Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 July 2019 02:20
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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

By Richard Cowan

 

2019-06-16T172332Z_1_LYNXNPEF5F0PJ_RTROPTP_4_MIDEAST-ATTACKS-USA-POMPEO.JPG

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)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-17
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

B4DE323F-10D3-4E20-8390-B28F4ED31EA3.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...