.
the main event begins! nothing halfway! more than anyone else!
epa editor's choice 08 May 2018: #Protest #BurningBus #DanielOrtega #Managua #Nicaragua #epaphotos Photo epa-efe / Jorge Torres: image via epa photos @epaphotos, 8 May 2018
70
שנים להקמת צהל. עוד רגע מתחיל האירוע המרכזי. עד לרגע האחרון עוד מנקים
כסאות. ליברמן מצטלם עם הנספחים הצבאיים. ואלוף אחד. לא בדרגה - בהפלות.
גיורא אפשטיין ה"אייס" שהפיל 17 מטוסי אויב. יותר מכל אחד אחר.
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
תמונה מדהימה של ירי הנמ הסורי על מטוסי חיל האוויר. הושמדו סוללות SA-17, SA-22, SA-5 ו-SA-2 שירו לעבר המטוסים
Israeli tanks take position near the Syrian border in the Golan Heights on May 9, 2018.: photo by Jalaa Marey/AFP, 9 May 2018
Israeli tanks take position near the Syrian border in the Golan Heights on May 9, 2018.: photo by Jalaa Marey/AFP, 9 May 2018
Iranian forces fire rockets at Israeli military in first direct attack ever, Israel’s army says: Loveday Morris, The Washington Post, 9.54 PM 9 May 2018
TIBERIAS, Israel — Confrontation between Israel and Iranian forces in Syria sharply escalated early Thursday morning as Israel said Iran launched a barrage of 20 missiles toward its positions in the Golan Heights.
Heavy military jet activity, explosions and air-defense fire could be heard throughout the night in the area. An Israeli military spokesman said the rockets were fired by Iran’s Quds Force, a special forces unit affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, marking the first time Iranian forces have ever fired directly on Israeli troops.
The Israeli military said several of the rockets had been intercepted by Israel’s missile defense system, and sparks could be seen as they broke up in the sky.
No one was injured on the Israeli side, the military said.
The
Syrian state news agency, however, reported that it was Israel that had
fired on targets near the town of Quneitra, located just east of the
Golan Heights. Syrian air defenses had responded, it said. It later
reported a “new wave” of attacks.
The Israeli miliary said it “views this event with great severity and remains prepared for a wide variety of scenarios.”
Air-raid
sirens sounded in the Golan Heights shortly after midnight. In nearby
Tiberias, on the edge of the Sea of Galilee, explosions could be heard
above the music of bars entertaining busloads of tourists. The
explosions were followed by sporadic fire into the early morning hours.
With
Syria’s civil war raging just across the border, Israeli residents of
the Golan Heights have become used to the air-raid sirens and errant
fire. But recent days have been different, and war jitters have spread
across Israel.
On Wednesday, it had seemed like
business as usual on the Golan, a plateau that rises dramatically
behind the Sea of Galilee, captured from Syria by Israel in the 1967
war.
Children went to school and wineries welcomed groups of tourists.
But
Israel trucked in tanks and additional air defense batteries, and the
military chief of staff touched down in a helicopter to tour the area to
assess the army’s readiness.
On
Tuesday, an airstrike attributed to Israel reportedly killed eight
Iranian soldiers after Israel said it had detected unusual Iranian troop
movements across the border and had intelligence about a possible
attack from Syrian soil.
Iran had threatened
to retaliate against Israel after an airstrike in April that killed
seven Iranian soldiers at a base in Syria.
President
Trump’s decision on Tuesday to pull the United States out of the
nuclear deal with Iran has given Tehran less reason to exercise caution
in confronting Israel, analysts said.
“U.S.
withdrawal has accelerated the escalation between Israel and Iran,” said
Ofer Zalzberg, and analyst at International Crisis Group. “Iran faces
less restraint in terms of the timing for a retaliation,” he said,
adding that Iran probably had been waiting for the U.S. decision before
formulating its next move.
While Trump was in
Washington announcing the withdrawal, Golan residents were being told
Tuesday to open up their bomb shelters — the first time the army has
instructed them to do so during seven years of civil war in nearby
Syria.
At
Kibbutz Ein Zivan, a few miles from the Syrian border, David Spelman
had pulled up a text on his phone sent from the regional council just
minutes after Trump finished speaking. It instructed residents to be
“watchful and prepared.”
A populace with a
pioneering spirit, Golan residents seemed accustomed to being on the
fringe, close to Israel’s enemies. The Golan Heights was officially
annexed by Israel in 1981, but that action has not been internationally
recognized.
“You have different level of
worries, but people are pretty seasoned here,” said Spelman, a former
regional council member who has lived on the kibbutz since it was
established in 1968.
“There are certain points
of time that you have to face things head on, and Netanyahu is doing
it,” he said of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
“It’s
a really tense time,” said one regional council official, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to discuss preparations. “We are telling the
citizens to still have regular life; children are going to school. But
our job and the army’s job and people involved in security, it’s 24
hours. It’s something a little more this time.”
At
a winery on Ein Zivan, American tourists said Wednesday they were
unaware that the U.S. government had told its employees to stay away
from the Golan until the situation stabilizes.
“Seems like much ado about nothing,” one said after a tasting.
Amid
warnings of a potential attack, some 62 percent of Israelis think a war
is imminent, according to a poll commissioned Wednesday by Israel’s
Hadashot news channel.
“Iran will retaliate
through proxies, sooner or later, against Israeli military sites in the
north,” Gary Samore, a former White House coordinator for arms control
and weapons of mass destruction, said at a security conference in
Herzliya, Israel.
But he said that no side is
interested in a full-scale conflict, and there is debate in Iran over
how to proceed. He said Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wants to avoid
confrontation because he is trying to preserve the nuclear deal with
world powers. But Iranian military commanders want to retaliate for the
death of Iranian soldiers.
Rouhani said his
government remains committed to a nuclear deal with Europe, Russia and
China, despite the U.S. decision to withdraw, but is also ready to ramp
up uranium enrichment if the agreement no longer produces benefits.
Netanyahu
had been a leading advocate of a U.S. withdrawal, but his military
chiefs had been more cautious. He met with Russian President Vladimir
Putin Wednesday in Moscow. Russia, which is backing Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad’s forces alongside Iran, is seen as key in preventing
Iranian-Israeli tensions from escalating.
Israel,
determined not to let Iran expand its military presence in Syria, has
struck over the border at least 100 times during the war, extending its
targets from suspected arms convoys to Iranian-linked military bases.
“Iran
is not fully inside. It has not yet succeeded in building what it wants
to build there, and now is the time for Israel to push back,” said
Chagai Tzuriel, director general of Israel’s Intelligence Ministry.
Ruth Eglash in Herzliya, Israel, contributed to this report.
Iranian forces in Syria have fired about 20 rockets and missiles at Israeli army positions in the Golan Heights, IDF says: image via AFP news agency @AFP, 8 May 2018
Iranian lawmakers burn two pieces of papers representing the U.S. flag and the nuclear deal as they chant slogans against the U.S. at the parliament in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, May 9, 2018. Iranian lawmakers have set a paper U.S. flag ablaze at parliament after President Donald Trump’s nuclear deal pullout, shouting, “Death to America!“. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal on Tuesday and restored harsh sanctions against Iran.: photo by AP, 9 May 2018
Iranian parliament members burn two pieces of paper representing the US flag and the Iran nuclear agreement. They were reacting to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the agreement.: photo by AP, 9 May 2018
Iranian parliament members burned a paper US flag and a copy of the Iran nuclear agreement. They were reacting to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the agreement.: photo by AP, 9 May 2018
More loud booms, jet activity near Golan just now: tweet via Loveday Morris @LovedayM, 9 May 2018
Was hard to make out the sounds of the explosions over the blaring music from bars full of Russian tourists: tweet via Loveday Morris @LovedayM, 9 May 2018
It’s almost 3:30 A.M. and everyone in Damascus is wide awake.: tweet via Leigh Aboufadel @leithfadel, 9 May 2018
Can still hear sporadic fire over Golan from nearby Tiberias, after explosions earlier. IDF says 20 rockets fired by Iranian Quds Force towards its positions on Golan.: tweet via Loveday Morris @LovedayM, 9 May 2018
Major escalation this evening, near constant sound of explosions and jets for the past four hours: tweet via Loveday Morris @LovedayM, 9 May 2018
70 שנים להקמת צהל. עוד רגע מתחיל האירוע המרכזי. עד לרגע האחרון עוד מנקים כסאות. ליברמן מצטלם עם הנספחים הצבאיים. ואלוף אחד. לא בדרגה - בהפלות. גיורא אפשטיין ה"אייס" שהפיל 17 מטוסי אויב. יותר מכל אחד אחר.
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70
שנים להקמת צהל. עוד רגע מתחיל האירוע המרכזי. עד לרגע האחרון עוד מנקים
כסאות. ליברמן מצטלם עם הנספחים הצבאיים. ואלוף אחד. לא בדרגה - בהפלות.
גיורא אפשטיין ה"אייס" שהפיל 17 מטוסי אויב. יותר מכל אחד אחר.
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70
שנים להקמת צהל. עוד רגע מתחיל האירוע המרכזי. עד לרגע האחרון עוד מנקים
כסאות. ליברמן מצטלם עם הנספחים הצבאיים. ואלוף אחד. לא בדרגה - בהפלות.
גיורא אפשטיין ה"אייס" שהפיל 17 מטוסי אויב. יותר מכל אחד אחר.
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
70 years since the establishment of the IDF. In another moment the main event begins. Until the last minute, they are still cleaning chairs. Lieberman is photographed with the military attaché. And one champion - not in rank but in abortion. Giora Epstein, The "Ace" that shot down 17 enemy planes. More than anyone else.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
בלון תבערה. ניסיון חדש ממולא הליום וחפץ בוער קשור מתחתיו בחבל. הפעם פגע בשדות מפלסים
Molotov
cocktail. A new contraption filled with helium and a burning object
tied up at he end of a rope. This one landed in an empty field.: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
אימון
משותף לצבאות ארה"ב וירדן. לראשונה תירגלו 8000 חיילים התמודדות עם התקפה
כימית וביולוגית. מה הם יודעים שישראל לא. כאן הוחלט שאין יותר איום כימי
ולא
צריך לרענן ערכות מגן.
Joint training for the US and Jordanian armies. For the first time, 8,000 soldiers have been trained to deal with a chemical and biological attack. What do they kniow that Israel does not know already?: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
צריך לרענן ערכות מגן.
Joint training for the US and Jordanian armies. For the first time, 8,000 soldiers have been trained to deal with a chemical and biological attack. What do they kniow that Israel does not know already?: image via nir dvori @ndvori, 7 May 2018
Missile fire is seen from Damascus, after Israel responded to a rocket attack on the Golan Heights with strikes inside Syria.: photo by Omar Sanadiki/Reuters, 9 May 2018
Israel retaliates after Iran 'fires 20 rockets' at army in occupied Golan Heights: Israeli military says projectiles were launched from Syria: IDF says military was ‘moving’ against Iranian targets in Syria: Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem, The Guardian,
Arch-enemies Iran and Israel edged closer to all-out war on Thursday after Israel’s military said its positions in the Golan Heights were fired at with a barrage of Iranian rockets, prompting it to respond with extensive strikes targeting Tehran’s forces across Syria.
