Air con experts

[webfact]

U.S. to issue new Iran sanctions, leading edge of get-tough strategy - sources

By Arshad Mohammed, Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle

REUTERS

 

Iranian-made missiles are pictured at Holy Defence Museum in Tehran September 23, 2015. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi/TIMA

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is poised to impose new sanctions on multiple Iranian entities, seeking to ratchet up pressure on Tehran while crafting a broader strategy to counter what he sees as its destabilising behaviour, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

 

In the first tangible action against Iran since Trump took office on Jan. 20, the administration, on the same day he insisted that “nothing is off the table,” prepared to roll out new measures against more than two dozen Iranian targets, the sources said. The announcement is expected as early as Friday, they said.

 

The new sanctions, which are being taken under existing executive orders covering terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, may mark the leading edge of a more aggressive policy against Iran that Trump promised during the 2016 presidential campaign, the sources, who had knowledge of the administration's plans, said.

 

But the package, targeting both entities and individuals, was formulated in a way that would not violate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, they added.

 

The sources said the new sanctions had been in the works for some time and that Iran's decision to test-fire a ballistic missile on Sunday had helped trigger Trump's decision to impose them, although Washington has not accused Iran of violating the nuclear deal.

 

The White House signalled a tougher stance toward Iran on Wednesday when Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser, said he was putting Iran "on notice" after the missile test and senior U.S. officials said the administration was reviewing how to respond.

 

A top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said his country would not yield to "useless" U.S. threats from "an inexperienced person" over its ballistic missile program. The adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati did not identify a specific U.S. official in his comments.

 

The impact of the new round of sanctions will be more symbolic than practical, especially as the move does not affect the lifting of broader U.S. and international sanctions that took place under the nuclear deal. Also, few of the Iranian entities being targeted are likely to have U.S. assets that can be frozen, and U.S. companies, with few exceptions, are barred from doing business with Iran.

 

But the administration is working with congressional staffers and outside experts on a still-evolving comprehensive plan aimed at hitting as many of Iran’s pressure points as possible, including its already restricted nuclear program, its missile development and its support of militant groups in the region.

 

Though development of the new approach is in its early stages, options under consideration include exercising “zero tolerance” for even the most minor Iranian violations of the nuclear deal and officially designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, the sources said.

 

“Michael Flynn did not put Iran on notice as mere empty words,” said Mark Dubowitz, an Iran sanctions expert and head of the conservative Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies who is advising the Trump administration and lawmakers.

 

"Iran's continued missile and terrorism activities will lead to dozens of new U.S. designations and tough new congressional sanctions. This is merely the beginning of what Flynn meant.”

 

"NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE"

 

Trump’s declaration that nothing has been ruled out in response to Iran appears to leave open the possibility of military action, though experts say both sides will take care to avoid armed confrontation in the oil-rich Gulf. Still, the U.S. threats of reprisals, coupled with Iran’s defiant reaction, could dangerously ratchet up tensions between the two countries.

 

Every recent U.S. president, including Democratic predecessor Obama, has said that U.S. military options were not off the table to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But Trump and some of his aides have gone much further in their rhetoric, especially in criticizing the Iran deal as weak, ineffective and in need of renegotiation.

 

Iran’s continued missile testing has been a source of controversy.

 

In the latest move, one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said about eight Iranian entities were to be sanctioned, or "designated" in U.S. legal jargon, for terrorism-related activities and about 17 for ballistic missile-related activities under separate existing U.S. executive orders. The source declined to name the entities, which were targeted under executive orders signed by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2005.

 

Sanctions designations can lead to asset freezes, travel bans and other penalties.

 

The White House declined comment.

 

A U.S. State Department official, asked for comment, replied: “As standard policy, we do not preview sanction decisions before they are announced.”

 

Leading a chorus of Republican calls for new sanctions, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, said the United States should stop "appeasing" Tehran.

 

"I would be in favour of additional sanctions on Iran," Ryan told reporters at a weekly news conference. "I’d like to put as much toothpaste back in the tube as possible. I think the last administration appeased Iran far too much."

 

Like every Republican in Congress, Ryan opposed the nuclear agreement with Iran that went into effect early last year. But Republican lawmakers said they were working with the Trump administration to push back on Iran as much as possible without risking the international uncertainty that would come with tearing up the pact.

 

"Now we have a partner that's willing to deal with Iran in the way that Iran should be dealt with. ... And so we're in a real different ball game," Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters.

