Mark Fitzpatrick, executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-Americas. "Taken literally, it could mean: 'You do this one more time and you’ll pay for it.' But how would the U.S. respond?"

 

The warning could foreshadow more aggressive economic and diplomatic measures against Iran.

 

Three senior U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a range of options, including economic sanctions, was being considered and that a broad review was being conducted of the U.S. posture towards Iran.

 

One official said the intent of Flynn's message was to make clear the administration would not be "shy or reticent" towards Tehran.

 

"We are in the process of evaluating the strategic options and the framework for how we want to approach these issues," the official said. "We do not want to be premature or rash or take any action that would foreclose options or unnecessarily contribute to a negative response."

 

"Our sincere hope is that the Iranians will heed this notice today and will change their behaviour," he said.

 

Iran has test-fired several ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal in 2015, but the latest test was the first since Trump became president.

 

RISK OF MISCALCULATION

 

The issue came to the forefront on the same day that the U.S. Senate confirmed former Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

 

Trump told Tillerson at his swearing-in ceremony that "although you inherit enormous challenges in the Middle East and around the world, I believe we can achieve peace and security in these very, very troubled times."

 

Simon Henderson, a Gulf expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said there was a danger of a miscalculation by Washington or Tehran.

 

“The question now is will the Iranian logic be: ‘My goodness, this guy is serious, we’d better behave ourselves?'” he said. "Or do they say: ‘Why don’t we tweak him a bit more to see what he really means, maybe test him.’"

 

The administration’s tough statement came midway through a three-day exercise by 18 U.S., French, British and Australian warships and an undisclosed number of aircraft close to Iranian waters in the Gulf, according to a statement by U.S. Central Command.

 

Trump is due to hold talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strident critic of the Iran nuclear deal, at the White House on February 15.

 

The U.S. president and Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Salman, spoke by phone on Sunday and were described by the White House as agreeing on the importance of enforcing the deal and "addressing Iran’s destabilising regional activities."

 

Sunni Muslim-dominated Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, and Shi'ite Muslim-majority Iran are regional rivals.

 

(Additional reporting by Jonathan S. Landay, Roberta Rampton, Idrees Ali, Yeganeh Torbati, Lesley Wroughton, Yara Bayoumy and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-02

[Ulysses G.]

About time someone called Iran out. Too bad the last administration signed a crazy deal with them, eased sanctions and gave them millions of dollars to spend on terrorism or their nuclear program. The horse is out of the barn on changing their behavior with the carrot and stick approach now.

[geriatrickid]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

About time someone called Iran out. Too bad the last administration signed a crazy deal with them, eased sanctions and gave them millions of dollars to spend on terrorism or their nuclear program. The horse is out of the barn on changing their behavior with the carrot and stick approach now.

The   deal was not crazy and laid both the moral and legal ground to act should Iran break that agreement.

The former administration did not "give" Iran millions of dollars  to spend on terrorism. Rather,  it returned the money that was legally  due to the Iranians. The money will now be spent on purchasing Boeing aircraft which will keep Americans employed.

 

If Iran  violates the agreement, it will be dealt with. Trump has provided a reasonable position. However,  he will not act unilaterally. The fact is, Iran feels emboldened. It has the support of China and Russia and will attempt to provoke the USA. They picked the wrong President and will get their knuckles  smacked. Trump is not a man to be   let a pissant threaten him and the Iranians are in for a shock.

 

[Thailand]

Too many fronts at home and now abroad in such a short time in office could see major problems for the new US govt in the near future.

Aggressive foreign powers will be lining up to bait Trump who appears to be easily hooked.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

The   deal was not crazy and laid both the moral and legal ground to act should Iran break that agreement.

The former administration did not "give" Iran millions of dollars  to spend on terrorism. Rather,  it returned the money that was legally  due to the Iranians. The money will now be spent on purchasing Boeing aircraft which will keep Americans employed.

 

If Iran  violates the agreement, it will be dealt with. Trump has provided a reasonable position. However,  he will not act unilaterally. The fact is, Iran feels emboldened. It has the support of China and Russia and will attempt to provoke the USA. They picked the wrong President and will get their knuckles  smacked. Trump is not a man to be   let a pissant threaten him and the Iranians are in for a shock.

 

 

I agree that if Iran violates the agreement, they will be dealt with, but only because Trump is in power. The guy who signed the deal gave away the house and got little for it. Everyone knew Iran would violate it seems that they are.

That puts Trump in the position of dealing with them with few assets to hold over their head other than military action and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I agree that if Iran violates the agreement, they will be dealt with, but only because Trump is in power. The guy who signed the deal gave away the house and got little for it. Everyone knew Iran would violate it seems that they are.

