Pompeo says U.S. does not want war with Iran; pushes for international response

[webfact]

Pompeo says U.S. does not want war with Iran; pushes for international response

By Richard Cowan

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a joint news conference in The Hague, Netherlands June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States does not want to go to war with Iran but will take every action necessary, including diplomacy, to guarantee safe navigation through vital shipping lanes in the Middle East, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.

 

U.S.-Iran tensions are high following accusations by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump that Tehran carried out attacks last Thursday on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a vital oil shipping route. Iran has denied having any role.

 

"We don't want war. We've done what we can to deter this," Pompeo said in an interview with 'Fox News Sunday', adding: "The Iranians should understand very clearly that we will continue to take actions that deter Iran from engaging in this kind of behavior."

 

Pompeo, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, also defended the administration's conclusion that Iran was behind the attack, saying there was other evidence beyond video footage released last week. "The intelligence community has lots of data, lots of evidence. The world will come to see much of it."

 

Saudi Arabia on Saturday joined the United States in blaming Iran for the attacks and called for the international community to take swift action to secure Gulf energy supplies. The Strait of Hormuz is a major transit route for oil from Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest crude exporter, and other Gulf producers.

 

Pompeo said the United States would take "all actions necessary, diplomatic and otherwise" to guarantee safe passage through vital shipping lanes, without providing further details. The secretary of state said the U.S. was discussing a possible international response, saying he had made a number of calls to foreign officials on Saturday regarding the attacks.

 

He cited China, Japan, South Korea and Indonesia as countries that rely heavily on freedom of navigation through the straits. "I'm confident that when they see the risk, the risk of their own economies and their own people and outrageous behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, they will join us in this."

 

The United States is already embroiled in a standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, and has blamed the Middle Eastern country and its surrogates for other acts of aggression in recent months including previous attacks on oil tankers in May and the targeting of U.S. drones in Yemen.

 

In a separate television interview with CBS' "Face the Nation," Pompeo left open the possibility of U.S. military action in the region but declined to discuss what form that might take.

 

Some conservative congressional Republicans on Sunday called on the Trump administration to take a tough stance.

 

Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told CBS: "Unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike" that he said Trump already is authorized to launch under U.S. law.

 

Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House of Representatives Republican, said the White House had been briefing Congress on Iran. "We don't want to see it escalate to where it is a military operation," he told NBC's "Meet the Press," adding: "But we have to stand up to Iran."

 

However, Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, cast doubt on America's ability to rally the international community to protect shipping lanes and impose sanctions, saying it had alienated its allies. He said the evidence pointing to Iran being behind Thursday's attacks was "compelling."

 

"The problem is that we are struggling, even in the midst of this solid evidence, to persuade our allies to join us in any kind of a response and it shows just how isolated the United States has become," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Michelle Price)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-17

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[billd766]

If the US does not want a war, then simply pull the extra B52s and carrier group out of the region and stop poking your nose in places that don't concern you.

 

Both Bolton and Pompeo want a war that they can win easily and cheaply and they are leading Trump like a horse to water.

 

IMHO the US will win the early battles but unless they are willing to invade and occupy Iran it will drag on for years.

 

If they do invade the MSM will have a field day when the coffins of the US troops are brought back for burial in the US.

 

How long has Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya been running now?

[candide]

There is already an international consensus on Iran, that Trump has broken unilaterally. And now that the orange moron has created a big mess, he's calling for international collaboration to clean it? Lol!

[Pedrogaz]

Ah the old trick eh? Let's have the flash flags. Let's make the accusations with no evidence and which fly in the face of reason. Next let's have a coalition...the UK is always reliable to provide the fig leaf of respectability. Next let's say we want to talk to Iran but ) either they refused so we have no option but to bomb or b) we talked and the conditions we asked for were so onerous that they wouldn't agree that we have no option but to bomb.

The UN as we all know will not endorse the bombing....hence the US will break international and national law to start yet another war. The rogue nation of our world, never passing up an opportunity for war. No other has been continuously at war as long as the US has....its their business model.

Truly sickening....I wish nothing but ill for warmongers.

[jany123]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told CBS: "Unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike" that he said Trump already is authorized to launch under U.S. law.

