Trump: U.S. will respond with 'great force' if Iran attacks interests

[webfact]

Trump: U.S. will respond with 'great force' if Iran attacks interests

By Mark Hosenball

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs for a campaign rally from the White House in Washington, U.S., May 20, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East, and government sources said Washington strongly suspects Shi'ite militias with ties to Tehran were behind a rocket attack in Baghdad's Green Zone.

 

"I think Iran would be making a very big mistake if they did anything," Trump told reporters as he left the White House on Monday evening for an event in Pennsylvania. "If they do something, it will be met with great force but we have no indication that they will."

 

His comments came as two U.S. government sources said the United States strongly suspects Shi'ite militias with ties to, and possibly encouragement from, Iran fired a rocket on Sunday into Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

 

The sources, who are familiar with U.S. national security assessments and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the United States was still trying to establish which militia fired the Katyusha rocket on Sunday and the extent, if any, of Iranian involvement.

 

The rocket fell in the Green Zone which houses government buildings and embassies and caused no casualties, the latest in a series of regional attacks the United States believes may have been inspired by Iran. Iran has rejected allegations of its possible involvement in attacks last week and Iran's Iraqi allies rushed to condemn Sunday's rocket blast.

 

The attacks include what Saudi Arabia described as armed drone attacks on two oil pumping stations within the kingdom on May 14 and the sabotage of four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, off the coast of the United Arab Emirates on May 12.

 

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi group claimed responsibility for attacking the pumping stations. Saudi Arabia accused Tehran of ordering the attack.

Tensions between Washington and its Sunni Muslim Gulf Arab allies on one side and Tehran and its Shi'ite Muslim proxies on the other have been flaring for weeks.

 

European and U.S. government sources believe Shi'ite militias based in Yemen or Iraq carried out the attacks in Saudi Arabia and near the UAE, likely with Iran's encouragement.

 

The two U.S. sources said they are still trying to establish whether the rocket attack, if inspired or directed by Iran, was designed to send a specific signal to the United States.

 

The incidents all took place after Trump decided to try to cut off Iran's oil exports, roughly a year after he withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers.

 

Trump's decision to abandon the deal that restricted Iran's potential pathway to developing a nuclear bomb in return for relief from economic sanctions angered Tehran, which accuses Washington of breaking its word. Iran denies ever having a nuclear weapons program.

 

LOW-GRADE URANIUM ENRICHMENT

In what may be a sign of Iranian displeasure, an Iranian news service reported on a fourfold increase in Iran's rate of production of low-grade uranium enrichment.

 

Quoting an official at the Natanz enrichment plant, the semi-official Tasnim news service said Iran was accelerating the rate of production at which it refines uranium to 3.67% fissile purity, suitable for civilian nuclear power generation.

 

Two weeks ago, after Trump sought to block all Iranian oil exports, Iran said it would relax some of its commitments under the accord it struck with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

 

Under the deal, negotiated by the administration of Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, Iran was allowed to stockpile up to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and ship any excess out of the country for storage or sale.

 

Iran said this month that cap no longer applied in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the deal.

 

It was not clear how far Iran's LEU stock was from the 300-kg limit. Under the deal Iran can enrich uranium at 3.67%, well below the 90% purity required to make bombs and the 20% level to which Iran enriched before the deal.

 

Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking to BBC World News television, played down the uranium announcement, saying "I don't know that it's necessary to go into the panic mode yet."

 

Clapper stressed, as have some other analysts and diplomats, the danger of an accidental escalation, particularly when opposing forces are close to one another. Both U.S. and Iranian vessels patrol in the Strait of Hormuz.

 

"The thing I would  be concerned about is some inadvertent incident that could go incendiary," he said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned Iraqi leaders during a surprise visit two weeks ago to Baghdad that if they failed to rein in Iran-backed militias, which are expanding their power in Iraq and form part of its security apparatus, the United States would respond with force.

 

A U.S. State Department official noted on Sunday that there had been no claim of responsibility for the rocket attack, and that no U.S.-inhabited facility was affected, but said "we will hold Iran responsible" if such attacks were carried out by proxy militia forces.

 

On Sunday, Trump threatened Iran in a tweet, raising concerns about a potential U.S.-Iran conflict.

 

"If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!" he tweeted.

 

Critics accused Trump of sending mixed signals. Last week three U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump had told his top advisers he does not want war with Iran.

 

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump "bluffs about going after Iran" and said the consequences of being drawn into a war would be "tragic."

 

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi warned U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a letter made public on Monday that "if unchecked, the current situation might – sooner or later – go beyond the perimeter of control and thereby lead to another unnecessary regional crisis."

