Trump hits Iran with new Sanctions
Moments ago President Trump placed new sanctions on the number 1 sponsor of terrorism - Iran. As he signed a new Executive Order, the President left open the door to negotiations. The President is driving up the pressure on the rogue state as Iran's economy is in a state of free-fall.
Thus far:
Billions of dollars of assets of Iran's "Supreme Leader" will be locked up.
Three more senior Iranian leaders are now designated to fall under sanctions.
More details to follow
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
This is the beginning of the end for Iran's rogue regime
I hope you are correct; but I don't think sanctions alone will cause Iran to topple.
It will take a concerted effort involving Europe, Russia, and China with real sanctions by all parties to make Iran come to the table. Europe and Russia want Iranian oil and trade; and China is already defying Trump's threat of retaliatory sanctions against countries that buy Iranian oil.
The genie is already out of the bottle. All Iran has to do is hold until they achieve their nuclear breakout. Once they have the weapons Europe, Russia, and China will not have the will to take military action against them. They will discourage the US from taking action as well.
Next up will be Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The only question is if we will force those countries to develop their own nuclear weapons program; or we give them nuclear weapons- like we have our NATO allies. At least that way we will have some oversight on their use.
Last thing the world needs is another India/Pakistan situation; but a nuclear Iran will cause a ME arms race that might be even more volatile.
You are right, sanctions are but one pillar of the current American policy.
It will take a concerted effort involving Europe, Russia, and China with real sanctions by all parties to make Iran come to the table. Europe and Russia want Iranian oil and trade; and China is already defying Trump's threat of retaliatory sanctions against countries that buy Iranian oil.
You can add our European allies to the problem. They have always been reluctant to apply sanctions. hey want Iran as a trading partner. We were fortunate to have them working with us prior to the Iran deal.
The genie is already out of the bottle. All Iran has to do is hold until they achieve their nuclear breakout.
Or until the democrats recapture the White House...Isn't that what the traitor Kerry advised them to do?
Once they have the weapons Europe, Russia, and China will not have the will to take military action against them. They will discourage the US from taking action as well.
Have you forgotten about Israel? They will never stand for that!
Despite everything you cite plus the democrats obstruction, I think Trump will bring down the theocracy. It's only a matter of how and when.
There have been US sanctions against Iran since 1979 ( Jimmy Carter ) and there probably aren't any assets left outside of Iran to be frozen by anyone.
The US has $2 billion frozen and the UN & Europe have $98 to $120 Billion frozen overseas.
Sanctions & EO's just don't work. Especially when Russia & China look the other way...
That's been true since 1979.
Lol, does that include when Obama was giving them pallets of cash?
I haven't forgotten about Israel. Despite their vast military advantage the last thing they want is a war that could unite the ME. Iran might be hated; but are they more hated than Israel? They would have to launch a sustained military offensive to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities. That would mean violating several countries borders/air space repeatedly, no matter which route they choose. It would require refueling in air over what could easily become hostile territory.
Unless Israel just decides to make Iran glow in the dark forever; which would bring about even more problems.
Again, I hope you are right. Getting a real deal done that allows UN inspectors anywhere/anytime access; and that hamstrings Iran's ability to sponsor/train terrorist/militias is an increasing necessity to head off what could be the start of a massive arms race.
Untrue.....Carter helped the revolution and Obama granted the regime hegemony status in the middle east.
Vic,
That never happened, and I am not Obama's biggest fan.
Your turn......How has that been debunked?
What never happened?
Obama giving them a pile of cash.
"Washington (CNN)The Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal, US officials confirmed Wednesday.
I used that one so it would be accepted - saving some time!
I'm glad you added that line. If that money belonged to anyone, it belonged to the government of The Shah - A key US ally!
Vic,
That was to get people back. It wasn't just given to them as part of support package. And while I didn't agree with that, when he did it, what you are implying is that we gave Iran support, which is a totally different thing.
According to the fact checking I have seen, funds were sent to Iranian accounts as part of negotiations between the US and Iran, including the "nuclear deal".
The 1.7 or 1.8 billion was not the U.S 's to keep. It was the accumulated sum, with interest, that accrued after a 1979 arms sale from the US to Iran (worth 400 million) was never completed due to the Iranian revolution. The US was going to be ordered anyway to return the money to Iran by a world court and Obama thought he could use it as a negotiation chip.
The money was Iran's, unless we wanted to steal it. They were given back their own money.
What a non story that has become in conspiracy circles.
We did. If Obama wasn't so interested in a deal, none of those payments would have been made. The Obama administration dealt with the rogue regime and ended up covered with it.
It was Iran's money Vic.
It's a non-story for the defenders of the Iran deal
Sorry, but even CNN says it is true.
It was the money due the Shah's government. As you noted it had been held for decades. It would have been held longer if it were not for Obama's want of a deal. You've made that case yourself.
I know what John meant to say.
That the payments were a non story for conspiracy theorists?
You think that's what John meant to say?