So.... a foreign countries ship is attacked, in another countries territorial waters, on the opposite sides of the world from the United States, where no US civilians were involved, let alone hurt, and by law, the United States can initiate a military strike, without unequivocal evidence against its target 

 

does anyone know what law senator cotton if referencing?

[kamahele]

I don't trust Pompeo one iota. 

[kamahele]

42 minutes ago, jany123 said:

So.... a foreign countries ship is attacked, in another countries territorial waters, on the opposite sides of the world from the United States, where no US civilians were involved, let alone hurt, and by law, the United States can initiate a military strike, without unequivocal evidence against its target 

 

does anyone know what law senator cotton if referencing?

The US is obligated to defend something like 69 different countries if they come under attack. Don't know if this includes property registered to them in foreign waters  or not

[Salerno]

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

Next let's have a coalition...the UK is always reliable to provide the fig leaf of respectability.

I think even the Brits will tell them to shove it this time.

[jany123]

27 minutes ago, kamahele said:

The US is obligated to defend something like 69 different countries if they come under attack. Don't know if this includes property registered to them in foreign waters  or not

Yep... I understand the need to fulfill ones obligations via treaties and alliances, but could that really be it? 

 

And... In this case they are not talking about defending a country, but rather retaliating for an action in another countries domain, as you point out

 

authorizing an attack on another country, accused of, but not proven culpable in an act of aggression against a third party, without consulting the third party, seems like a massive over reach to me.

 

any decision on retaliation, if the US claims can be proven to the United Nations satisfaction, should surely rest first and foremost with either Norway or japan, who could then, in need, enlist Washington’s help in seeking revenge, but to act unilaterally? Well, I’d still love to read the law that cotton is relying upon.

[Tagged]

This is on Trump, since he is obsessed unduing what Obama did, and need to show he got some balls. 

 

Anyway, a coincidence a Japaneese ship was targeded since the prime minister was visiting, and an Norwegian, where the Stoltenberg the General secretary of Nato comes from. 

 

Would Iran be so stupid to target a guests ship while visiting? The few friends they still got? Norway as well as Germany is still liberate about Iran, as many other Europeen countries. We do not want another crisis and huge waves of immigrants on our borders now. 

 

So, mr nicely states here, can we trust him on this matter? 

 

 

https://youtu.be/5vjAKrh4Oys

[spidermike007]

For a nation that claims they do not want war with Iran, the US is sure behaving strangely. It looks to me like they want war. We know blindfold bolton wants war. Beware of what you ask for. A war with Iran could be the last war the US wages. 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"I'm confident that when they see the risk, the risk of their own economies and their own people and outrageous behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, they will join us in this." 

Let's be honest Pompeo.

• The Trump administration imposed a worldwide ban on the sale of Iran oil, putting Iran's economy and people AT RISK. The U.S. threatens the sovereignty of Iran while extolling protection of the Hormuz Strait for safe navigation for foreign oil tankers. And Iran reacts with hostile rhetoric?

Meanwhile North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and Trump promises Kim Jung-On that he won't allow the CIA to spy on North Korea.

[candide]

39 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yep... I understand the need to fulfill ones obligations via treaties and alliances, but could that really be it? 

 

And... In this case they are not talking about defending a country, but rather retaliating for an action in another countries domain, as you point out

 

authorizing an attack on another country, accused of, but not proven culpable in an act of aggression against a third party, without consulting the third party, seems like a massive over reach to me.

 

any decision on retaliation, if the US claims can be proven to the United Nations satisfaction, should surely rest first and foremost with either Norway or japan, who could then, in need, enlist Washington’s help in seeking revenge, but to act unilaterally? Well, I’d still love to read the law that cotton is relying upon.

Actually, it seems the 'obligations' are usually vaguely defined in the various treaties.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/gary-johnson/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-mischaracterize/

 

Also, as you mention, it is likely that there should be no obligation unless the target country of the attack expressively asks for help. But who knows? Panama is among the treaties' beneficiaries and may require help if asked to by the U.S. ????