That puts Trump in the position of dealing with them with few assets to hold over their head other than military action and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

The Iran nuclear agreement is a nuclear agreement; it says nothing about missiles.  Sanctions regarding missiles are separate, and it remains to be seen if this test violates restrictions place on Iran by the UN.

 

Obama is the president who built an international coalition that put sanctions in place that drove Iran to sign the nuclear deal.  US sanctions alone don't scare Iran.

 

Trump could never do anything like that because he lacks the intelligence or ability to forge an international coalition.  This is why military force, another war in the Middle East, and more propaganda and recruits for Islamic extremists is the only option he has.

 

With every post you reveal yourself as one of those "optimists" who think there are simple solutions to complex situations around the world.  You have succeeded in electing a simple-minded president who has promised simple solutions.  There is no question this will be bad for the US and the world, the question is "How bad?".

[craigt3365]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Iran nuclear agreement is a nuclear agreement; it says nothing about missiles.  Sanctions regarding missiles are separate, and it remains to be seen if this test violates restrictions place on Iran by the UN.

 

Obama is the president who built an international coalition that put sanctions in place that drove Iran to sign the nuclear deal.  US sanctions alone don't scare Iran.

 

Trump could never do anything like that because he lacks the intelligence or ability to forge an international coalition.  This is why military force, another war in the Middle East, and more propaganda and recruits for Islamic extremists is the only option he has.

 

With every post you reveal yourself as one of those "optimists" who think there are simple solutions to complex situations around the world.  You have succeeded in electing a simple-minded president who has promised simple solutions.  There is no question this will be bad for the US and the world, the question is "How bad?".

Amazing how the Trump supporters don't seem to understand things like this.

[Roadman]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Too many fronts at home and now abroad in such a short time in office could see major problems for the new US govt in the near future.

Aggressive foreign powers will be lining up to bait Trump who appears to be easily hooked.

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The Iran nuclear agreement is a nuclear agreement; it says nothing about missiles.  Sanctions regarding missiles are separate, and it remains to be seen if this test violates restrictions place on Iran by the UN.

 

Obama is the president who built an international coalition that put sanctions in place that drove Iran to sign the nuclear deal.  US sanctions alone don't scare Iran.

 

Trump could never do anything like that because he lacks the intelligence or ability to forge an international coalition.  This is why military force, another war in the Middle East, and more propaganda and recruits for Islamic extremists is the only option he has.

 

With every post you reveal yourself as one of those "optimists" who think there are simple solutions to complex situations around the world.  You have succeeded in electing a simple-minded president who has promised simple solutions.  There is no question this will be bad for the US and the world, the question is "How bad?".

What is also concerning is reports are now coming through that in his phone call to the the Aussie PM today he lost his cool and blow off the Aussies who are the USA's closest friend and ally. Trump is very quickly isolating the US not only from what can be considered its foes but also its friends. We are all (including the US) going to be dealing with some hurt thanks solely to Trump. 

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Roadman said:

 

What is also concerning is reports are now coming through that in his phone call to the the Aussie PM today he lost his cool and blow off the Aussies who are the USA's closest friend and ally. Trump is very quickly isolating the US not only from what can be considered its foes but also its friends. We are all (including the US) going to be dealing with some hurt thanks solely to Trump. 

Trump seems to forget he's a politician now, not a CEO. Huge difference.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, Roadman said:

 

What is also concerning is reports are now coming through that in his phone call to the the Aussie PM today he lost his cool and blow off the Aussies who are the USA's closest friend and ally. Trump is very quickly isolating the US not only from what can be considered its foes but also its friends. We are all (including the US) going to be dealing with some hurt thanks solely to Trump. 

Trump is alienating our closest allies, discrediting our own intelligence agencies, providing propaganda galore to Islamic radicals and praising Putin.  Less than two weeks in office and the charges that Putin swung the election to his puppet seem increasingly likely. 

[boomerangutang]

         The money exchange from the US to Iran was part of a pre-existing agreement between the two countries. The money was delayed for political reasons.  When the politics cleared up, the money was transferred.  The US paid its debt as per a prior purchase agreement.  Cry-baby Trump, who hates to see any money transferred to Iran, tried everything he could to falsify the reasoning behind the deal - in order to make Obama and Kerry look bad.  Trumps denigration only worked for his easily-duped fans.  All reasonable people saw it as one country fulfilling its business agreements with another.  

 

         Trump's whole career has been built on trashing/reneging business agreements (and includes cheating on taxes), and he'll likely do the same for the US - trashing its reputation, and reneging on deals.   After less than two weeks, the Mexican prez won't meet with him, and European heads don't want to interact with him.  If Trump pisses off friends-of-the-US so thoroughly, imagine what deals he'll make with countries which don't like the US.

 

            Trump is to deal-making what a baby is to keeping diapers clean.

 

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I agree that if Iran violates the agreement, they will be dealt with, but only because Trump is in power. The guy who signed the deal gave away the house and got little for it. Everyone knew Iran would violate it seems that they are.