The attack, if confirmed, would mark the first time Iran has fired rockets in a direct strike on Israeli forces, dramatically ratcheting up what has for years been a conflict fought through proxies.
Several but not all of the Iranian rockets were intercepted by
Israeli defences, an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman, Lt Col
Jonathan Conricus, told reporters.
“At approximately 12.10, 10 minutes past midnight, forces belonging to the Iranian Quds Force fired approximately 20 projectiles – most of them are probably rockets but that is yet to be determined – towards the forward line of IDF positions in the Golan Heights,” he said.
“So far we are not aware of any casualties, any IDF casualties,” he said. A preliminary assessment found there was minimal damage, he added.
The occupied Golan Heights has been on high alert since Donald Trump confirmed he was pulling the US out of the Iran nuclear deal.
“The IDF views this Iranian attack very severely,” Conricus said. “This event is not over.”
The Syrian capital was shaken with explosions as jets flew overheard before dawn, with residents posting videos online of what appeared to be air defence missiles running bright streaks through the night sky and reporting loud sounds that rocked their buildings.
Syrian state media said its anti-air batteries were responding to a “new wave of Israeli missiles and is dropping them one by one”. However, it added, missiles struck radar, air defence positions and ammunition warehouses. Explosives fired from Israel also hit southern Syria’s Quneitra province, adjacent to the Golan Heights, it said. There were no reported casualties.
Iran did not immediately comment.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted an unidentified security official as saying Israel’s attacks inside Syria were the most extensive since the two nations signed a disengagement agreement after the October war of 1973.
Israel has warned it will not permit Tehran to establish a permanent military presence in Syria, accusing Iran of moving drones and missiles into its Arab neighbour. Iranian forces have been sent to aid the Syrian government in a devastating seven-year civil war against insurgents.
Donald Trump's move to exit the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran was welcomed by Israel but has stoked fears of a regional flare-up.
Just minutes before Trump was due to speak on Tuesday, the IDF said it had identified “irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria” and had decided to unlock and ready bomb shelters in the Golan, where it shares a frontier with Syria.
“Additionally, defence systems have been deployed and IDF troops are on high alert for an attack,” it said. “The IDF is prepared for various scenarios and warns that any aggression against Israel will be met with a severe response.”
Hours after Trump’s announcement, Syrian state media said that its air defences had brought down two Israeli missiles. The Syrian Observatory monitoring group, which tracks the conflict, said that attack killed 15 people, including eight Iranians. Israel did not comment on the strikes.
In February, Israel said it had downed an armed Iranian drone that penetrated its airspace. Since then Israel’s air force is believed to have struck Iranian targets operating in Syria several times, including a 9 April strike on the country's largest airbase, killing seven Iranians. Tehran has vowed revenge.
The Quds Force is an external arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Israel’s intelligence community said was tasked with a retaliatory attack.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the biggest critics of the Iran deal and close Trump ally, told his cabinet on Sunday he was “determined to block Iran’s aggression against us even if this means a struggle”.
“Better now than later,” he said. “We do not want escalation but we are prepared for any scenario.”
Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, are due to arrive in Israel in the next few days for the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem. The US president’s decision in December to recognise the city as Israel's capital has infuriated Palestinians and reverberated across the region.
The occupied Golan Heights is a plateau captured from Syria in 1967 by Israel in a move not recognised by the international community.
“At approximately 12.10, 10 minutes past midnight, forces belonging to the Iranian Quds Force fired approximately 20 projectiles – most of them are probably rockets but that is yet to be determined – towards the forward line of IDF positions in the Golan Heights,” he said.
“So far we are not aware of any casualties, any IDF casualties,” he said. A preliminary assessment found there was minimal damage, he added.
The occupied Golan Heights has been on high alert since Donald Trump confirmed he was pulling the US out of the Iran nuclear deal.
“The IDF views this Iranian attack very severely,” Conricus said. “This event is not over.”
In the early hours of Thursday morning, the IDF’s Arabic-language
Twitter account said its military was “moving” against Iranian targets
in Syria and warned Damascus not to intervene.
The Syrian capital was shaken with explosions as jets flew overheard before dawn, with residents posting videos online of what appeared to be air defence missiles running bright streaks through the night sky and reporting loud sounds that rocked their buildings.
Syrian state media said its anti-air batteries were responding to a “new wave of Israeli missiles and is dropping them one by one”. However, it added, missiles struck radar, air defence positions and ammunition warehouses. Explosives fired from Israel also hit southern Syria’s Quneitra province, adjacent to the Golan Heights, it said. There were no reported casualties.
Iran did not immediately comment.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted an unidentified security official as saying Israel’s attacks inside Syria were the most extensive since the two nations signed a disengagement agreement after the October war of 1973.
Israel has warned it will not permit Tehran to establish a permanent military presence in Syria, accusing Iran of moving drones and missiles into its Arab neighbour. Iranian forces have been sent to aid the Syrian government in a devastating seven-year civil war against insurgents.
Donald Trump's move to exit the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran was welcomed by Israel but has stoked fears of a regional flare-up.
Just minutes before Trump was due to speak on Tuesday, the IDF said it had identified “irregular activity of Iranian forces in Syria” and had decided to unlock and ready bomb shelters in the Golan, where it shares a frontier with Syria.
“Additionally, defence systems have been deployed and IDF troops are on high alert for an attack,” it said. “The IDF is prepared for various scenarios and warns that any aggression against Israel will be met with a severe response.”
Hours after Trump’s announcement, Syrian state media said that its air defences had brought down two Israeli missiles. The Syrian Observatory monitoring group, which tracks the conflict, said that attack killed 15 people, including eight Iranians. Israel did not comment on the strikes.
In February, Israel said it had downed an armed Iranian drone that penetrated its airspace. Since then Israel’s air force is believed to have struck Iranian targets operating in Syria several times, including a 9 April strike on the country's largest airbase, killing seven Iranians. Tehran has vowed revenge.
The Quds Force is an external arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Israel’s intelligence community said was tasked with a retaliatory attack.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the biggest critics of the Iran deal and close Trump ally, told his cabinet on Sunday he was “determined to block Iran’s aggression against us even if this means a struggle”.
“Better now than later,” he said. “We do not want escalation but we are prepared for any scenario.”
Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, are due to arrive in Israel in the next few days for the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem. The US president’s decision in December to recognise the city as Israel's capital has infuriated Palestinians and reverberated across the region.
The occupied Golan Heights is a plateau captured from Syria in 1967 by Israel in a move not recognised by the international community.
#UPDATE Israel
says it has hit dozens of Iranian military targets in Syria, including
the origin of a rocket attack on the Israeli army in the Golan Heights @AFP
map locating reported air strikes on May 10: image via AFP news agency @AFP, 9 May 2018
Trump speaks about the Iran nuclear deal at the White House.: photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters, 9 May 2018
Iran deal: how Trump's actions could flare violence in Middle East: US president’s decision to break with the Iran nuclear deal increases
tensions in a region already mired in myriad interwoven conflicts: Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem, The Guardian,
Within 24 hours of Donald Trump’s announcement that the US was exiting the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal,
both Damascus and Riyadh experienced missile attacks. Military analysts
have warned that by leaving the agreement, the US move could serve to
isolate Tehran at a time when it is engaged in multiple conflicts across
the Middle East.
Israel, which captured a plateau from Syria in 1967, placed troops in the area on high alert on Tuesday in light of fears it may be targeted by Iranian forces operating across the frontier. Syria’s largest airbase, T-4, is believed to be the focus of Iran’s drone presence in its Arab neighbour. Idlib has seen an increase in bloodshed as Syrian and Russian jets have bombed rebel-held positions. A Saudi-led coalition is fighting the Iran-allied Houthi movement in Yemen, morphing the deadly civil conflict into a regional proxy war.
Here are the key players in the region, their objectives and the hotspots where violence could flare.
Iran
Iran has been accused by its enemies of attempting to create a
crescent of influence stretching from its border to the Mediterranean,
through allies in Iraq,
Syria and into Lebanon where its proxy, Hezbollah, has consolidated
power. Early in Syria’s devastating seven-year civil war, Shia Iran sent
tactical advisers to support president Bashar al-Assad. Since then,
Tehran has entrenched its military in the country, deploying drone
operators and fighters from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. In
February, Israel said it downed an armed Iranian drone that penetrated
its airspace.
Israel
Israel’s prime minister has been one of the most vociferous critics
of the Iran deal and has even been credited with helping convince US
president Trump to pull out, using simple, theatrical presentations.
Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of an impending war with Iran, accusing
his arch-nemesis of attempting to establish a permanent military
foothold in Syria. But, while repeatedly warning of Iranian plots to
attack, it is Israel that appears to have led the charge with several
reported strikes on Tehran’s forces in Syria this year. Shortly after
Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Iran deal on Tuesday,
Syria state media said air defences had downed two Israeli missiles.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is locked into several proxy wars across the Middle East with Iran, which for a long time were centred in Syria, where the region’s two most powerful states have exploited sectarian Sunni-Shia Muslim splits. In 2015, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia and an alliance of Muslim states intervened in Yemen’s civil war. Last year, Iran-backed Houthi militants began firing missiles at Riyadh, bringing the fight to the kingdom’s capital, with the latest salvo launched on Wednesday. As part of its anti-Iran push, the Saudi leadership has welcomed Trump’s move to reimpose sanctions on Iran. Iran.Syria
The Syrian civil war has torn up the country as world powers have
moved to support opposing factions fighting for control. In its campaign
to push back what it sees as Saudi influence, Iran has established
itself as a key player in the war, mostly operating through pro-Assad
militia spread across the battered state. Israel says Iran has recruited tens of thousands of Shia fighters in Syria.
Lebanon
The Lebanese militant and political group Hezbollah has long been the
tool used by its patron Iran to push its agenda far from its borders.
Israel and Hezbollah fought a month-long war in 2006 and Israeli defence
officials have warned that Iran is delivering missiles and rockets to
the group via a land route with Syria.
Yemen
Saudi Arabia and its adversaries in Yemen’s armed Houthi movement are
fighting a three-year war that has unleashed one of the world’s worst
humanitarian crises. A Riyadh-led coalition, supported by the US and
Britain, has launched airstrikes that have killed scores of civilians.
Iran does not acknowledge its direct military involvement in Yemen,
but is widely believed to be supporting the Houthis. On Wednesday,
Saudi Arabia said Houthi rebels fired a salvo of ballistic missiles at
Riyadh that were intercepted over the capital city.
Iraq
By arming and training thousands of Shia militants in Iraq, Tehran
has sought to push back Islamic State fighters who seized much of the
war-torn country in 2014. These factions remain armed and powerful in Iraq, while Tehran seeks to bolster the country’s fragile government.
Turkey
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan
said the US would “lose in the end” for withdrawing from the landmark
2015 Iran nuclear agreement and warned that the move could create “new
crises in the region”. Turkish-US relations have already been strained
over US assistance to Kurdish militia within Syria that Ankara is
fighting. A spokesman for Erdoğan warned shortly after Trump’s
announcement that the US president’s actions would “cause instability
and new conflicts”.