[pierrenoel]

bla bla bla wont be a war,unless iran stike first,and they wont stike us ship,dont worry,they are not stupid

[jany123]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Actually, it seems the 'obligations' are usually vaguely defined in the various treaties.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/gary-johnson/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-mischaracterize/

 

Also, as you mention, it is likely that there should be no obligation unless the target country of the attack expressively asks for help. But who knows? Panama is among the treaties' beneficiaries and may require help if asked to by the U.S. ????

Thanks for that link, it was enlightening.... and suggests that senator cotton (of the armed services and intelligence committee) is talking BS. He’s either ignorant or lying, neither of which is comforting, even if lying has become the new norm for A45

 

these treaties apparently elude to defending the borders of countries under attack, which is most certainly not the case... and one of the funniest statements in the article is that the US has defense obligations to Venezuela.... oh how Madura must be laughing at that! ????????????.... not to mention how many countries have declared their intent to abandon US treaties, when the current terms expire

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Salerno said:

I think even the Brits will tell them to shove it this time.

I do hope so.

 

We lost too many good people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc to send more of them into harms way because of a stupid decision made by 3 doddering old men who are simply war mongers.

 

If they do attack Iran I would like to see all 3 of them in the front line with ALL their sons and daughters, nephew, nieces, etc of military age.

 

Cadet bone spurs to be #1.

 

Then perhaps they may understand what they are sending other people sons and daughters into.

[Tug]

With luck it just might be another Donald conn ie create a problem fix said problem to look good.thats what you get by telling 10,000 lies in 2 years.A responsible leader would be escorting and convoying ships to protect the worlds economies and provide exclent training for the naval forces.but alas we have Donald probably imo it’s just another conn hope so

[Tagged]

It is Iran, so nobody cares really! Same as all propaganda we have been served for decades for the better of humanity, and saving the world. How much longer will it take before China take over, and we have a new order, because we starting doubting the Emperor Usa? Lack of support, will take Usa down!

[Morch]

8 hours ago, candide said:

There is already an international consensus on Iran, that Trump has broken unilaterally. And now that the orange moron has created a big mess, he's calling for international collaboration to clean it? Lol!

 

Posters tend to forget that the consensus on Iran is multifaceted. It also includes the views that Iran cannot be trusted to uphold international commitments without strict oversight. And to a lesser degree, that on a regional level, Iran's actions and policies spell trouble.

 

It is true that the Trump administration actions, positions and statements seem out of sync. Nothing new there, think most of us realized that's the new normal when it comes to the White House. That said, worth keeping in mind that the USA unilaterally re-introducing sanctions on Iran was received with similar ridicule and scorn. Don't know if it's still that amusing.

 

As much as many of us detest Trump, if the USA can convincingly prove Iranian involvement in the attacks, kinda doubt they wouldn't get their coalition.

[Dumbastheycome]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Posters tend to forget that the consensus on Iran is multifaceted. It also includes the views that Iran cannot be trusted to uphold international commitments without strict oversight. And to a lesser degree, that on a regional level, Iran's actions and policies spell trouble.

 

It is true that the Trump administration actions, positions and statements seem out of sync. Nothing new there, think most of us realized that's the new normal when it comes to the White House. That said, worth keeping in mind that the USA unilaterally re-introducing sanctions on Iran was received with similar ridicule and scorn. Don't know if it's still that amusing.

 

As much as many of us detest Trump, if the USA can convincingly prove Iranian involvement in the attacks, kinda doubt they wouldn't get their coalition. 

"As much as many of us detest Trump, if the USA can convincingly prove Iranian involvement in the attacks, kinda doubt they wouldn't get their coalition. "

 

In light of the deceptions the USA  has used historically  the  words  "convincingly prove" need  be replaced  with  "irrevocable and demonstrable proof".

No more  shades  of  historical deception!

[jany123]

a couple of tankers were deliberately disabled vs sunk, with no loss of life, which would have happened if the limpets, (if that’s what they were), were placed a little more strategically, and a couple of feet below the waterline 

 

the Sabre rattling war mongers are bumping their gums about the fact that only specialized operators could have done this deed, which if true, indicates that there was never any real intention to do serious harm, only mischief.