 

Corker said his committee was "in the early stages" of working on legislation related to the nuclear issue.

 

Trump's administration has already begun looking at actions it could take without waiting for Congress, where Republicans would have to win some Democratic support to pass any new sanctions package, congressional aides said.

 

For example, Trump could impose sanctions already authorized by existing laws, but which were not put into effect by the Obama administration.

 

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay; Writing by Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-03

[alanrchase]

I think Trump wants an excuse to use military force against Iran. They have claimed an attack on a Saudi ship could have been meant for a US ship. Trump's tweets are slowly building a case for it. The US can attack from a safe distance. This would probably set off escalating hostilities in the region. This would probably shut down the Strait of Hormuz taking 10 million plus barrels of oil off the world market. Price of oil rises, US ups production and starts exporting. Exonn get to develop their Russian investment.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[PremiumLane]

27 minutes ago, webfact said:

to counter what he sees as its destabilising behaviour,

bit rich coming from the country that started an illegal war in Iraq

[otherstuff1957]

Trump controls the most powerful military in the world. 

 

Do you really think that he can refrain from using it?

 

It could be the ultimate toy for a man like him.  He is already far too reckless and impulsive to be a good president. 

 

What will he be like once he gets a taste of his ability to strike down his enemies anywhere in the world?  Just imagine him launching a cruise missile instead of a twitter.

 

I have no confidence in Flynn being able to or even wanting to restrain him.  I just hope that Mattis can have the common sense and conscience needed to hold him back.

 

[Andaman Al]

53 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

I think Trump wants an excuse to use military force against Iran. They have claimed an attack on a Saudi ship could have been meant for a US ship. Trump's tweets are slowly building a case for it. The US can attack from a safe distance. This would probably set off escalating hostilities in the region. This would probably shut down the Strait of Hormuz taking 10 million plus barrels of oil off the world market. Price of oil rises, US ups production and starts exporting. Exonn get to develop their Russian investment.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

And the 19% shares in the Russian Oil company that Putin offered Trump will become much more valuable !!

[daveAustin]

Along with being bosom buddies with Iran's other arch enemy Israel, reckon that's a part of it, wanting to make use of the military. Didn't he say something along the lines of it's a waste to have all those nukes just sat there? There was also all that carry-on with Iran not letting inspectors into those 'hot' test areas. There's a huge amount we don't know going on behind the scenes.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[craigt3365]

And yet violence is flaring in Ukraine due to the Russian backed separatists, and Trump's said nothing.  Who would have thought? LOL

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/global-alarm-over-ukraine-fighting-death-toll-hits-104743721.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

 

[Grouse]

The USA encouraged and then supported the Iraq invasion of Iran  in the early 80s. 

 

In fact they should develop Iran as a bulwark against Russian imperialism and to counterbalance Saudi Arabian Wahhabism 

[Emster23]

Amen to Craig on that point. Nary a peep, not even on the radar. Trump is treating world situation like an inept stage magician, pulling rabbits out of hats, using misdirection. Sooner or later this sham will collapse, and I dread the consequences and fallout

[Thaidream]

It apears  the neo cons who are behind Trump are itching for a fight with Iran. In adition, Israel would love to see a US military strike. Obama was a force of reason going out of his way to avoid a confrontation with the Iranians. A full scale war with Iran would be very costly in human lives and economic fallout. Iran has some real power behind it and will not roll over not to mention the religious fanatics who will see it as an attack on Islam. Trump's continuous bellicose demeanor is not helping at all.

Within the last week he has indicated he would send US forces to Mexico and publically scolded the Australian Prime Minister. These are American allies. I am starting to believe the greatest danger to  America is Trump.

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

broader strategy to counter what he sees as its destabilising behaviour,

Yes I am sure he is an expert on this. 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

It apears  the neo cons who are behind Trump are itching for a fight with Iran. In adition, Israel would love to see a US military strike. Obama was a force of reason going out of his way to avoid a confrontation with the Iranians. A full scale war with Iran would be very costly in human lives and economic fallout. Iran has some real power behind it and will not roll over not to mention the religious fanatics who will see it as an attack on Islam. Trump's continuous bellicose demeanor is not helping at all.

Within the last week he has indicated he would send US forces to Mexico and publically scolded the Australian Prime Minister. These are American allies. I am starting to believe the greatest danger to  America is Trump.