Qatar
Isolated in the Gulf, Qatar has clashed with other Arab states. Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt imposed an economic and diplomatic
boycott on the small, rich nation last year, accusing it of supporting
Islamist militants and aligning itself with Iran. Qatar denies the accusations but relations with its neighbours remain tense, and it has restored diplomatic links with Tehran.
On Tuesday, the leaders of the three European governments issued a joint statement saying they “regret” the American decision and vowed to continue to abide by the agreement.
Big story, big font. Iran deal palace intrigue from me and @PhilipRucker: image via John Hudson @John_Hudson, 9 May 2018
Why Trump torpedoed Obama’s Iran deal: John Hudson and Philip Rucker, The Washington Post, 9 May 2018
The
lobbying campaign to save the Iran nuclear agreement was intense and
took months. British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the deal with
President Trump in more than a dozen phone calls. French President
Emmanuel Macron pressed him on it during an elaborate state visit. So
did German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a one-day work trip in April. And
the Europeans made a Hail Mary pass Monday in the form of a White House
visit by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
But
for Trump, the decision to torpedo one of President Barack Obama’s
signature foreign policy achievements had effectively been made last
October, when he declared that Iran was not in compliance with the deal
and called on European allies to negotiate better terms.
The
foundation was laid even earlier, in fact, as Trump declared the Iran
accord one of the “worst” deals in U.S. history at his campaign rallies —
even mocking its architect, former secretary of state John F. Kerry, as
weak for having fallen off his bicycle during a visit to Geneva for negotiations.
For
Trump’s longtime advisers, the only surprise in Tuesday’s announcement
shredding the Iran deal was that it took the president 15 months to
make.
“The administration just said, ‘Okay,
we’ve been telling you all through the campaign and the last year and a
half this is where we are, and guess what? This is where we are,’ ” said
former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally.
This
isn’t the first time Trump has had to decide whether to continue to
waive sanctions against Iran. The first two times, his State Department —
then led by Rex Tillerson — advocated waiving the sanctions to provide
European allies time to address the United States’ concerns about the
agreement and work on fixes.
The second time, Trump, as well as
Vice President Pence, expressed skepticism but were persuaded by the
secretary of state to give the Europeans more time. In the
administration’s private talks, officials said, Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis agreed with Tillerson to explore the possibility of a
supplemental agreement that would extend the deal’s restrictions and
curb Iran’s ballistic missile activity and nuclear fuel production.
The
president’s aides argued Tuesday that Trump gave U.S. allies more than
enough time to come up with terms he would find satisfactory, but many
Europeans privately said that is disingenuous because the president has
long said he intended to rip up the deal.
“He
didn’t get out of the deal until now because he gave repeated
opportunities to try to fix the deal,” White House national security
adviser John Bolton told reporters Tuesday. “The president wanted to let
all the efforts go forward, and he did, right up until just a few days
before the May 12 deadline.”
Unlike in October,
Trump’s Cabinet put up little resistance to a decision many viewed as a
fait accompli, given the president’s March firing of two key Iran deal
defenders: Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. In
their place, Trump installed two hawks and staunch critics of the Iran
deal: Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
“Everyone’s
on the same page now,” said one White House official, noting that
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose department oversees economic
sanctions, also shared the president’s instincts to withdraw, even
though doing so was expected to have economic ramifications. Mattis,
perhaps realizing he was outnumbered after the ouster of Tillerson,
refrained from aggressively rehashing his earlier opposition, said the
White House official who, like others, spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
S.
President Trump, shown here at the G-20 Summit in Hamburg last July,
ignored lobbying by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, front, and other
allies to preserve the Iran nuclear deal.: photo by Tore Meek/AP
In
recent weeks, administration officials have been strategizing over how
to manage the economic fallout, including possible spikes in oil prices,
and have prepared a number of contingencies, a White House official
said.
Trump’s decision opens up a deep rift
with U.S. allies in Europe who for months have been locked in
painstaking staff-level talks with their American counterparts, led by
Brian Hook, director of policy planning at the State Department. The
French, German, British and U.S. delegations held monthly meetings in an
effort to find common ground and avoid sparking a new conflict in the
Middle East.
On Tuesday, the leaders of the three European governments issued a joint statement saying they “regret” the American decision and vowed to continue to abide by the agreement.
Trump’s
decision to impose sanctions on companies that do business with Iran,
after a brief grace period, has set off a scramble in European capitals
as they seek to protect their companies from punitive U.S. measures. If
European companies stop all commerce with Iran, experts fear that Tehran
may conclude that the deal is of little value and resume developing its
nuclear program.
Even as European leaders
pressed Trump with these arguments, the president’s advisers reminded
him over and over again of what he had promised as a candidate,
according to another White House official. This is the same approach
some advisers, including former chief White House strategist Stephen K.
Bannon, took with Trump last year when trying to urge him to withdraw
the United States from the Paris climate accord.
“One
of the most powerful persuasion tools that anybody could possibly have
with Trump is to simply point out that you said you were going to do
this during the campaign,” the White House official said. “I’ve seen it
over and over again. He shrugs his shoulders and says, ‘I told everybody
this is what I was going to do.’ ”
In
the first major foreign policy speech of his campaign, in April 2016,
Trump outlined his opposition to the Iran deal. For a man who sees much
of life through the prism of winning and losing, Trump said he saw no
chance of winning without first walking away.
Christopher Ruddy, a friend of the president’s, said Tuesday’s decision represented “classic Donald Trump negotiating tactics.”
“He’s
saying, ‘I don’t like the deal, I’m ripping it up, I’m starting anew
and I’m going to fix things,’ ” said Ruddy, chairman of Newsmax. “It’s a
hardball tactic that he’s taking, but it’s in keeping with how he
approaches things.”
Europeans long argued that
the U.S. demands amounted to a violation of the pact — something they
were not willing to do. Trump’s decision Tuesday left bitterness among
the European delegation, some of whom felt that Hook’s team stopped
working in good faith in the final weeks as it appeared that Trump had
no appetite for salvaging the deal.
A senior
Trump administration official denied the accusation, saying that
European opposition to extending the restrictions of the deal, also
known as the sunset clause, doomed the talks.
“We
made great progress with the Europeans to address the full range of
Iran’s threats.
But the last and most critical item in the talks were
fixing the sunsets,” the official said.
“Unfortunately, the Europeans
were not able to accept our language fixing this deficiency.”
The
American architects of the Iran deal condemned Trump’s announcement in
unusually harsh terms. Obama, who rarely reacts publicly to Trump’s
actions, issued a lengthy statement calling Trump’s decision “a serious
mistake.” Kerry said the withdrawal “breaks America’s word.” Former vice
president Joe Biden said it will “isolate the United States from nearly
every world power.” And former CIA director John O. Brennan called it
“foolish” and “dangerous.”
But within Trump’s
orbit, the president was cheered for following through on something he
vowed to do as a candidate. In a statement designed to use the foreign
policy announcement to galvanize Trump’s supporters, campaign manager
Brad Parscale said, “Over and over again, President Trump has proven
that a promise made is a promise kept.”
Trump
himself has felt confident that his decision to withdraw would not cause
global disruption — in part because of experience. When he considered
withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and moving the U.S. Embassy in
Israel to Jerusalem, some advisers warned that those moves would result
in significant upheaval in America’s relationships with key allies, not
to mention economic and security challenges.
Ultimately,
however, the backlash to both decisions failed to register with Trump
and he has concluded that critics overstated their case. This has made
the president feel more bullish about heeding his instincts to be a
disrupter on the world stage, according to a White House official.
“One
of the funny things about Trump is that he’s tactically very
unpredictable but strategically very predictable,” Gingrich said. “He
actually has a broad policy consistency, whether it’s tax cuts,
conservative judges, deregulation, the Iranians, the North Koreans. He’s
willing to listen to you, but he’s not willing to be persuaded to give
up his strategic principles.”
Le nouveau #parlement #libanais par parti et nombre de sièges correspondants. #Liban #législatives @afpfr: image via AFP Beirut @AFP_Beirut, 8 May 2018
U.S. Navy catapult officers, known as 'shooters', use hand signals before a F/A-18 fighter jet takes off from the USS Harry S. Truman, as a naval strike force begins sorties against Islamic State in Syria Photo @alkiskon: image via Reuters Pictures @reuterspictures, 9 May 2018
n Iraqi student walks past a school wall covered with drawings showing how Islamic State militants executed their prisoners in Mosul Photo Ari Jalal: image via Reuters Pictures @reuterspictures, 9 May 2018
CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel is sworn in during her confirmation hearing in the Senate Photo: Zach Gibson: image via Getty Images Newst @GettyImagesNews, 9 May 2018
McCain on Haspel: image via AFP news agency @AFP, 9 May 2018
U.S. Navy catapult officers, known as 'shooters', use hand signals before a F/A-18 fighter jet takes off from the USS Harry S. Truman, as a naval strike force begins sorties against Islamic State in Syria Photo @alkiskon: image via Reuters Pictures @reuterspictures, 9 May 2018
n Iraqi student walks past a school wall covered with drawings showing how Islamic State militants executed their prisoners in Mosul Photo Ari Jalal: image via Reuters Pictures @reuterspictures, 9 May 2018
CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel is sworn in during her confirmation hearing in the Senate Photo: Zach Gibson: image via Getty Images Newst @GettyImagesNews, 9 May 2018
McCain on Haspel: image via AFP news agency @AFP, 9 May 2018
The wind-down is a carve-out for everybody - but ... not torture exactly... the sunset program ...
The State Department held a background briefing for reporters on the Iran deal decision that was, shall we say, intense. It’s worth a read.: tweet via Nahal Toosi @nahaltoosi, 8 May 2018
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Washington, DC
May 8, 2018
MODERATOR: All right, thanks everybody. So we are glad to have
with us today two folks to talk about the President’s decision today to
withdraw from the JCPOA. This will be on background, embargoed until the
end. Our two speakers with us today are [Senior State Department
Official One], and next to him is [Senior State Department Official
Two]. And so they’ll start with a few comments and then we’ll take some
questions.
I think – you’d like to start?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Great, yeah. Hi.
MODERATOR: Senior State Department Official Number One.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Hi. So I thought we would just start with a little bit more substance, going one level deeper. You all heard the President’s remarks; you saw the Secretary’s statement. So we wanted to put a little bit more meat on the bones and then open it up for questions and use the time the way that you think is most useful for you all.
So the sanctions reimposition that the President talked about is going to come in two phases. There’s going to be one period for wind down that lasts about – that lasts 90 days, and one period of wind down that lasts six months. The six-month wind down – wind downs are, by the way, pretty standard across sanctions programs. So this is not Iran-specific, but oftentimes when we either impose sanctions or reimpose sanctions, we provide a wind down to allow both U.S. companies but foreign companies as well to end contracts, terminate business, get their money out of wherever the sanctions target is – in this case, Iran. Because what we want – we don’t want to do is we don’t want to impact or have unintended consequences on our allies and partners. We want to focus the costs and the pain on the target. And in this case, that’s the Iranian regime.