Vic, could we just keep Russia, or China, or Englands money? Where do you get the idea we can keep Iran's money just because we dont agree with their politics?
With the deal Obama made, we actually paid them less than we would have from the world courts.
Still pushing debunked stories?
We ( the US government ) agreed to a settlement at the world court, to end a 35 year old court case,
for keeping the Iranian's cash, not delivering the airplanes they bought, and later selling those same aircraft to someone else.
It was exponentially cheaper than having the World Court rule against the USA for both actual & punitive damages plus 30 years of interest.
We have every right to hold an enemies money. They had no legal right to take over our embassy and hold American citizens hostage, did they?
They were responsible for the murder of the Marines in Lebanon, were they not?
They were responsible for the killing of American military personnel in Iraq, were they not?
They just shot down a Navy drone in international air space, did they not?
I guess you could say they were at war with us. So, yes John we had every right to hold onto the money paid to us by the Shah's government!
American Sovereignty should never bow to international organizations. As for the WC, those who like bad law should become public defenders.
There are dangerous forces everywhere. Each country acts in its own self interest
When it comes to money it has to go through legal processes. If the US gets a reputation for bad business our arms manufacturers will lose the ability to sell death and destruction capabilities to the ends of the earth.
If a country feels that the US has harmed them over the course of the past 100 years or so , do they have a legitimate right to confiscate US assets in their country or in their territory? Or do only we get to make up our desired results?
Carter instituted sanctions. You have opinions but you cannot rewrite history.
Carter also canceled all Iranian visas.
If a nation goes from friendly to hostile and we treat the hostile as such, I think it sends a positive message, rather than a negative.
If a country feels that the US has harmed them over the course of the past 100 years or so , do they have a legitimate right to confiscate US assets in their country or in their territory?
John, Iran has already done worse! An Embassy is considered the sovereign state of the country it serves. We were attacked, many times by Iran. I'm suing for damages! Totaling far more than what we owed the Shah's government.
Or do only we get to make up our desired results?
You have it backwards. They have to be accountable for what they did.
And Carter stood by while our ally the Shar, was being removed from power. The Islamic fanatics should have NEVER been allowed to take control. Think of the middle east today if the Shah had remained in power?
Unfortunately the Shah oppressed his own people. The fact that the US backed the Shah, installed him in power originally, and kept a blind eye while he oppressed and tortured his own people is why the Iranian revolution happened.
Fat lot of good it did anyway...
Did he oppress them as much as the theocracy is?
The fact that the US backed the Shah, installed him in power originally
Take a look at my avatar - He was the architect of all that and the reason we all slept in safety
and kept a blind eye while he oppressed and tortured his own people is why the Iranian revolution happened.
Actually, the mullahs who were taking CIA payments to keep a lid on dissent, suddenly stop getting paid when Carter became President. The Shah's Generals became alarmed when the uprising began. The Shah brushed it all off expecting Carter to come to his aid. What an example Carter provided to all the third world countries that never knew democracy but looked to the US for a strong ally!
Much of that was motivated by Iran's well perceived weakness of Carter. Carter was a man of principle even when it was self defeating
The U.S. does not have clean hands in Iran. We interfered with their democratic government. You dont seem to realize that events from decades ago have later reverberations.
Does 'ugly American' mean anything to you or are we meant to inherit the earth?
The protectors!
It means that nations which have never known democracy, nor have the institutions to support it are going to be one of two things - either an anti US dictatorship or a pro US dictatorship. I prefer the latter.
Same shit with Saddam Hussein.
We intervened and look at the mess, now.
Can't really disagree with that.
Absolutely.
The same way Hussein oppressed the different tribes in Iraq
and Qaddafi oppressed enemy tribes in Libya.
Few dictators like our political merrygoround of elected and appointed officials...
Protectors of what?
So the "Arab springs" have never produced democracy?
Allen Dulles was part of an attempt to develop Iran in the image of an American conglomerate that wanted to construct an emerging nation in their own image and for their own economic benefit.
After years of law practice that bored him, Allen had finally acquired a client with global ambition that matched his own. It was a radically conceived new company, Overseas Consultants Inc., formed by eleven large American engineering firms, that aimed to do nothing less than change the world by making poor countries— and themselves—rich. The visionaries who ran OCI were looking for a country to transform. They settled on Iran, which the United States viewed as a strategic prize.
John, I'm familiar with the writings of Stephen Kinzer. I think he was wrong on the middle east, yet 100% right on central & south America.
The point is that American foreign policy must benefit and protect America. In the case of the Shah, he was not only good for the world's democracies, he was a stabilizing force in the middle east.
John, put down the book for a minute. Answer me this, why would you prefer a band of Islamic radicals, who hated America as opposed to the Shah?
Just a valid reason, please..
Dulles didnt want to put the Shah in power to keep America safe, he wanted to do it to make himself and his business associates money.
What threat was Iran to America in 1950?
It became a threat later due to our meddling in their business.
It became a threat when Jimmy Carter stood there and let an American ally get taken down!
Back in a few