 

wars may have been started over less, but in this day and age, with the stakes as they are, the actions described herein hardly rise to the level of requiring anything more than censure, and certainly not war.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

"As much as many of us detest Trump, if the USA can convincingly prove Iranian involvement in the attacks, kinda doubt they wouldn't get their coalition. "

 

In light of the deceptions the USA  has used historically  the  words  "convincingly prove" need  be replaced  with  "irrevocable and demonstrable proof".

No more  shades  of  historical deception!

 

Well, that's your opinion. As pointed out, similar reactions with regard to them sanctions being reintroduced. Bottom lines, the sanctions bite, and quite a few countries effectively capitulated. There's a tendency to conflate between what posters feel "need be", and what is.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, jany123 said:

a couple of tankers were deliberately disabled vs sunk, with no loss of life, which would have happened if the limpets, (if that’s what they were), were placed a little more strategically, and a couple of feet below the waterline 

 

the Sabre rattling war mongers are bumping their gums about the fact that only specialized operators could have done this deed, which if true, indicates that there was never any serious intention to do serious harm, only mischief.

 

wars may have been started over less, but in this day and age, with the stakes as they are, the actions described herein hardly rise to the level of requiring anything more than censure, and certainly not war.

 

I think I've posted this several times - Iran is not interested in an all out war with the USA. There's nothing to be gained, at quite possibly all will be lost (as far as the current regime is concerned).

 

Iran cannot realistically be expecting to win a war, or that the USA will do an about face while the current status quo is on. It also can't sustain the sanctions, at least not with a danger for the regime's stability or curtailing some of its involvement in the region. On the other hand, the Iranian leadership cannot be seen as surrendering to USA demands.

 

Negotiations, though, are the only realistically viable option on the menu. So if negotiations it is, probably better entering them with the stage set, and holding some cards. 

 

One of the keys is making it more of an international issue, rather than a narrower USA vs. Iran thing. The USA sanctions contributed some to this, but so far failed to generate much effective counteraction. Maybe a credible threat to maritime traffic in a globally significant hub will do the trick. 

 

So I think Iran (or at least, elements within Iran) might see things differently then the supposed no-interest-whatsoever version alleges. Also, the repeated failure to acknowledge Iran's own "Sabre rattling war mongers....bumping their gums" is quite odd.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, that's your opinion. As pointed out, similar reactions with regard to them sanctions being reintroduced. Bottom lines, the sanctions bite, and quite a few countries effectively capitulated. There's a tendency to conflate between what posters feel "need be", and what is.

If anything the USA's ability to use economic coercion against the business interests of 3rd party nations actually militates against its power to persuade said nations of Iranian malfeasance. Most most major nations of the world hold the US and its economic embargo responsible for the present situation in the Persian Gulf. They may not be happy about Iranian operations elsewhere, but I doubt you'll find any who think the present situation would have arisen had the US not been so bloody minded in its current campaign against Iran. Not cooperating with the US in this phase of its campaign is one way they have to discomfit the current administration.

[jany123]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think I've posted this several times - Iran is not interested in an all out war with the USA. There's nothing to be gained, at quite possibly all will be lost (as far as the current regime is concerned).

 

Iran cannot realistically be expecting to win a war, or that the USA will do an about face while the current status quo is on. It also can't sustain the sanctions, at least not with a danger for the regime's stability or curtailing some of its involvement in the region. On the other hand, the Iranian leadership cannot be seen as surrendering to USA demands.

 

Negotiations, though, are the only realistically viable option on the menu. So if negotiations it is, probably better entering them with the stage set, and holding some cards. 

 

One of the keys is making it more of an international issue, rather than a narrower USA vs. Iran thing. The USA sanctions contributed some to this, but so far failed to generate much effective counteraction. Maybe a credible threat to maritime traffic in a globally significant hub will do the trick. 

 

So I think Iran (or at least, elements within Iran) might see things differently then the supposed no-interest-whatsoever version alleges. Also, the repeated failure to acknowledge Iran's own "Sabre rattling war mongers....bumping their gums" is quite odd.

Are we agreeing that if this was an Iranian action, as claimed by the least credible nation on the planet, then it was indeed a nuisance attack meant to provide leverage and raise global awareness to its plight vs any real damage?