So wind downs are pretty natural. In this case, we’re providing a six-month wind down for energy-related sanctions. So that’s oil, petroleum, petrochemicals, and then all of the ancillary sanctions that are associated with that. So, for example, banking; sanctions on the CBI in particular, because the Central Bank of Iran is involved in Iran’s export of oil and the receipt of revenues. Shipping, shipbuilding, ports – all of those sanctions that are related to both the energy sector and then the banking and the shipping or transportation of that energy will all have a six-month wind down. Everything else is going to have a 90-day wind down. So that’s – the architecture of the Iranian sanctions program was quite complex, but everything else includes things like dealing in the rial, providing metal – precious metals and gold to the Iranian regime, providing U.S. banknotes.
So there’s a whole kind of swath of other sanctions that are all going to have a 90-day wind down. In addition, within the first 90 days, the Treasury Department is going to work to end – to terminate the specific licenses that were issued pursuant to the statement of licensing policy on civil aviation. So Treasury’s going to be reaching out to those private sector companies that have licenses and work to end – terminate those licenses in an orderly way that doesn’t lead to undue impact on the companies.
The other big action that has to be done is the re-designation of all of the individuals that were delisted pursuant to the JCPOA. There are over – I think 400 and some odd were specifically designated for conduct, and another 200 or so were identified as part of the Government of Iran. Treasury – that’s obviously a big – it’s a lot of work for Treasury. Their aim is to relist all of those individuals and entities by the end of the six-month wind down. They’re not going to relist entities and individuals overnight, and – both for practical reasons, but also for policy reasons. If some of those individuals and entities were relisted right away, it would impact the wind down, right? So if we’re allowing a six-month wind down for energy-related or petroleum-related business, and then you designate – you re-designate tomorrow an Iranian-related petroleum entity, it makes null and void the six-month wind down that you just provided. So that’s all going to be done in a coherent way to provide a real wind down period.
So that’s kind of the – putting a little bit of meat on the bones of what it means to reimpose the Iran architecture, sanctions architecture.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That’s great.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Do you want to open it up for questions?
QUESTION: I have a question. Lesley Wroughton from Reuters. You said it’s not meant to have unintended consequences, but it does. Nobody’s going to touch Iran or – and immediately I think the U.S. ambassador to Germany just said to – told all German companies to move out immediately, so it does have unintended consequences.
QUESTION: Do you have guarantees from the Europeans that they’re going to go along with this? Or like they have with the Cuba sanctions, are they going to fight it? Do you know?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So what we’re going to do and what we’ve already – since last December, when we started working with our European allies on both the nuclear file but then also the broader array of Iranian threats, we’re going to continue to work closely with them. We’re going to broaden that engagement. And like both the President said and I think the Secretary said in his statement, he’s going to lead an effort to build a global effort to constrain and to prevent, both on the nuclear front but then also on the ballistic missile front, support to terrorism and the – kind of the six or seven areas that the President has outlined as kind of the broad array of Iranian threats. We’re going to build a global coalition to put pressure on Iran to stop that behavior. That’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And let me just --
QUESTION: What was the --
QUESTION: We’ve heard from the Brits –
QUESTION: Sorry, could you just respond to her?
QUESTION: I was going to say, I mean – go on, Matt.
QUESTION: We’ve heard from others that they not only are not going to --
QUESTION: Would you mind? I had the first question.
QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Okay. Yep, I apologize.
QUESTION: And they haven’t even answered it.
QUESTION: Yep.
QUESTION: If you don’t mind.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So I just wanted to say that those are actually intended consequences. We do think that, given the IRGC’s penetration of the Iranian economy and Iran’s behavior in the region, as well as its other nefarious activities, that companies should not do business in Iran. That’s an intended consequence. And we thank our ambassador out there for reaffirming that message.
QUESTION: So all those companies that have gone in are moving out?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re certainly going to encourage them to.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why --
QUESTION: And what if they don’t?
QUESTION: If they don’t, are you prepared to sanction German companies, French companies?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Those are discussions we’re going to have with the Europeans.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, you’ve been having discussions --
QUESTION: Sorry, just a point of clarification on that. That would begin after the 180-day period is over, correct?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: If it’s energy-related or banking-related. If it’s related to the provision of precious metals or gold or any of the sanctions that are being re-imposed after 90 days, then that would be --
QUESTION: So you are planning to sanction European companies, or you will have those discussions? Like --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’ve already started the discussions this afternoon, right. The discussions are ongoing and the effort is ongoing. Hopefully we will build – and this is the Secretary and the President’s desire and focus, is to build this global effort to put renewed and strengthened pressure on Iran. And that will include trying to isolate Iran economically.
QUESTION: Well, why not keep the structure of the deal and address these concerns on the side, as has been discussed for the last few months?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think as the President laid out, that the problem with the deal was that it reduced our ability to pressure Iran, right. It essentially cordoned off this huge area of the Iranian economy and said, “Hey, we know about the IRGC’s penetration of the economy. We know Iran’s doing all this nefarious, malign activities in the region. But because of this nuclear angle, which is only one aspect of Iran’s behavior – a critical one, but just one – you essentially can’t sanction these entities that are involved in all this other stuff.”
QUESTION: So wait, just – so the United States has basically no economic relationships right now with the Iranians, right? So there is no power of U.S. sanctions to prevent – in preventing U.S. economic activity. The only power that U.S. sanctions have is in preventing European and other economic activity, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Secondary sanctions.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The secondary sanctions, correct.
QUESTION: Why get out of the deal until you know for sure that Europe is going to go along with that secondary sanction activity or whether you’re – they’ll fight you? Because if they fight you, you’re going to be in a worse situation vis-a-vis Iran than you are now and than you are previously, right? So you don’t actually know – you’re saying that the President’s going to start this global coalition, but you don’t actually know whether even your closest allies are going to be part of that coalition, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The President made clear on January 12th that he was giving a certain number of months to try to – for – try to get a supplemental agreement with the E3. We didn’t get there. We got close. We made a – we had movement, a ton of good progress, which will not be wasted, but we didn’t get there. So he was clear January 12th that if we don’t get this supplemental, he’s withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA, and that’s what he did. That being said, you could even see that President Macron tweeted only a few minutes after the President finished his statement that France is eager to be part of an effort – I forget the exact words, but part of an effort on a broader deal that addresses the nuclear file but also --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Syria, Yemen.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- Syria, Yemen, and others. So you already see – you already see from President Macron a willingness to work on a broader deal; you see from the Saudis have also issued a statement supporting our withdrawal; the Israelis did as well. No one is saying this is going to be easy, right, but the President made clear his intention on January 12th. He made good on that – on that promise.
QUESTION: You don’t know right now whether you’re going to be in a better place or in a worse place; is that what you’re saying?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, we think we’re going to be in a better place.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, we know we’re --
QUESTION: But you don’t know.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We know we’re going to be in a better place because we don’t think that the current JCP – the JCPOA, as it is now, adequately protects U.S. national security. So --
QUESTION: Because?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Because it allowed Iran to enrich after sunsets, after those restrictions melted away --
QUESTION: In seven years.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: And even then, not enriching to a level where they could build a nuclear weapon.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, after – after the Israelis revealed what they were able to find --
QUESTION: All old stuff, all old – before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, it was – we have acknowledged for quite some time that the Iranians had a nuclear weapons program, but nobody knew until the Israelis found it, this well curated archive, the level of detail, right. And the – I think it reinforced in a very meaningful way that all of the Iranian statements throughout the negotiations and after were lies.
QUESTION: So the President said that we would impose sanctions on countries who helped with Iran’s nuclear program, but actually, you will reimpose sanctions on companies and countries that do any – roughly any economic activity, no matter if it has anything to do with nuclear or anything, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: In the buildup – in the buildup to the negotiations that led first to the JPOA and the JCPOA, we had an extensive architecture of secondary sanctions that started more or less with CISADA in 2010. We had to use those secondary sanctions very, very rarely. In fact, we only ever sanctioned two banks with secondary sanctions, Kunlun and Elaf in Iraq. The leverage that we gained from the secondary sanctions is what we used throughout the world with engagement to get countries to partner with us to build the economic isolation of Iran. That’s what we want to do again. It’s not about sanctioning foreign companies; it’s about using the leverage and engaging the way we did before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That’s right.
QUESTION: When you say that the – when you --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: This is a long-established practice, I mean, since ILSA in the late ‘90s, this is something the U.S. has been doing. Sorry.
QUESTION: When you say that the effort that you had in the negotiations with the E3 will not be wasted, will you be implementing any of that? Because I mean, it was the supposition that the U.S. would stay in the deal if these areas were addressed by the E3. The U.S. isn’t staying in the deal, so --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So we made a ton of progress on ICBMs, on access, on missiles writ large, on regional issues, and then we got stuck on sunsets, right? We didn’t quite make it. That work – we’re not sure. We have to – we’re starting those conversations with the E3 today, tomorrow, so I can’t – we can’t tell you exactly how it’s going to be used, but I can tell you it will be used. That work is not going to be wasted.
QUESTION: So you think they’ll go forward.
QUESTION: But if a ton of progress was made, then why not give it more time? Why take such a dramatic action that’s going to have you basically starting over from square one?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The President made very clear on January 12th his intention. If we got a supplemental agreement before May 12th, he would consider it. We didn’t get there. He said this – on January 12th, he said that was his last time waiving sanctions. He followed through on that promise.
QUESTION: And what was the sticking point? Can you just sort of tell us what didn’t work?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It was the one-year breakout.
QUESTION: The sunset program.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official One], I wonder, just on Boeing quickly because I’m a little confused. So Boeing had the original export licenses were valid until September 2020. Are those going to be cancelled?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So Treasury – that is part – the civil aviation specific licenses are part of the 90-day wind down. Treasury will be reaching out to – I’m not going to name specific companies because I don’t think I’m allowed to, but they’re going to reach out to private companies that hold licenses and work on wind downs.
QUESTION: So are you considering any carveouts for individual companies or countries as you establish this wind-down period?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well so, the wind down is a carveout for everybody, right. The wind down carves --
QUESTION: No, but in that time you could say, okay, maybe Boeing is going to be a company that is not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, or Z U.S. interests, or maybe a France railroad company is not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, Z. Are those conversations possible or not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t want to speculate on the hypothetical, right, and Treasury’s going to be --
QUESTION: No, I mean are you open to the conversations or not? It’s not hypothetical.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I wouldn’t want to – I wouldn’t want to specifically name companies.
QUESTION: Fine. Are you open to carveouts for specific companies and countries?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean companies – U.S. companies are always – always have the option of coming into OFAC and asking for a specific license to do work that’s otherwise prohibited by sanctions. So there’s nothing that would stop any U.S. company from doing that regardless.
QUESTION: Okay. Foreign countries, can they ask for carveouts for companies in their country?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: They can ask for whatever they want.
QUESTION: So you’re open to having those conversations.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t say that. I said that we’re going engage – we’re going to engage our European allies and others, and I just don’t know. I can’t speculate as to what they are going to ask for. This 90-day wind down and 180-day or six-month wind down provides everyone with quite a bit of breathing room to wind down their activities. If there – and I just can’t – I don’t – I can’t speculate beyond that.
QUESTION: So you’re scuttling the – you reached agreement or near agreement on everything except a sunset clause, so what is the point of scuttling the entire deal just because of the one- year breakout?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The one-year breakout was the key – that was the key to the whole thing.
QUESTION: So you can’t just keep --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And plus it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right? I mean, if you get X value from the – where we got to with the Europeans and then you add the kind of negative value that Iran gets from using the protections alluded – endogenous to the deal to project power in the region, it comes out to less than the benefit you get from getting out. I think that’s – that’s the way we look at it.
QUESTION: But again, I just want to understand: You do not know at this point what the Europeans are going to do in terms of the entire ancillary agreement you’ve negotiated? You do not know at this point what the Europeans are going to do, whether they’re going to fight you and – and, like they do with Cuba, protect their companies against your secondary sanctions or what – you do not know what the Europeans, your closest allies, are going to do vis-a-vis any of the ancillary effects of getting out of this deal. Is that right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re in constant conversations with the Europeans on this.
QUESTION: But you don’t know at this point? You don’t know? You didn’t get to that in your discussions, what’s going to happen?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We did not talk about a Plan B in our discussions because we were focused on negotiating a supplemental agreement, so we did not – we did not talk about Plan B.
QUESTION: And what makes you think that Iran is going to go along with a whole new renegotiation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t know if they will. We don’t know if they will, and the President said that in his statement. He doesn’t know if the Iranians are willing to talk, but he said at the end of the statement that he’s willing, able, and ready to talk.
QUESTION: Are there missile – Iran missile sanctions on the books in the meantime, can those come in, even the – the ballistic --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Ballistic – ballistic missile sanctions were never lifted under the JCPOA, so under Executive Order 13382, we’ve always had the authority and we’ve continued to designate under that authority throughout the JCPOA period, so that – those have not been affected.
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: Can I – on these wind downs --
QUESTION: Have you had conversations with Asian companies that are the primary purchasers of Iranian oil?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Have you talked to the Asian companies like China, South Korea --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We haven’t talked to any private sector companies before the President’s announcement, so we are going to – ENR is the point, is the lead bureau for engaging in the energy sector, and they’re going to – they’re going to move out immediately and starting conversations on significant reduction on --
QUESTION: On the – sorry --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- the wind down periods – so obviously, there was the NDAA sanctions that were set to – the waiver was set to expire this weekend, but then there was the other subset of sanctions that were set to expire --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, in July.
QUESTION: -- in July.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So are you immediately triggering that and it’s 90 days from this day forward --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- or is it 90 days from July 11th?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, the Secretary’s revoking all waivers today, and then he’s going to reissue wind down waivers today. So everything is going to be set as of today.
QUESTION: And can we just talk – is it possible, [Moderator], that we can talk just briefly about the Secretary’s trip to Pyongyang? Is that – can we --
MODERATOR: This is – these guys don’t have – that’s not their bailiwick.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It’s not ours – I don’t know --
QUESTION: Okay. Can you – can you --
QUESTION: You guys going to respond to emails and texts about it now?
STAFF: Can we stay focused while we have our experts here on the JCPOA?
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Well, you guys have been hard to find the last couple of days, the last several days.
QUESTION: Okay. So anyway, we’ll do that later.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’ve been in the building.
QUESTION: Well, yeah. Can we reach you?
QUESTION: Not everybody has.
QUESTION: Give us your number or --
QUESTION: Can I ask a clarification? Just on the – your discussions with the Europeans about a one-year breakout, was it specifically that they believed your goal of preventing a one-year breakout would violate the terms of the JPC – JCPOA itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: It was a third rail for them to get in a position of modifying a deal that was extant – their participation in which was extant at the time.
QUESTION: And you guys were open – you were trying to essentially change the terms of the deal with them?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, that’s not the way we viewed it. We were putting down a supplemental, a sort of parallel-track deal.
QUESTION: But how do you do that without violating the deal itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, now we’re reenacting – now we’re reenacting some of those talks at the moment.
QUESTION: Right, which is what I’m trying to get at.
QUESTION: But, I mean, they tell us that they want to stay in the deal as is. And so again, it’s all – this is all sort of fairly surprising that you guys are doing something so dramatic that affects your closest allies in a dramatic way. They see this deal as essential to their national security and you have no Plan B, you have no idea whether they will stay in the deal, whether they will defend the deal, whether they will fight you on the deal, whether they are going to go off with Iran against you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I think we have some idea because the President and President Macron, when he was here for the state visit, talked in their press availability about – President Macron called it a four-pillar new deal. What he tweeted today seemed to me – I think there were four pillars in what he tweeted today – seemed to me, again, to echo his desire for a broad new four-pillar deal.
QUESTION: But one of the pillars was keeping the JCPOA, which he made certain to emphasize repeatedly.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, but he tweeted today something that seemed to indicate to me a French willingness to work with us.
QUESTION: So you guys have a positive tweet out of it. That’s amazing.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, as a heuristic of the French Government’s attitude, yeah, I think that’s fair.
QUESTION: A senior European diplomat who has been dealing with these talks described dealing with State today as the deafening sound of U.S. diplomats running for cover, unable to explain to allies and partners why this is happening, still less what happens next. So it doesn’t seem like you guys are nearly on the same page.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s not true. That’s not true. I have already had, since the President finished his remarks, two calls with foreign counterparts. I have one today at 6:00. It’s just not true.
QUESTION: But for Pompeo to be in the air while all of this is happening, they can’t even call up the Secretary of State, why that planning?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Look, that’s a separate negotiation, right? That’s --
QUESTION: It’s still U.S. foreign policy.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, and the Secretary was involved in it. I mean, the Secretary has comms on the plane. He was involved. I mean, he certainly was involved in the decision. He was involved in the rollout. He drafted his statement that he issued from the plane and was communicating. I mean, he’s not out of pocket. He’s – we have to be --
QUESTION: He’s out of – he’s absolutely out of pocket, isn’t he? What, like, out of --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can you call him?
QUESTION: Can you give us any better sense of the calls he’s had and how he’s been framing this to counterparts both before and after this was announced?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t.
QUESTION: [Moderator], could we get more on that?
MODERATOR: (Nodding.)
QUESTION: Was there any discussion – and I’m sorry I missed part of this – about Iranian actions in Syria, Iranian actions in other places? I mean, how risky – the risks of this, of provoking Iran in places where you don’t want them to be provoked?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So I think this cuts to really the quick of the whole issue is that we’ve seen – and I’m not just going to regurgitate talking points at you – but the one is that we’ve seen since 2015 worsening Iranian behavior in the region and behavior that doesn’t quite internalize the risk of what they’re doing as much as we would have wanted to. So yes, I think exactly what you pointed out is one of the main driving elements behind this decision. We are alarmed by that behavior. The French are alarmed. I mean, you keep raising what --
QUESTION: Yeah, but it wasn’t the Iran deal that made them do those things.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: But again --
QUESTION: It was the Saudis bombing Yemen. It was – they have other interests in Syria.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure --
QUESTION: They have interests in Iraq --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure they’re in Syria --
QUESTION: -- that go back to when --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- because the Saudis are bombing Yemen.
QUESTION: -- the U.S. toppled Saddam.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right? I’m not sure they support Hizballah because the Saudis are bombing Yemen and I --
QUESTION: They’ve always supported Hizballah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- I don’t suppose they – I don’t think they support Badr or AAH or any of the – any of the Iraqi groups because – because the Saudis are bombing Yemen.
I think the problem with the Iran deal, as I talked about in the beginning, was that not only did it sort of decouple the consequences from Iran’s behavior – right? – by cordoning off a large part of Iran’s economy that simply the prejudice against which would be – the prejudice would be to not sanction that part. But indeed, it seemed to mandate a kind of top line of investment in the Iranian economy, which my gosh, totally decouples the consequences from Iranian behavior. That’s --
QUESTION: So the Israelis have now gone on high alert. They’ve – opening bomb shelters. There is this worry that the Iranians are going to attack from bases in Syria. Now that you’ve gotten out of the Iran deal, now that you may have provoked Iran, are you going to commit more troops to Syria? The President just said he wants to get the troops out of Syria. How – that seems a contradiction that you may be provoking more malign behavior on the part of the Iranians while the President is saying that he wants to get actually U.S. commitment to be less in the Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think it’s a little – I think it’s a little tough to – I think it’s a little, well, tough to blame Iranian behavior in Syria and risk-taking in Syria – which has, if anything, worsened since the outbreak of the civil war and the introduction of Iranian forces, not just Iranian proxies – on the President’s Iran deal decision coming today. That doesn’t seem to follow to me at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So are you thinking about committing more troops to Syria that – because of what sounds like certainly Israeli concerns and other people’s concerns about Iran’s more aggressive behavior that they say is a result of this decision – whether it is or not, are you going to reverse the President’s decision recently that he’s going to pull troops out, or are you committing more troops? What is your Syria strategy in the wake of this?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, the President’s focus in Syria is on ISIS. That’s kind of – and I know Brett McGurk has talked to you probably endlessly about this, but that’s kind of a parallel discussion.
QUESTION: Okay. So it’s not on Iran then?
QUESTION: Sorry.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Can I just make one point though --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- that relates to your question and your question? It is clear to us and it’s clear to our European allies too that since the JCPOA Iranian malign behavior in the region has increased dramatically.
QUESTION: Yeah. But they disagree on what caused --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m just saying it has gone up.
QUESTION: But they don’t agree that that’s because of the Iran nuclear deal. It’s – I mean, we’ve talked to European diplomats too, so.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right. It is our strong view that the JCPOA gave Iran room both for domestic internal political reasons in Tehran and regional reasons to increase their malign activity that helped to destabilize the region substantially.
So in responding to questions about how pulling out of the JCPOA will affect that, it just – I think it’s important for me to just say that we have seen a dramatic increase to a point where in Syria Iranian behavior – unrelated to the JCPOA but Iranian behavior – is so dangerous and reckless. That’s why Israelis – that’s why the Israeli – the IDF is opening shelters in northern Israel. It’s not because of the JCPOA. It is because of some really dangerous and reckless behavior, including capabilities and all kinds of other things that are going into Syria.
QUESTION: So if you think the JCPOA has given them the room to do this sort of reckless behavior, do you now believe that, as a result of getting rid of the JCPOA, Iran will get out of Syria and stop its reckless behavior?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We believe that by getting rid of the JCPOA, we can come up with a more comprehensive deal, a more comprehensive approach that doesn’t just focus on the nuclear file. The focus is on all of the threats together so that we don’t – the JCPOA tried to deal only with the nuclear file and left everything else off the table in the hopes that it would just kind of get better on its own or we wouldn’t have to worry about it as much. That strategy didn’t work. So what we hope to do is a much more comprehensive deal.
QUESTION: And can we judge the success of that --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, and just to be clear – sorry, can I just offer one thing?
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And just to be clear, it’s not only the JCPOA that contributed to the current situation in the Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, I’m not saying only.
QUESTION: Okay, so just – so for our purposes, let’s say in a year, if you guys – or six months – if you guys do not have a supplemental agreement with all of your allies about addressing this global problem, it will – can we then say that this strategy has not been successful, if in a year you don’t have it? When can we say, okay, you guys promised us a more comprehensive, more global strategy to deal with Iranian malign behavior after you got rid of the last one? When do we get to judge whether you succeeded or failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think you would have to make a cost/benefit decision, right, at six months, at 12 months.
QUESTION: So if you have – if you don’t have an arrangement --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Continually.
QUESTION: -- with your allies in six months, will this strategy have failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to put a timeframe on it, because the wind down is six months for energy sanctions. So part of the strategy is showing Iran that there is economic isolation as a result of its destabilizing activity, so I think we have to be able to build this coalition, build up some economic pressure. So that is the strategy, though, and at the end of the day, if that strategy is – you will judge us based on that strategy.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: But I wouldn’t be – I would not put a six-month or one-year timeline on it. I mean, CISADA was put in place in 2010 and took several years – between CISADA and TRA and IFCA and other economic pressure took quite a few years to get Iran to the negotiating table. So I don’t want to put a timeframe on it.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MODERATOR: Unfortunately, we have to wrap up here I think, you guys.
QUESTION: I really have a sanctions question.
MODERATOR: One last question, then.
QUESTION: Six – okay, after the six months, then you can impose new sanctions on Iran, right? Is that what you’re looking at?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: After the – after six months, we can re-impose the energy-related and banking-related sanctions. It’s not new. They’re re-imposed --
QUESTION: But you can impose --
QUESTION: You can impose --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly.
QUESTION: You can impose other sanctions --
QUESTION: Others.
QUESTION: -- at will any time, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly. Precisely. Precisely.
QUESTION: That’s what I’m asking, yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Precisely.
QUESTION: Any other things. And are you expecting that to come – I mean --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Non-nuclear sanctions.
QUESTION: Non-nuclear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Defer to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: On ballistic missile, counterterrorism, et cetera.
QUESTION: That – so that we can expect over the next few --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to say. I mean, that’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Up to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have an economic assessment as to what this impact is going to be on the Iranian economy, pulling out and --
QUESTION: And preventing (inaudible).
QUESTION: And preventing --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t have it with me, and maybe we can something back to you on that.
QUESTION: That would be useful.
QUESTION: How about on U.S. – on oil prices? I mean gas prices in the U.S.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We can also get that to you. I don’t have that stuff with me, but we can get that.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Team can (inaudible) it out for them.
QUESTION: Just to do one North Korea question. He explicitly --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: But I don’t know the answer.
QUESTION: But he --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You can ask me.
QUESTION: The President explicitly linked getting out of the JCPOA with negotiations in North Korea. He did that in his speech.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So presumably you guys can explain somewhat to us how getting out of the JCPOA will help these negotiations that Pompeo is engaged in right now in Pyongyang.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So at the end of the President’s remarks, he said I don’t know – I mean, I’m paraphrasing – I don’t know if the Iranians are ready to sit down, but I am ready, willing, and able. I think his – the point is that he has initiated an effort with Kim Jong-un to sit down and negotiate the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He is – we are ready to sit down – he said he’s ready, willing, and able to sit down with Iran to negotiate a comprehensive deal that addresses all of the threats together. So I think that was the comparison he was making.
QUESTION: And American detainees in Iran – what do you do about them? How many are there, first of all, and what do you do about it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are five, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let me offer that the security and safety of Americans is our top priority. Well, I know, you can make that face, but it’s true.
QUESTION: No, we’ve heard it before, we get it, we get it. So --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I literally just came from here from – I came – went to the White House from a call with one of the families, right. This is – and they were asking exactly the same things. I don’t want to – this is going to be unsatisfying to you – I don’t want to get into it. That’s conversations we’re having with a number of parties to try and resolve those cases, but – so I’m leery. The – I’m leery about getting too much into that, and I know that’s unsatisfying, so I’m sorry.
MODERATOR: Thank you, guys. I’m sorry, we’re going to have to wrap it up now. We’ve got – these guys have to get somewhere else.
QUESTION: Wait, so is there no July deadline anymore? That’s out the door, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: They were on a July deadline.
QUESTION: Just making sure. Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Did you have one other?
QUESTION: I did, but I think it’s just going to --
QUESTION: Well, and – just to clarify his question. So it would – a deal with Iran would require Iran to totally denuclearize as well, to have no nuclear program whatsoever?
QUESTION: -- bring us back to the same kind of (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to answer that.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, guys.
I think – you’d like to start?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Great, yeah. Hi.
MODERATOR: Senior State Department Official Number One.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Hi. So I thought we would just start with a little bit more substance, going one level deeper. You all heard the President’s remarks; you saw the Secretary’s statement. So we wanted to put a little bit more meat on the bones and then open it up for questions and use the time the way that you think is most useful for you all.
So the sanctions reimposition that the President talked about is going to come in two phases. There’s going to be one period for wind down that lasts about – that lasts 90 days, and one period of wind down that lasts six months. The six-month wind down – wind downs are, by the way, pretty standard across sanctions programs. So this is not Iran-specific, but oftentimes when we either impose sanctions or reimpose sanctions, we provide a wind down to allow both U.S. companies but foreign companies as well to end contracts, terminate business, get their money out of wherever the sanctions target is – in this case, Iran. Because what we want – we don’t want to do is we don’t want to impact or have unintended consequences on our allies and partners. We want to focus the costs and the pain on the target. And in this case, that’s the Iranian regime.
So wind downs are pretty natural. In this case, we’re providing a six-month wind down for energy-related sanctions. So that’s oil, petroleum, petrochemicals, and then all of the ancillary sanctions that are associated with that. So, for example, banking; sanctions on the CBI in particular, because the Central Bank of Iran is involved in Iran’s export of oil and the receipt of revenues. Shipping, shipbuilding, ports – all of those sanctions that are related to both the energy sector and then the banking and the shipping or transportation of that energy will all have a six-month wind down. Everything else is going to have a 90-day wind down. So that’s – the architecture of the Iranian sanctions program was quite complex, but everything else includes things like dealing in the rial, providing metal – precious metals and gold to the Iranian regime, providing U.S. banknotes.
So there’s a whole kind of swath of other sanctions that are all going to have a 90-day wind down. In addition, within the first 90 days, the Treasury Department is going to work to end – to terminate the specific licenses that were issued pursuant to the statement of licensing policy on civil aviation. So Treasury’s going to be reaching out to those private sector companies that have licenses and work to end – terminate those licenses in an orderly way that doesn’t lead to undue impact on the companies.
The other big action that has to be done is the re-designation of all of the individuals that were delisted pursuant to the JCPOA. There are over – I think 400 and some odd were specifically designated for conduct, and another 200 or so were identified as part of the Government of Iran. Treasury – that’s obviously a big – it’s a lot of work for Treasury. Their aim is to relist all of those individuals and entities by the end of the six-month wind down. They’re not going to relist entities and individuals overnight, and – both for practical reasons, but also for policy reasons. If some of those individuals and entities were relisted right away, it would impact the wind down, right? So if we’re allowing a six-month wind down for energy-related or petroleum-related business, and then you designate – you re-designate tomorrow an Iranian-related petroleum entity, it makes null and void the six-month wind down that you just provided. So that’s all going to be done in a coherent way to provide a real wind down period.
So that’s kind of the – putting a little bit of meat on the bones of what it means to reimpose the Iran architecture, sanctions architecture.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That’s great.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Do you want to open it up for questions?
QUESTION: I have a question. Lesley Wroughton from Reuters. You said it’s not meant to have unintended consequences, but it does. Nobody’s going to touch Iran or – and immediately I think the U.S. ambassador to Germany just said to – told all German companies to move out immediately, so it does have unintended consequences.
QUESTION: Do you have guarantees from the Europeans that they’re going to go along with this? Or like they have with the Cuba sanctions, are they going to fight it? Do you know?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So what we’re going to do and what we’ve already – since last December, when we started working with our European allies on both the nuclear file but then also the broader array of Iranian threats, we’re going to continue to work closely with them. We’re going to broaden that engagement. And like both the President said and I think the Secretary said in his statement, he’s going to lead an effort to build a global effort to constrain and to prevent, both on the nuclear front but then also on the ballistic missile front, support to terrorism and the – kind of the six or seven areas that the President has outlined as kind of the broad array of Iranian threats. We’re going to build a global coalition to put pressure on Iran to stop that behavior. That’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And let me just --
QUESTION: What was the --
QUESTION: We’ve heard from the Brits –
QUESTION: Sorry, could you just respond to her?
QUESTION: I was going to say, I mean – go on, Matt.
QUESTION: We’ve heard from others that they not only are not going to --
QUESTION: Would you mind? I had the first question.
QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Okay. Yep, I apologize.
QUESTION: And they haven’t even answered it.
QUESTION: Yep.
QUESTION: If you don’t mind.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So I just wanted to say that those are actually intended consequences. We do think that, given the IRGC’s penetration of the Iranian economy and Iran’s behavior in the region, as well as its other nefarious activities, that companies should not do business in Iran. That’s an intended consequence. And we thank our ambassador out there for reaffirming that message.
QUESTION: So all those companies that have gone in are moving out?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re certainly going to encourage them to.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why --
QUESTION: And what if they don’t?
QUESTION: If they don’t, are you prepared to sanction German companies, French companies?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Those are discussions we’re going to have with the Europeans.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, you’ve been having discussions --
QUESTION: Sorry, just a point of clarification on that. That would begin after the 180-day period is over, correct?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: If it’s energy-related or banking-related. If it’s related to the provision of precious metals or gold or any of the sanctions that are being re-imposed after 90 days, then that would be --
QUESTION: So you are planning to sanction European companies, or you will have those discussions? Like --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We’ve already started the discussions this afternoon, right. The discussions are ongoing and the effort is ongoing. Hopefully we will build – and this is the Secretary and the President’s desire and focus, is to build this global effort to put renewed and strengthened pressure on Iran. And that will include trying to isolate Iran economically.
QUESTION: Well, why not keep the structure of the deal and address these concerns on the side, as has been discussed for the last few months?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think as the President laid out, that the problem with the deal was that it reduced our ability to pressure Iran, right. It essentially cordoned off this huge area of the Iranian economy and said, “Hey, we know about the IRGC’s penetration of the economy. We know Iran’s doing all this nefarious, malign activities in the region. But because of this nuclear angle, which is only one aspect of Iran’s behavior – a critical one, but just one – you essentially can’t sanction these entities that are involved in all this other stuff.”
QUESTION: So wait, just – so the United States has basically no economic relationships right now with the Iranians, right? So there is no power of U.S. sanctions to prevent – in preventing U.S. economic activity. The only power that U.S. sanctions have is in preventing European and other economic activity, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Secondary sanctions.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The secondary sanctions, correct.
QUESTION: Why get out of the deal until you know for sure that Europe is going to go along with that secondary sanction activity or whether you’re – they’ll fight you? Because if they fight you, you’re going to be in a worse situation vis-a-vis Iran than you are now and than you are previously, right? So you don’t actually know – you’re saying that the President’s going to start this global coalition, but you don’t actually know whether even your closest allies are going to be part of that coalition, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The President made clear on January 12th that he was giving a certain number of months to try to – for – try to get a supplemental agreement with the E3. We didn’t get there. We got close. We made a – we had movement, a ton of good progress, which will not be wasted, but we didn’t get there. So he was clear January 12th that if we don’t get this supplemental, he’s withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA, and that’s what he did. That being said, you could even see that President Macron tweeted only a few minutes after the President finished his statement that France is eager to be part of an effort – I forget the exact words, but part of an effort on a broader deal that addresses the nuclear file but also --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Syria, Yemen.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- Syria, Yemen, and others. So you already see – you already see from President Macron a willingness to work on a broader deal; you see from the Saudis have also issued a statement supporting our withdrawal; the Israelis did as well. No one is saying this is going to be easy, right, but the President made clear his intention on January 12th. He made good on that – on that promise.