That puts Trump in the position of dealing with them with few assets to hold over their head other than military action and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

 

The "guy" didn't sign the deal, the P5+1 signed the deal. You need to stop living under this illusion that America is in charge of the world.

So whatever Trump decides to do will be on his own unless they have actually violated the agreement.

[boomerangutang]

38 minutes ago, Roadman said:

What is also concerning is reports are now coming through that in his phone call to the the Aussie PM today he lost his cool and blow off the Aussies who are the USA's closest friend and ally. Trump is very quickly isolating the US not only from what can be considered its foes but also its friends. We are all (including the US) going to be dealing with some hurt thanks solely to Trump. 

       I don't know what they talked about, but it may have included the biggest arms purchase agreement the Aussies have ever made.  I'm referring to the latest and spiffiest fighter jet to come out from the US.  The Aussies made a giant order for the jets, but (surprise!) the price has skyrocketed and the plane's performance is poor.  It can't fly within 25 miles of a lightning storm.  It's being out-performed by jets made in Europe and Russia.  US arms manufacturers are great at salesmanship and closing deals, but the product is not always sterling. Australia may be wanting to back out of the fighter jet deal (as Canada and Netherlands are doing similarly), and that would make Trump shouting-red-faced-angry.

[heybruce]

In spite of his bluster, Iran is thrilled to have Trump as President.  His repeated BS about taking Iraq's oil has been turned into an internet video with Arabic subtitles that is being circulated in the Middle East, most notably Iraq. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-creates-new-dangers-provocative-comments-about-iraqi-oil  This will go a long way towards sealing an Iran-Iraq alliance.

 

There are 5000 US troops in Iraq helping their military retake ground from the Islamic State.  What happens to these troops if the Iraqi people conclude that they are really there to seize the oil fields?

 

This is just one of many illustrations of why it is a bad idea to put a clueless incompetent in the White House.  Many more examples will follow.

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

The "guy" didn't sign the deal, the P5+1 signed the deal. You need to stop living under this illusion that America is in charge of the world.

So whatever Trump decides to do will be on his own unless they have actually violated the agreement.

For info

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P5%2B1

[rabas]

Before going too far without a clear picture of nuclear weapons technologies.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/restrictions-ballistic.shtml

Resolution 2231 (2015)

Ballistic missile-related transfers and activities

What are the restrictions on Iranian ballistic missile activities?

12 Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by rabas

[Baerboxer]

Regardless of Trump, it's amazing how all the pro Democrats posters' comments appear to infer Obama, in his 2 administrations, who had help from former secretary of state Clinton, the veteran public servant,  did a fantastic job in the Middle East!

 

Look around and open your eyes and see what sort of job he and Clinton really did.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

44 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Regardless of Trump, it's amazing how all the pro Democrats posters' comments appear to infer Obama, in his 2 administrations, who had help from former secretary of state Clinton, the veteran public servant,  did a fantastic job in the Middle East!

 

Look around and open your eyes and see what sort of job he and Clinton really did.

They had a hell of a lot of cleanup to do after the mess that Bush and Cheney left for them, both militarily and economically.

 

The only question is how much of a mess will there be to clean up once this clown troop is done?

[DriveByTrucker]

39 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Regardless of Trump, it's amazing how all the pro Democrats posters' comments appear to infer Obama, in his 2 administrations, who had help from former secretary of state Clinton, the veteran public servant,  did a fantastic job in the Middle East!

 

Look around and open your eyes and see what sort of job he and Clinton really did.

I still find it astonishing that the Trump supporters/republicans only have a memory span of 8 years. 15 years ago loony George W decided to start a war based on lies, while in the meantime he destroyed the US economy! Leaving Obama with a nightmare task. Over the last 5-6 years things have improved considerably in the US/world.

Right now we have an even bigger and much more dangerous moron than George W in office. The big orange dude is likely to destroy the economy far beyond the damage George W inflicted on us and anyone with half a brain knows he is likely to start the biggest war since the Germans/Japanese "did their thing". Why dont you write down Benghazi a dozen time (to get it off your chest) and then start focusing on  how the orange idiot is targeting to destroy civilization!

[fvw53]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Amazing how the Trump supporters don't seem to understand things like this.

My advise to the Australian PM : Australia went to war with the US in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, .......so tell Trump you will stop to behave as a US lapdog who sits or stops barking when instructed...
and then invite China to make an alternative "friendship" deal...

....because "deal" is a word that Trump understands

[Emster23]

UK is only traditional allied country I can think of that Trump has had some sort of contact or mention of without pissing them off. Correction: he talked nice with Turkey and Argentina. He's got some businesses there, so I guess he can restrain himself if his money is on the table.