 

Anyway.... when Thai visa runs a story about Iranian rhetoric, I’ll be sure to make a post, but this thread is about US players and their puppets bumping their gums, not Iran, and as getting off topic last night resulted in censure, I see no point in deliberately following you down another rabbit hole.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If anything the USA's ability to use economic coercion against the business interests of 3rd party nations actually militates against its power to persuade said nations of Iranian malfeasance. Most most major nations of the world hold the US and its economic embargo responsible for the present situation in the Persian Gulf. They may not be happy about Iranian operations elsewhere, but I doubt you'll find any who think the present situation would have arisen had the US not been so bloody minded in its current campaign against Iran. Not cooperating with the US in this phase of its campaign is one way they have to discomfit the current administration.

 

No issues with your post, up until the last line.

That's pretty much a rehash of responses on here regarding the sanctions being reintroduced.

 

I think that If compelling evidence would be provided to show Iran's involvement in these attacks, I think priorities will change, and that the USA will get its coalition. Whether it implies war is a different matter.

 

If, on the other hand, the current situation continues - unaccountable attacks, allegations, no conclusive evidence, sabre rattling - things would eventually escalate, ending with either a confrontation or strong enough global pressure to sort things out.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Are we agreeing that if this was an Iranian action, as claimed by the least credible nation on the planet, then it was indeed a nuisance attack meant to provide leverage and raise global awareness to its plight vs any real damage?

 

Anyway.... when Thai visa runs a story about Iranian rhetoric, I’ll be sure to make a post, but this thread is about US players and their puppets bumping their gums, not Iran, and as getting off topic last night resulted in censure, I see no point in deliberately following you down another rabbit hole.

 

We do not agree about the USA being the "least credible nation on the planet". Same goes for trying to minimize the attack by labeling it as "a nuisance" one. We further disagree about describing the motivation as "raise global awareness to its plight".

 

As for the rest of the nonsense on offer - Iranian rhetoric was covered in plenty of related OP's. Pretending that the sabre rattling is one sided is either being misinformed or disingenuous. Pick one.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No issues with your post, up until the last line.

That's pretty much a rehash of responses on here regarding the sanctions being reintroduced.

 

I think that If compelling evidence would be provided to show Iran's involvement in these attacks, I think priorities will change, and that the USA will get its coalition. Whether it implies war is a different matter.

 

If, on the other hand, the current situation continues - unaccountable attacks, allegations, no conclusive evidence, sabre rattling - things would eventually escalate, ending with either a confrontation or strong enough global pressure to sort things out.

I think you underestimate how resentful most of the nations affected by the USA's economic coercion are and how easy it is to be unconvinced by evidence when it's convenient not to be. Remaining unconvinced is one of the few ways these nations have of sending the USA an effective message.

[Morch]

Just now, bristolboy said:

I think you underestimate how resentful most of the nations affected by the USA's economic coercion are and how easy it is to be unconvinced by evidence when it's convenient not to be. Remaining unconvinced is one of the few ways these nations have of sending the USA an effective message.

 

I do not underestimate the sentiment. I just think that some posters overestimate the ability and willingness of countries to actively oppose the USA. All the more so if this related to international coordinated efforts.

 

For the purposes of claiming international support, the current administration doesn't need full participation and probably doesn't expect it anyway.

 

There's a bit of a disconnect here between whines about the many times countries followed the USA's lead, and the assertions that this time it will be different. In a way, I think it could have been different - had the President been someone else, rather than Trump who's willing to leverage whatever to get his way. But then another President would maybe not get the USA in this mess to begin with.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I do not underestimate the sentiment. I just think that some posters overestimate the ability and willingness of countries to actively oppose the USA. All the more so if this related to international coordinated efforts.

 

For the purposes of claiming international support, the current administration doesn't need full participation and probably doesn't expect it anyway.

 

There's a bit of a disconnect here between whines about the many times countries followed the USA's lead, and the assertions that this time it will be different. In a way, I think it could have been different - had the President been someone else, rather than Trump who's willing to leverage whatever to get his way. But then another President would maybe not get the USA in this mess to begin with.

The difference is that unlike the economic embargo of Iran, the administration doesn't have the means to coerce major nations to back it in this venture. It needs their willing cooperation.