QUESTION: You don’t know right now whether you’re going to be in a better place or in a worse place; is that what you’re saying?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, we think we’re going to be in a better place.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, we know we’re --
QUESTION: But you don’t know.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We know we’re going to be in a better place because we don’t think that the current JCP – the JCPOA, as it is now, adequately protects U.S. national security. So --
QUESTION: Because?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Because it allowed Iran to enrich after sunsets, after those restrictions melted away --
QUESTION: In seven years.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: And even then, not enriching to a level where they could build a nuclear weapon.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, after – after the Israelis revealed what they were able to find --
QUESTION: All old stuff, all old – before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, it was – we have acknowledged for quite some time that the Iranians had a nuclear weapons program, but nobody knew until the Israelis found it, this well curated archive, the level of detail, right. And the – I think it reinforced in a very meaningful way that all of the Iranian statements throughout the negotiations and after were lies.
QUESTION: So the President said that we would impose sanctions on countries who helped with Iran’s nuclear program, but actually, you will reimpose sanctions on companies and countries that do any – roughly any economic activity, no matter if it has anything to do with nuclear or anything, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: In the buildup – in the buildup to the negotiations that led first to the JPOA and the JCPOA, we had an extensive architecture of secondary sanctions that started more or less with CISADA in 2010. We had to use those secondary sanctions very, very rarely. In fact, we only ever sanctioned two banks with secondary sanctions, Kunlun and Elaf in Iraq. The leverage that we gained from the secondary sanctions is what we used throughout the world with engagement to get countries to partner with us to build the economic isolation of Iran. That’s what we want to do again. It’s not about sanctioning foreign companies; it’s about using the leverage and engaging the way we did before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That’s right.
QUESTION: When you say that the – when you --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: This is a long-established practice, I mean, since ILSA in the late ‘90s, this is something the U.S. has been doing. Sorry.
QUESTION: When you say that the effort that you had in the negotiations with the E3 will not be wasted, will you be implementing any of that? Because I mean, it was the supposition that the U.S. would stay in the deal if these areas were addressed by the E3. The U.S. isn’t staying in the deal, so --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So we made a ton of progress on ICBMs, on access, on missiles writ large, on regional issues, and then we got stuck on sunsets, right? We didn’t quite make it. That work – we’re not sure. We have to – we’re starting those conversations with the E3 today, tomorrow, so I can’t – we can’t tell you exactly how it’s going to be used, but I can tell you it will be used. That work is not going to be wasted.
QUESTION: So you think they’ll go forward.
QUESTION: But if a ton of progress was made, then why not give it more time? Why take such a dramatic action that’s going to have you basically starting over from square one?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The President made very clear on January 12th his intention. If we got a supplemental agreement before May 12th, he would consider it. We didn’t get there. He said this – on January 12th, he said that was his last time waiving sanctions. He followed through on that promise.
QUESTION: And what was the sticking point? Can you just sort of tell us what didn’t work?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It was the one-year breakout.
QUESTION: The sunset program.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: [Senior State Department Official One], I wonder, just on Boeing quickly because I’m a little confused. So Boeing had the original export licenses were valid until September 2020. Are those going to be cancelled?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So Treasury – that is part – the civil aviation specific licenses are part of the 90-day wind down. Treasury will be reaching out to – I’m not going to name specific companies because I don’t think I’m allowed to, but they’re going to reach out to private companies that hold licenses and work on wind downs.
QUESTION: So are you considering any carveouts for individual companies or countries as you establish this wind-down period?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well so, the wind down is a carveout for everybody, right. The wind down carves --
QUESTION: No, but in that time you could say, okay, maybe Boeing is going to be a company that is not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, or Z U.S. interests, or maybe a France railroad company is not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, Z. Are those conversations possible or not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t want to speculate on the hypothetical, right, and Treasury’s going to be --
QUESTION: No, I mean are you open to the conversations or not? It’s not hypothetical.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I wouldn’t want to – I wouldn’t want to specifically name companies.
QUESTION: Fine. Are you open to carveouts for specific companies and countries?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean companies – U.S. companies are always – always have the option of coming into OFAC and asking for a specific license to do work that’s otherwise prohibited by sanctions. So there’s nothing that would stop any U.S. company from doing that regardless.
QUESTION: Okay. Foreign countries, can they ask for carveouts for companies in their country?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: They can ask for whatever they want.
QUESTION: So you’re open to having those conversations.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t say that. I said that we’re going engage – we’re going to engage our European allies and others, and I just don’t know. I can’t speculate as to what they are going to ask for. This 90-day wind down and 180-day or six-month wind down provides everyone with quite a bit of breathing room to wind down their activities. If there – and I just can’t – I don’t – I can’t speculate beyond that.
QUESTION: So you’re scuttling the – you reached agreement or near agreement on everything except a sunset clause, so what is the point of scuttling the entire deal just because of the one- year breakout?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The one-year breakout was the key – that was the key to the whole thing.
QUESTION: So you can’t just keep --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And plus it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right? I mean, if you get X value from the – where we got to with the Europeans and then you add the kind of negative value that Iran gets from using the protections alluded – endogenous to the deal to project power in the region, it comes out to less than the benefit you get from getting out. I think that’s – that’s the way we look at it.
QUESTION: But again, I just want to understand: You do not know at this point what the Europeans are going to do in terms of the entire ancillary agreement you’ve negotiated? You do not know at this point what the Europeans are going to do, whether they’re going to fight you and – and, like they do with Cuba, protect their companies against your secondary sanctions or what – you do not know what the Europeans, your closest allies, are going to do vis-a-vis any of the ancillary effects of getting out of this deal. Is that right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We’re in constant conversations with the Europeans on this.
QUESTION: But you don’t know at this point? You don’t know? You didn’t get to that in your discussions, what’s going to happen?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We did not talk about a Plan B in our discussions because we were focused on negotiating a supplemental agreement, so we did not – we did not talk about Plan B.
QUESTION: And what makes you think that Iran is going to go along with a whole new renegotiation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t know if they will. We don’t know if they will, and the President said that in his statement. He doesn’t know if the Iranians are willing to talk, but he said at the end of the statement that he’s willing, able, and ready to talk.
QUESTION: Are there missile – Iran missile sanctions on the books in the meantime, can those come in, even the – the ballistic --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Ballistic – ballistic missile sanctions were never lifted under the JCPOA, so under Executive Order 13382, we’ve always had the authority and we’ve continued to designate under that authority throughout the JCPOA period, so that – those have not been affected.
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: Can I – on these wind downs --
QUESTION: Have you had conversations with Asian companies that are the primary purchasers of Iranian oil?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Have you talked to the Asian companies like China, South Korea --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We haven’t talked to any private sector companies before the President’s announcement, so we are going to – ENR is the point, is the lead bureau for engaging in the energy sector, and they’re going to – they’re going to move out immediately and starting conversations on significant reduction on --
QUESTION: On the – sorry --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- the wind down periods – so obviously, there was the NDAA sanctions that were set to – the waiver was set to expire this weekend, but then there was the other subset of sanctions that were set to expire --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, in July.
QUESTION: -- in July.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So are you immediately triggering that and it’s 90 days from this day forward --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- or is it 90 days from July 11th?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, the Secretary’s revoking all waivers today, and then he’s going to reissue wind down waivers today. So everything is going to be set as of today.
QUESTION: And can we just talk – is it possible, [Moderator], that we can talk just briefly about the Secretary’s trip to Pyongyang? Is that – can we --
MODERATOR: This is – these guys don’t have – that’s not their bailiwick.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It’s not ours – I don’t know --
QUESTION: Okay. Can you – can you --
QUESTION: You guys going to respond to emails and texts about it now?
STAFF: Can we stay focused while we have our experts here on the JCPOA?
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Well, you guys have been hard to find the last couple of days, the last several days.
QUESTION: Okay. So anyway, we’ll do that later.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’ve been in the building.
QUESTION: Well, yeah. Can we reach you?
QUESTION: Not everybody has.
QUESTION: Give us your number or --
QUESTION: Can I ask a clarification? Just on the – your discussions with the Europeans about a one-year breakout, was it specifically that they believed your goal of preventing a one-year breakout would violate the terms of the JPC – JCPOA itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: It was a third rail for them to get in a position of modifying a deal that was extant – their participation in which was extant at the time.
QUESTION: And you guys were open – you were trying to essentially change the terms of the deal with them?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, that’s not the way we viewed it. We were putting down a supplemental, a sort of parallel-track deal.
QUESTION: But how do you do that without violating the deal itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, now we’re reenacting – now we’re reenacting some of those talks at the moment.
QUESTION: Right, which is what I’m trying to get at.
QUESTION: But, I mean, they tell us that they want to stay in the deal as is. And so again, it’s all – this is all sort of fairly surprising that you guys are doing something so dramatic that affects your closest allies in a dramatic way. They see this deal as essential to their national security and you have no Plan B, you have no idea whether they will stay in the deal, whether they will defend the deal, whether they will fight you on the deal, whether they are going to go off with Iran against you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I think we have some idea because the President and President Macron, when he was here for the state visit, talked in their press availability about – President Macron called it a four-pillar new deal. What he tweeted today seemed to me – I think there were four pillars in what he tweeted today – seemed to me, again, to echo his desire for a broad new four-pillar deal.
QUESTION: But one of the pillars was keeping the JCPOA, which he made certain to emphasize repeatedly.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, but he tweeted today something that seemed to indicate to me a French willingness to work with us.
QUESTION: So you guys have a positive tweet out of it. That’s amazing.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, as a heuristic of the French Government’s attitude, yeah, I think that’s fair.
QUESTION: A senior European diplomat who has been dealing with these talks described dealing with State today as the deafening sound of U.S. diplomats running for cover, unable to explain to allies and partners why this is happening, still less what happens next. So it doesn’t seem like you guys are nearly on the same page.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s not true. That’s not true. I have already had, since the President finished his remarks, two calls with foreign counterparts. I have one today at 6:00. It’s just not true.
QUESTION: But for Pompeo to be in the air while all of this is happening, they can’t even call up the Secretary of State, why that planning?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Look, that’s a separate negotiation, right? That’s --
QUESTION: It’s still U.S. foreign policy.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, and the Secretary was involved in it. I mean, the Secretary has comms on the plane. He was involved. I mean, he certainly was involved in the decision. He was involved in the rollout. He drafted his statement that he issued from the plane and was communicating. I mean, he’s not out of pocket. He’s – we have to be --
QUESTION: He’s out of – he’s absolutely out of pocket, isn’t he? What, like, out of --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can you call him?
QUESTION: Can you give us any better sense of the calls he’s had and how he’s been framing this to counterparts both before and after this was announced?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t.
QUESTION: [Moderator], could we get more on that?
MODERATOR: (Nodding.)