 I am no fan of Iran, but they are within their rights to develop own defense capabilities. As others pointed out, this has nothing to do with the nuke deal, which is being complied with by Iran. Maybe that is what really pisses off Trump.

[dunroaming]

Trump arrived as POTUS sabre rattling and now others will sabre rattle back.  Normal for other powers to test the water when there is a new kid in town.  At the moment it means nothing but with Trumps fragile state of mind it could escalate.

[elgordo38]

Dear Raytheon

Please double our order of cruise missiles. We are presently trying to squeeze more money out of Social Security to  pay for them. 

 

Signed Donald J. Trump President. 

[Michael8511]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

Before going too far without a clear picture of nuclear weapons technologies.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/restrictions-ballistic.shtml

Resolution 2231 (2015)

Ballistic missile-related transfers and activities

What are the restrictions on Iranian ballistic missile activities?

12 Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231 (2015) calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.

 

These missiles didn't have nuclear capabilities so they are not regulated by the agreement.

iran don't have that kind of missiles.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Michael8511 said:

These missiles didn't have nuclear capabilities so they are not regulated by the agreement.

iran don't have that kind of missiles.

Sure they do, some are operational. Most of their medium range ballistic missiles can lift from 900 to 1500 kg warheads. For comparison, the US has half-megaton warheads that weigh only 400 pounds, which make tuk-tuks nuclear capable. 

 

If you don't like ballistic missiles, just minutes ago Iran launched a nuclear capable cruise missile.

 

Reuters: Iran tested nuclear-capable cruise missile: German newspaper

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-cruise-idUSKBN15H0WR?il=0

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by rabas

[boomerangutang]

       Trump disses the efforts of Kerry and European heads in getting a deal with Iran.  What is it that Trump doesn't like about the deal?   That it lessens Iran's ability to make nukes? 

Trump acts like he's so smart and wiley, that he can get great deals with others who he portrays as stupid.  The only stupid people are his fans.  Iranians and others are quite smart when it comes to deal-making.  It was a minor-miracle that Kerry and Obama, along with the Europeans -hammered out a deal.

 

      Trump is such a rude dufus, that he doesn't understand that foreign countries, particularly those which don't love the US, are going to make efforts to NOT strike deals with the US, particularly now that a blowhard like Trump is in the driver's seat.

 

        Imagine you're at high school and there's a spelling bee coming up.   One big kid swaggers around shouting out to everyone that he's the best speller in the whole school, and he's going to easily win the contest.  Who do you think all the smart kids are going to be gunning for on Spelling Bee day?

 

 

 

 

What

[Richard W]

10 hours ago, Emster23 said:

UK is only traditional allied country I can think of that Trump has had some sort of contact or mention of without pissing them off.

The 'Muslim ban' hasn't endeared him to the UK.  The Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary were tasked with asking what on Earth was going on, even if the Iraqi-born Saatchis are no longer as important as they were.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

       Trump disses the efforts of Kerry and European heads in getting a deal with Iran.  What is it that Trump doesn't like about the deal?  

 

Probably the fact that  the "deal" eventually legitimatizes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. It also removes most of the leverage that might have made them honor the agreement they made not to EVER development noclear weapons.

The West got very little out of this "deal" even if they actually honor it (and they won't). Iran got tons of cash, sanctions reduced drastically and a road to a nuclear program that is authorized by he rest of the world.

The worst "deal" of all time.

. 

[Rhys]

....just what he wanted to think with his head...

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Probably the fact that  the "deal" eventually legitimatizes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. It also removes most of the leverage that might have made them honor the agreement they made not to EVER development noclear weapons.

The West got very little out of this "deal" even if they actually honor it (and they won't). Iran got tons of cash, sanctions reduced drastically and a road to a nuclear program that is authorized by he rest of the world.

The worst "deal" of all time.

. 

"Without the deal, Iran might be two to three months away from getting a nuclear bomb. With the deal, Iran commits to not pursuing nuclear weapons overall and faces obstacles if it seeks to break its commitment and pursue a nuclear weapon.

Under the deal, Iran will lose 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to a level unsuitable for weapons for 15 years.

The deal also curbs Iranian production of plutonium, the other element that can be used to build a bomb. The deal bans plutonium reactors for 15 years and stipulates that Iran must dismantle its current one."    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/08/politifact-sheet-6-things-know-about-iran-nuclear-/

 

Add to this that Russia were violating the sanctions, the Iranian Republican Guard was getting richer and stronger by running the sanction evading smuggling, and other countries that were honoring the sanctions were looking for an excuse to end them.  In short, the sanctions were not going to hold up forever, and they were strengthening the extreme elements or Iran's government.

 

People assume that once the sanctions were in place they were easy to keep there.  They weren't.  Trump, after p***ing off our allies, won't get them back.  What is his alternative--invasion or encouraging Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons?