Tillerson accuses Iran of 'alarming provocations' as U.S. reviews policy

[webfact]

Tillerson accuses Iran of 'alarming provocations' as U.S. reviews policy

By Lesley Wroughton

REUTERS

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attends a news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov following their talks in Moscow, Russia, April 12, 2017. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Wednesday accused Iran of 'alarming ongoing provocations' to destabilise countries in the Middle East as the Trump administration launched a review of its policy towards Tehran.

 

Tillerson told reporters the review, which he announced on Tuesday, would not only look at Tehran's compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal but also its behaviour in the region which he said undermined U.S. interests in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.

 

His tough words matched those of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who said in a visit to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that Iran's destabilising influence would have to be overcome to end the conflict in Yemen.

 

President Donald Trump ordered the review to evaluate whether suspension of sanctions related to the nuclear deal was "vital to the national security interests of the United States," Tillerson said.

 

Though there was no sign the Trump administration intended to walk away from the deal, Tillerson twice cautioned that if left unchecked Tehran could become a threat like North Korea, which is also under pressure over its nuclear ambitions.

 

In a letter to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan released late on Tuesday, Tillerson declared that Iran was meeting its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal but there were concerns about Tehran's role as a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

"A comprehensive Iran policy requires we address all of the threats posed by Iran and it is clear there are many," Tillerson told reporters at the State Department.

 

Tillerson said the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers failed "to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran and only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state."

 

"FAILED APPROACH"

 

Iran has yet to comment on the Trump administration's review, but Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned in November that Tehran would retaliate if the United States breached the nuclear agreement.

 

Tillerson said one of the mistakes in the way the agreement was put together was that it ignored all the other serious threats Iran posed outside of its nuclear programme.

 

"That is why we have to look at Iran in a very comprehensive way in terms of the threat it poses in all areas of the region and the world," he added.

 

"This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat we face from North Korea," Tillerson said of the nuclear deal.

 

The nuclear agreement, negotiated during Barack Obama's presidency, placed limitations on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against Iran.

 

Tillerson's notice to Congress was part of a 90-day process in which the president has to certify that Iran is complying with the nuclear accord. It is the first update under the Trump administration.

 

The next test of Trump's attitude towards the nuclear deal will be in May when he must decide whether to extend sanctions waivers for Iran first signed by President Barack Obama.

 

During his presidential campaign, Trump called the agreement "the worst deal ever negotiated" and said he would review it once he reached office.

 

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, said last month after meetings with senior Trump administration officials she was reassured in the talks that the U.S. was committed to fully implementing the deal.

 

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Doina Chiacu and David Alexander and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Andrew Hay)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-20

[Cats4ever]

I am not an apologist fro Iran (clerical control & what goes with it). Nevertheless there is a presidential election looming, with a moderate versus a religious conservative. For all the word parsers out there (Hi JT), I realise the terms are flexible. It might be wise for the US to cool the judgements for a while, unless something really calls for action. I think a moderate is a better choice than Ahmadinejad returning.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes indeed. While everyone is wobbling on about a gas attack that may or may not have been ordered by Assad, Iran is doing what it has done since the revolution, attacking the west by devious means. Been an excellent magician's trick and been working really well, so far.

42 minutes ago, Cats4ever said:

I am not an apologist fro Iran (clerical control & what goes with it). Nevertheless there is a presidential election looming, with a moderate versus a religious conservative. For all the word parsers out there (Hi JT), I realise the terms are flexible. It might be wise for the US to cool the judgements for a while, unless something really calls for action. I think a moderate is a better choice than Ahmadinejad returning.

I doubt it makes a monkey's who wins the election. The clerics hold the power in Iran. The president is, IMO, little more than a sop to the masses.

[anon4546543]

I remember when George W declared Nth Korea, Iraq and Iran to be an "axis of evil". Then went on to invade Iraq and totally stuffed up that war which still continues. 

Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant, if you go to war you must have a plan which includes an objective, an achievable outcome and a time table to withdraw after the objective has been secured. Some former army types may remember SMEAC, a low level plan of attack which is so effective. 

My issue here is that the US and other allies are engaged in warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Syria. To open or threaten more fronts in Nth Korea and Iran seems to be extending the fronts to a totally unsustainable level. Considering that the efforts in Afghanistan are already lost (the Taliban now controls more than 60% of the country), the "war" in Iraq and Syria is mostly crawling along at snail pace with the Kurds doing the hard yards. To open new hostilities in Nth Korea and Iran seems a bit silly. Should the Iranians cease to co operate against the Sunni ISIS forces and attack US and allies in Iraq, the whole of George W war and the countless lives lost there would be seen as even more stupid and another US war lost. As a last resort on foreign policy, these wars that the US is losing is mounting up. And yet US is threatening to open up new fronts. Can't understand the logic.