Neocons are not for trump. Alt-right meme trolls are. Not the same groups.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-neocons-vs-donald-trump.html?_r=0

 

Alt-right icon Bannon, clearly the most important ideological force behind trump (as trump has no history of any core ideological values as he's a man baby with no attention span) is BANNON. Bannon is nothing like a neo-con! Neo-fascist, yes, white supremacist yes, neo-con, NO. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Jingthing

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

he sees as its destabilising behaviour

Trump needs to strike a balanced and pragmatic relationship with Iran.

Iran has been aiding Iraq and its allies (primarily Russia) in the fight against ISIL.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/tehran-fighting-isil-150217115848388.html

Losing a general in the process. No American general has died in the ISIL conflict.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-iranian-general-killed-by-sniper-bullet-in-embattled-iraqi-city-2014-12

 

Foreign policies are not self-contained series of business deals. One strategy by and of itself may seem justified but in a broader picture of foreign relations might nuetralize or roll-back other policies affecting multitude of partners not directly involved in the policy. While Iran has been having a destabilizing affect on the M.E., the region is in its geographical sphere of foreign policy much more than the US. And Iran has changed its decades military behavior towards Iraq that has brought a peaceful lull between the two countries. Iran is a trade and security partner with Russia (allowed Russian war planes to use Iran to launch missions against ISIL in Syria) and so may have some dialogwith Russia that can be to US's advantage.

 

[dunroaming]

Once again Trump showing he hasn't a clue!

 

His first attempt at an attack against Al-Qaeda  was a complete disaster so how on earth does he think he can frighten Iran.

 

Step by step.

10.00pm

Surveillance drones over Yakla alert Jihadists to imminent attack

1.30am

2 Osprey aircraft take off from USS Makin carrying 24 US Navy Seals and 12 UAE Commandos

2.00am

Ospreys land 5 miles from target.

2.30am

Seals arrive and kill 3 Al-Qaeda leaders, 11 fighters and 23 civilians including children

Under heavy fire the Seals call for support from attack helicopters and harriers.

The 2 Ospreys head to rescue the Seals, by now one dead and three injured.

One aircraft crash lands injuring 3 of the crew. Seals grab laptops and escape on the other Osprey.

The crashed Osprey is destroyed by a bomb from the US harrier

 

I can hear the Iranians laughing from here.

[Trouble]

14 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Amen to Craig on that point. Nary a peep, not even on the radar. Trump is treating world situation like an inept stage magician, pulling rabbits out of hats, using misdirection. Sooner or later this sham will collapse, and I dread the consequences and fallout

Is it solely up to the USA to do something about every hot spot in the world. What is the EU doing about the problem in the Ukraine?  Iran launches a ballistic missile and a warning given and he is at fault for saying nothing about the Ukraine.  If the EU had more balls it could be taking the lead sometimes.  I want to know if the ballistic missile test is or is not a violation of the UN resolution and the deal Europe and the US had with Iran.  Seems like one side says its a violation and the other not.  What are the facts?  No doubt in my mind that Obama made a bad deal.  Iran will eventually get a nuclear weapon and have the ballistic missile to send it flying off somewhere if they so desire.

[elliss]

15 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Trump controls the most powerful military in the world. 

 

Do you really think that he can refrain from using it?

 

ASAP ,  softy  and do gooders , have put us in the mess we are in today .

    Human rights , does not apply  to  Westerners .  Enough  is enough .

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, elliss said:

ASAP ,  softy  and do gooders , have put us in the mess we are in today .

    Human rights , does not apply  to  Westerners .  Enough  is enough .

Where first?  He certainly has a large choice as long as he doesn't have real estate there.

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, Trouble said:

Is it solely up to the USA to do something about every hot spot in the world. What is the EU doing about the problem in the Ukraine?  Iran launches a ballistic missile and a warning given and he is at fault for saying nothing about the Ukraine.  If the EU had more balls it could be taking the lead sometimes.  I want to know if the ballistic missile test is or is not a violation of the UN resolution and the deal Europe and the US had with Iran.  Seems like one side says its a violation and the other not.  What are the facts?  No doubt in my mind that Obama made a bad deal.  Iran will eventually get a nuclear weapon and have the ballistic missile to send it flying off somewhere if they so desire.

Trump feels it is solely up to him and although the rest of the republicans are trying to rein him in the madman is in full on lunatic mode!