QUESTION: Was there any discussion – and I’m sorry I missed part of this – about Iranian actions in Syria, Iranian actions in other places? I mean, how risky – the risks of this, of provoking Iran in places where you don’t want them to be provoked?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: So I think this cuts to really the quick of the whole issue is that we’ve seen – and I’m not just going to regurgitate talking points at you – but the one is that we’ve seen since 2015 worsening Iranian behavior in the region and behavior that doesn’t quite internalize the risk of what they’re doing as much as we would have wanted to. So yes, I think exactly what you pointed out is one of the main driving elements behind this decision. We are alarmed by that behavior. The French are alarmed. I mean, you keep raising what --
QUESTION: Yeah, but it wasn’t the Iran deal that made them do those things.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: But again --
QUESTION: It was the Saudis bombing Yemen. It was – they have other interests in Syria.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure --
QUESTION: They have interests in Iraq --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure they’re in Syria --
QUESTION: -- that go back to when --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- because the Saudis are bombing Yemen.
QUESTION: -- the U.S. toppled Saddam.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right? I’m not sure they support Hizballah because the Saudis are bombing Yemen and I --
QUESTION: They’ve always supported Hizballah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- I don’t suppose they – I don’t think they support Badr or AAH or any of the – any of the Iraqi groups because – because the Saudis are bombing Yemen.
I think the problem with the Iran deal, as I talked about in the beginning, was that not only did it sort of decouple the consequences from Iran’s behavior – right? – by cordoning off a large part of Iran’s economy that simply the prejudice against which would be – the prejudice would be to not sanction that part. But indeed, it seemed to mandate a kind of top line of investment in the Iranian economy, which my gosh, totally decouples the consequences from Iranian behavior. That’s --
QUESTION: So the Israelis have now gone on high alert. They’ve – opening bomb shelters. There is this worry that the Iranians are going to attack from bases in Syria. Now that you’ve gotten out of the Iran deal, now that you may have provoked Iran, are you going to commit more troops to Syria? The President just said he wants to get the troops out of Syria. How – that seems a contradiction that you may be provoking more malign behavior on the part of the Iranians while the President is saying that he wants to get actually U.S. commitment to be less in the Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think it’s a little – I think it’s a little tough to – I think it’s a little, well, tough to blame Iranian behavior in Syria and risk-taking in Syria – which has, if anything, worsened since the outbreak of the civil war and the introduction of Iranian forces, not just Iranian proxies – on the President’s Iran deal decision coming today. That doesn’t seem to follow to me at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So are you thinking about committing more troops to Syria that – because of what sounds like certainly Israeli concerns and other people’s concerns about Iran’s more aggressive behavior that they say is a result of this decision – whether it is or not, are you going to reverse the President’s decision recently that he’s going to pull troops out, or are you committing more troops? What is your Syria strategy in the wake of this?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, the President’s focus in Syria is on ISIS. That’s kind of – and I know Brett McGurk has talked to you probably endlessly about this, but that’s kind of a parallel discussion.
QUESTION: Okay. So it’s not on Iran then?
QUESTION: Sorry.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Can I just make one point though --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: -- that relates to your question and your question? It is clear to us and it’s clear to our European allies too that since the JCPOA Iranian malign behavior in the region has increased dramatically.
QUESTION: Yeah. But they disagree on what caused --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m just saying it has gone up.
QUESTION: But they don’t agree that that’s because of the Iran nuclear deal. It’s – I mean, we’ve talked to European diplomats too, so.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right. It is our strong view that the JCPOA gave Iran room both for domestic internal political reasons in Tehran and regional reasons to increase their malign activity that helped to destabilize the region substantially.
So in responding to questions about how pulling out of the JCPOA will affect that, it just – I think it’s important for me to just say that we have seen a dramatic increase to a point where in Syria Iranian behavior – unrelated to the JCPOA but Iranian behavior – is so dangerous and reckless. That’s why Israelis – that’s why the Israeli – the IDF is opening shelters in northern Israel. It’s not because of the JCPOA. It is because of some really dangerous and reckless behavior, including capabilities and all kinds of other things that are going into Syria.
QUESTION: So if you think the JCPOA has given them the room to do this sort of reckless behavior, do you now believe that, as a result of getting rid of the JCPOA, Iran will get out of Syria and stop its reckless behavior?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We believe that by getting rid of the JCPOA, we can come up with a more comprehensive deal, a more comprehensive approach that doesn’t just focus on the nuclear file. The focus is on all of the threats together so that we don’t – the JCPOA tried to deal only with the nuclear file and left everything else off the table in the hopes that it would just kind of get better on its own or we wouldn’t have to worry about it as much. That strategy didn’t work. So what we hope to do is a much more comprehensive deal.
QUESTION: And can we judge the success of that --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, and just to be clear – sorry, can I just offer one thing?
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And just to be clear, it’s not only the JCPOA that contributed to the current situation in the Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, I’m not saying only.
QUESTION: Okay, so just – so for our purposes, let’s say in a year, if you guys – or six months – if you guys do not have a supplemental agreement with all of your allies about addressing this global problem, it will – can we then say that this strategy has not been successful, if in a year you don’t have it? When can we say, okay, you guys promised us a more comprehensive, more global strategy to deal with Iranian malign behavior after you got rid of the last one? When do we get to judge whether you succeeded or failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think you would have to make a cost/benefit decision, right, at six months, at 12 months.
QUESTION: So if you have – if you don’t have an arrangement --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Continually.
QUESTION: -- with your allies in six months, will this strategy have failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to put a timeframe on it, because the wind down is six months for energy sanctions. So part of the strategy is showing Iran that there is economic isolation as a result of its destabilizing activity, so I think we have to be able to build this coalition, build up some economic pressure. So that is the strategy, though, and at the end of the day, if that strategy is – you will judge us based on that strategy.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: But I wouldn’t be – I would not put a six-month or one-year timeline on it. I mean, CISADA was put in place in 2010 and took several years – between CISADA and TRA and IFCA and other economic pressure took quite a few years to get Iran to the negotiating table. So I don’t want to put a timeframe on it.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MODERATOR: Unfortunately, we have to wrap up here I think, you guys.
QUESTION: I really have a sanctions question.
MODERATOR: One last question, then.
QUESTION: Six – okay, after the six months, then you can impose new sanctions on Iran, right? Is that what you’re looking at?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: After the – after six months, we can re-impose the energy-related and banking-related sanctions. It’s not new. They’re re-imposed --
QUESTION: But you can impose --
QUESTION: You can impose --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly.
QUESTION: You can impose other sanctions --
QUESTION: Others.
QUESTION: -- at will any time, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly. Precisely. Precisely.
QUESTION: That’s what I’m asking, yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Precisely.
QUESTION: Any other things. And are you expecting that to come – I mean --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Non-nuclear sanctions.
QUESTION: Non-nuclear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Defer to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: On ballistic missile, counterterrorism, et cetera.
QUESTION: That – so that we can expect over the next few --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to say. I mean, that’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Up to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have an economic assessment as to what this impact is going to be on the Iranian economy, pulling out and --
QUESTION: And preventing (inaudible).
QUESTION: And preventing --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t have it with me, and maybe we can something back to you on that.
QUESTION: That would be useful.
QUESTION: How about on U.S. – on oil prices? I mean gas prices in the U.S.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We can also get that to you. I don’t have that stuff with me, but we can get that.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Team can (inaudible) it out for them.
QUESTION: Just to do one North Korea question. He explicitly --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: But I don’t know the answer.
QUESTION: But he --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You can ask me.
QUESTION: The President explicitly linked getting out of the JCPOA with negotiations in North Korea. He did that in his speech.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So presumably you guys can explain somewhat to us how getting out of the JCPOA will help these negotiations that Pompeo is engaged in right now in Pyongyang.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So at the end of the President’s remarks, he said I don’t know – I mean, I’m paraphrasing – I don’t know if the Iranians are ready to sit down, but I am ready, willing, and able. I think his – the point is that he has initiated an effort with Kim Jong-un to sit down and negotiate the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He is – we are ready to sit down – he said he’s ready, willing, and able to sit down with Iran to negotiate a comprehensive deal that addresses all of the threats together. So I think that was the comparison he was making.
QUESTION: And American detainees in Iran – what do you do about them? How many are there, first of all, and what do you do about it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are five, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let me offer that the security and safety of Americans is our top priority. Well, I know, you can make that face, but it’s true.
QUESTION: No, we’ve heard it before, we get it, we get it. So --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I literally just came from here from – I came – went to the White House from a call with one of the families, right. This is – and they were asking exactly the same things. I don’t want to – this is going to be unsatisfying to you – I don’t want to get into it. That’s conversations we’re having with a number of parties to try and resolve those cases, but – so I’m leery. The – I’m leery about getting too much into that, and I know that’s unsatisfying, so I’m sorry.
MODERATOR: Thank you, guys. I’m sorry, we’re going to have to wrap it up now. We’ve got – these guys have to get somewhere else.
QUESTION: Wait, so is there no July deadline anymore? That’s out the door, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: They were on a July deadline.
QUESTION: Just making sure. Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Did you have one other?
QUESTION: I did, but I think it’s just going to --
QUESTION: Well, and – just to clarify his question. So it would – a deal with Iran would require Iran to totally denuclearize as well, to have no nuclear program whatsoever?
QUESTION: -- bring us back to the same kind of (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to answer that.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, guys.
DSCF1030 | India 2014 [Kerala, Trivandrum, India]: photo by Pierre Wayser, 17 January 2014
1988_8895 | Eighties [Menteng, Jakarta, Indonesia]: photo by Pierre Wayser, sometime in 1988
_DSC2216 [Paris]: photo by Pierre Wayser, 23 June 2016
_DSC1547 [Paris]: photo by Pierre Wayser, 20 April 2016
1988_8895 | Eighties [Menteng, Jakarta, Indonesia]: photo by Pierre Wayser, sometime in 1988
_DSC2216 [Paris]: photo by Pierre Wayser, 23 June 2016
_DSC1547 [Paris]: photo by Pierre Wayser, 20 April 2016
"Israel has claimed it hit nearly all Iranian infrastructure in Syria during airstrikes..." and so on.
ReplyDelete"Israel’s [attack] was the most significant strike in Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The confrontation follows a months-long shadow war campaign during which Israel has been accused of repeated air assaults in Syria, the latest of which was reported on Tuesday night.
"Its military said on Thursday it had attacked dozens of targets included weapons storage, logistics sites and intelligence centres used by Iranian forces...
"The Israeli defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told a security conference: 'We hit nearly all the Iranian infrastructure in Syria … They need to remember the saying that if it rains on us, it’ll storm on them. I hope we’ve finished this episode and everyone understood.'"
... so if you're interested in any of this (I'm sure you're not) you'll know by now that a massive jewgasm went on all through the night in Syria, swarming unleashed demons, the predictable bottled-up id release, as was written long ago and foretold & c. ... you KNEW drumpf would get played like this - begging for it.
his nobel prize will be awaiting him in the microwave when he returns from swatting himself on the back over being taller than little fatty, with those teeny tiny hands.
I sense the hand of Pence somewhere in this quarterwit drive to Mediggo.
ReplyDeleteJust been watching one of Bibi's boys straight up lying on Channel 4 news.
Only doing their jobs. Resolute cretinism biding its time; utter mendacity on the permanent offensive.
ReplyDeleteAlmost feels, one might say, concerted... strategic?