Tag Archives: Iran

Haley: Trump "has grounds" to say Iran violating nuclear deal

Source: Politico

"Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador says the president 'has grounds' to declare that Iran is not complying with the 2015 nuclear deal, stoking doubts about whether Trump intends to keep an international agreement and core legacy achievement for former President Barack Obama. Nikki Haley, speaking Tuesday in Washington, said she did not know what Trump plans to do next month when he is due to certify to Congress whether Tehran is complying with the agreement. But she appeared to lay the groundwork for Trump to declare that Iran is in violation of the deal. Haley stressed that such 'de-certification' does not invalidate the nuclear deal or constitute a U.S. withdrawal. But it would likely enrage Iran and rattle U.S. allies in Europe and beyond who fear that Trump wants to unravel the agreement without actually declaring that the U.S. will no longer honor it." [editor's note: In addition to Iran, six other nations are signatory to the deal, and they aren't likely to drop it – TLK] (09/05/17)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/trump-iran-violate-nuclear-deal-nikki-haley-242331

Iran, again

Source: LewRockwell.com
by Philip Giraldi

"Israel has two strong motives to begin a war with Iran, one political and the other ostensibly linked to national security. Ironically, however, it also knows, and has even admitted, that Iran does not actually pose any threat against a nuclear armed Israel that has complete air superiority over any or even all of its neighbors. The often-cited land bridge threat is also a bit of a chimera, as whether it could potentially exist or not depends on effective interaction with Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, all of which have their own political dynamics and are somewhat wary of Iranian involvement. If there is any actual threat against Israel it comes from Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is an independent player even though it has strong ties to Tehran, but even in that case the threat is not as serious as fear-mongering government leaders have claimed." (08/30/17)

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/phil-giraldi/next-ginned-war-aggression/

Qatar: Regime sending ambassador back to Iran, ignoring other Arab regimes' demands

Source: US News & World Report

"Qatar restored full diplomatic relations with Iran early on Thursday and promised to send its ambassador back to Tehran — a move counter to the demands of Arab nations trying to isolate Doha as part of a regional dispute. In announcing its decision, Qatar made no mention of the diplomatic crisis roiling Gulf Arab nations since June, when Doha found its land, sea and air routes cut off by the four Arab states. Iran, which welcomed Doha's decision, has sent food to Qatar and allowed its airplanes to increasingly use the Islamic Republic's airspace. … Perhaps not unrelated, the move comes just days after Saudi Arabia began promoting a Qatari royal family member whose branch of the family was ousted in a palace coup in 1972." (08/24/17)

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-23/qatar-restores-diplomatic-ties-to-iran-amid-regional-crisis

Cyberwar on Iran won't work. Here's why.

Source: Cato Institute
by John Glaser

"The Trump administration has limited options on its Iran policy outside of the JCPOA. Whether or not the president makes good on his threats to effectively abrogate the deal, one thing is for sure: a renewed covert cyber war is unlikely to produce any benefits worth the trouble." (08/21/17)

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cyberwar-iran-wont-work-heres-why

Rouhani: Iran could quit nuclear deal "within hours" if US keeps violating it

Source: US News & World Report

"Iran could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers 'within hours' if the United States imposes any more new sanctions, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday. 'If America wants to go back to the experience (of imposing sanctions), Iran would certainly return in a short time — not a week or a month but within hours — to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations,' Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television. Iran says new sanctions that the United States has imposed on it breach the agreement it reached in 2015 with the United States, Russia, China and three European powers in which it agreed to curb its nuclear work in return for the lifting of most sanctions." (08/15/17)

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-15/iran-could-quit-nuclear-deal-in-hours-if-new-us-sanctions-imposed-rouhani

Iran: Parliament votes to increase spending on missile program

Source: United Press International

"Iran's parliament has voted to funnel more funds to the nation's ballistic missile program. During Sunday's voting session, 240 out of 244 legislators approved the missile spending bill. This legislation was described as an effort to 'counter America's terrorist and adventurist actions in the region' and heralded as a justified response to new sanctions adopted by the United States earlier this summer." (08/13/17)

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/08/13/Irans-parliament-votes-to-increase-spending-on-missile-program/3691502625880/

Iran: Regime say new US sanctions violate nuclear deal, vows "proportional reaction"

CNBC

Source: CNBC

"Iran said new sanctions imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday break the terms of its nuclear deal with the United States and other world powers, and vowed an 'appropriate and proportional' response. Trump, who during his election campaign called the nuclear agreement — negotiated under his predecessor Barack Obama — 'the worst deal ever,' signed the new sanctions into law along with measures against Russia and North Korea." (08/03/17)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/iran-says-new-us-sanctions-violate-nuclear-deal-vows-proportional-reaction.html

North Korea or Iran … where will President Trump attack first?

Source: Campaign For Liberty
by Ron Paul

"President Trump seems to be impatiently racing toward at least one disastrous war. Maybe two. The big question is who will be first? North Korea or Iran? Over the past several days President Trump has sent two nuclear-capable B-1 bombers over the Korean peninsula to send a clear message that he is ready to attack North Korea. … Twice in the past week the US military has fired at Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. On Tuesday an Iranian military ship in the Persian Gulf was warned off by machine gun blasts from a US Naval vessel. Then on Friday the US Navy fired warning flares toward another Iranian ship operating in the Persian Gulf. Imagine if the US Navy had encountered Iranian warships in the Gulf of Mexico firing machine guns at them when they approached the Iranians." (07/31/17)

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/north-korea-iranwhere-will-president-trump-attack-first

Trump's Iran obsession and the nuclear deal

Source: The American Conservative
by Daniel Larison

"Trump is looking for a way to ignore reality on the nuclear deal: 'After a contentious meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, President Donald Trump instructed a group of trusted White House staffers to make the potential case for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal. The goal was to give Trump what he felt the State Department had failed to do: the option to declare that Tehran was not in compliance with the contentious agreement.' The State Department couldn’t honestly give Trump the “option” he wanted because there is no proof that Iran isn’t complying with the terms of the agreement. When all other parties to the deal and the IAEA agree that the deal is working as intended, it isn’t credible to assert that Iran isn’t complying without simply making things up. Trump wants his advisers in the White House to do just that." (07/22/17)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trumps-iran-obsession-and-the-nuclear-deal/

Our inept Iran hawks

Source: The American Conservative
by Daniel Larison

"TAC and other antiwar conservatives and libertarians were warning about removing a bulwark to Iranian power in the region before the invasion, and we continued pointing out the gains Iran had made in the years that followed. The process of 'handing over' the country to Iran’s orbit was already happening while the U.S. was occupying Iraq with more than 150,000 troops, so it is hardly a new development and it would not have been prevented or undone by keeping 10,000 soldiers there. The prospect of Iranian power wasn’t our principal objection to the war, nor was it the most important, but opponents of the Iraq war could see very clearly before and after it happened that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would benefit Iran’s government. Supporters of the invasion deluded themselves (or lied) when they argued that toppling the Iraqi government would undermine other authoritarian regimes in the region, including Iran’s, and they failed to anticipate one of the most easily foreseeable results of the war they backed." (07/17/17)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/our-inept-iran-hawks/