 

(Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Patricia Zengerle and David Brunnstrom in Washington; John Davison, Ahmed Rasheed, and Ahmed Aboulenein in Baghdad, Raya Jalabi in Erbil and Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in London; Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Writing by Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander; editing by Grant McCool and Phil Berlowitz)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-21

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[keith101]

Trump is just trying to distract everyone away from all the investigations against him the same as he did with the Mueller report , Impeachment might just be the best thing .

[zydeco]

Maybe he'll send them a "beautiful letter."

[grumbleweed]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East

Here's a novel idea: Get the hell out of the Middle East, and everywhere else where you're not wanted

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East,

Yeah right, sure you will...

[mamypoko]

tax breaks and dead bodies

[from the home of CC]

2 hours ago, grumbleweed said:

Here's a novel idea: Get the hell out of the Middle East, and everywhere else where you're not wanted

right now the US is MiB's pit bull and it's very much wanted by the saudis..

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East

Whatever happened to "Fire and Fury" mantra?

"great force" is tame (not close to "greatest") and not becoming of war president. 

If Iran warned the US that it would be met with "great force" if US attacked Iran interests would the US quiver with fear?

[blazes]

History repeats itself:  Gulf of Tonkin incident?  "Weapons of mass destruction"????  

Puny little drone wandering around Baghdad becomes the spark that ignites "great force"....

Foreign adventures distract the whiners at home.....

[geoffbezoz]

6 hours ago, keith101 said:

Trump is just trying to distract everyone away from all the investigations against him the same as he did with the Mueller report , Impeachment might just be the best thing .

Actually I could think of something better that would put him, and the world, out of the misery from the ramblings of this imbecile.

 

King George the Third of England was labelled as the "mad monarch".  Trump will no doubt go down as the "Prat President"

[Morch]

3 hours ago, grumbleweed said:

Here's a novel idea: Get the hell out of the Middle East, and everywhere else where you're not wanted

 

With regard to most places, USA forces are there by invitation/under agreement.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah right, sure you will...

 

I'm pretty sure he will, actually. If USA forces/interests were attacked.

[geoffbezoz]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

With regard to most places, USA forces are there by invitation/under agreement.

Maybe so in Pattaya, few other places though.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Whatever happened to "Fire and Fury" mantra?

"great force" is tame (not close to "greatest") and not becoming of war president. 

If Iran warned the US that it would be met with "great force" if US attacked Iran interests would the US quiver with fear?

 

Well, the USA wouldn't "quiver with fear" even if Iran did go for a "Fire and Fury" slogan either. So far this unfolds not unlike the situation vs. Kim. A whole lot of posturing, and meanwhile offers of negotiations.

[Morch]

Just now, geoffbezoz said:

Maybe so in Pattaya, few other places though.

 

Nope. That's just the usual nonsense. Most places around the globe where the USA got military bases or deployments, this is coordinated with local governments. There are places (currently Syria being a notable example) where this isn't the case. But they do not make up the majority, other in some posters' imagination.

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm pretty sure he will, actually. If USA forces/interests were attacked.

And I'm pretty sure trump is bluster

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

And I'm pretty sure trump is bluster

 

Well, I'm wasn't thinking about a proper all-out invasion, but more like the usual fare - aerial/missile strikes etc. That he can order, and did so earlier in his presidency. For the full-on option, need a whole lot more of Troops and such, can't be carried out in time for the news cycle.

 

Bluster and posturing are there for sure. We get that from Trump 24/7 anyway, and the Iranians aren't far behind. That's almost a requirement for such situation.

[geoffbezoz]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope. That's just the usual nonsense. Most places around the globe where the USA got military bases or deployments, this is coordinated with local governments. There are places (currently Syria being a notable example) where this isn't the case. But they do not make up the majority, other in some posters' imagination.

Guess Panama, Grenada etc etc were just exceptions were they to the US militarist ideals ? And they wonder why most of the civilised  world now despise them ( the US governments, not the normal people) . When stating nonsense you better understand that there are more people these days with access to the facts. WMD in Iraq was nonsense agreed, but it did not stop the US from destabilising the entire region due to incompetence , stupidity and greed.

[wwest5829]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm pretty sure he will, actually. If USA forces/interests were attacked.

And he will decide what "our interest" means ...

[dexterm]

OP..
President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East

 

The goalposts seem to have conveniently shifted: it's now no longer attacking American forces, it's attacking American interests.

 

So if an American interest like Israel attacks a Syrian base (which they have been doing repeatedly for years now) and kills Iranian soldiers, then Syria or its Iranian allies based in Syria who have been invited there unlike US forces, retaliate and fire missiles at the illegally annexed Golan Heights, whose theft by Israel has been recently recognized by Trump, does that count as Trump's pretext to go to war with Iran, when Israel the illegal occupier is clearly the aggressor. USA being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern war on phoney excuses. The tail wagging the dog yet again. 

 

Trump: Well I double dared you and you defended yourself against my little buddy bully...now look what you made me do.

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, I'm wasn't thinking about a proper all-out invasion, but more like the usual fare - aerial/missile strikes etc. That he can order, and did so earlier in his presidency. For the full-on option, need a whole lot more of Troops and such, can't be carried out in time for the news cycle.

 

Bluster and posturing are there for sure. We get that from Trump 24/7 anyway, and the Iranians aren't far behind. That's almost a requirement for such situation.

He won't go full on and has no intention of doing so.

 

All mouth

 

I agree though, iranians are probably playing to the crowd just as much.

 

Pity there are no grown ups on either side to take charge.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

With regard to most places, USA forces are there by invitation/under agreement.

I can't believe you Stated "under agreement" where Trump is concerned. ????

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

meanwhile offers of negotiations.

Yeah under the usual US threats.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I agree though, Iranians are probably playing to the crowd just as much.

Yeah ???? While their taking delivery of North Korea nuclear bomb technology and you can't blame them if it were true because the big bully won't grow up.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Guess Panama, Grenada etc etc were just exceptions were they to the US militarist ideals ? And they wonder why most of the civilised  world now despise them ( the US governments, not the normal people) . When stating nonsense you better understand that there are more people these days with access to the facts. WMD in Iraq was nonsense agreed, but it did not stop the US from destabilising the entire region due to incompetence , stupidity and greed.

 

Guess you're ignoring the original premise and my response, so that you could go on bashing without really addressing the point. Lets try again - most USA forces stationed in or deployed to other countries are in place subject to agreements and local governments permission. You can't demonstrate otherwise, hence the spirited deflection.

 

I don't think that you speak for "most of the civilized world" (even if this was a clear label), or that what you posted is based on on solid facts. Despise? Doubt most people actually hold strong and informed views on issues, "surprisingly" in line with posters' own extreme views.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

And he will decide what "our interest" means ...

 

I think that many potential targets are obvious - troops, military installations, diplomatic missions and anything related to government. Doubt any POTUS could consider these as anything but.

 

The two other groups may overlap some, and that's where presidents may have more maneuvering room with regard to designations and reactions. One group would include economic interests - say installations or operations of major USA firms. An major attack on targets such as these will probably be considered being against USA interests. The other group will relate to diplomatic/political/international relations issues - such as attacks on allies, or attack that carry major international consequences (for example, an attack blocking the Strait of Hormuz).

 

I think that to a degree, some of this is already codified. Granted, Trump could mess this up as well, but bottom line, maybe not that much difference between presidents if push comes to shove. The problem is more to do with getting into the current situation.

 

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

OP..
President Donald Trump warned on Monday Iran would be met with "great force" if it attacked U.S. interests in the Middle East

 

The goalposts seem to have conveniently shifted: it's now no longer attacking American forces, it's attacking American interests.

 

So if an American interest like Israel attacks a Syrian base (which they have been doing repeatedly for years now) and kills Iranian soldiers, then Syria or its Iranian allies based in Syria who have been invited there unlike US forces, retaliate and fire missiles at the illegally annexed Golan Heights, whose theft by Israel has been recently recognized by Trump, does that count as Trump's pretext to go to war with Iran, when Israel the illegal occupier is clearly the aggressor. USA being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern war on phoney excuses. The tail wagging the dog yet again. 

 

Trump: Well I double dared you and you defended yourself against my little buddy bully...now look what you made me do.

 

 

No, that's pretty much standard diplomatic-speak. Talking about "interests" is not something unique to Trump. It serves to address a broader spectrum of scenarios, rather than committing decision makers to a narrow interpretation when considering responses.

 

Your convulsed example, pushing your pet agenda is dully noted. In the context of the OP - USA non-military missions in the region, economic interests, and issues related to USA allies in the Gulf are more realistic examples. Here's to better hijacking of threads.

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

I can't believe you Stated "under agreement" where Trump is concerned. ????

 

Well, the point made was that in many instances, local governments do not seem as keen as yourself on USA forces getting out. In most cases, said USA troops were in place long before Trump became president. Now, if Trump was to break such an agreement and pull out USA troops....oh, wait....wasn't that what you wished for?

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah ???? While their taking delivery of North Korea nuclear bomb technology and you can't blame them if it were true because the big bully won't grow up.

They were doing that long prior to Trump becoming President. Please get your historical ducks in a row before kicking off.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah under the usual US threats.

 

As said earlier, the World isn't fair. Such is life.

 

Iran is not above applying threats, albeit not being a super-power, they're effectiveness is more on the regional level.

 

Iran's history of voluntarily living up to international commitments could be questioned - this is how and why, the so-called Iran Deal came about. That's also the reason for the very strict inspections regime and limitations included.