Exclusive: Trump plans executive order to punish arms trade with Iran - sources

[webfact]

Exclusive: Trump plans executive order to punish arms trade with Iran - sources

By Arshad Mohammed and Michelle Nichols

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., September 16, 2020. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order allowing him to impose U.S. sanctions on anyone who violates a conventional arms embargo against Iran, four sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

 

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the executive order was expected to be issued in the coming days and would allow the president to punish violators with secondary sanctions, depriving them of access to the U.S. market.

 

Neither the White House nor the Iranian mission to the United Nations immediately responded to requests for comment.

 

The proximate cause for the U.S. action is the impending expiry of a U.N. arms embargo on Iran and to warn foreign actors - U.S. entities are already barred from such trade - that if they buy or sell arms to Iran they will face U.S. sanctions.

 

Under the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran struck with six major powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - the U.N. conventional arms embargo is to set to expire on Oct. 18, shortly before the Nov. 3 U.S. election.

 

The United States, which abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018, says it has triggered a "snap back," or resumption, of all U.N. sanctions on Iran, including the arms embargo, which would take effect at 8 p.m. on Saturday night or 0000 GMT on Sunday.

 

Other parties to the nuclear deal and most of the U.N. Security Council have said they do not believe the United States has the right to reimpose the U.N. sanctions and that the U.S. move at the United Nations has no legal effect.

 

The executive order is intended to show that the United States will not be deterred despite failing to win broader U.N. Security Council backing "snap back," said one of the four sources.

 

Another of the sources, a European diplomat, said the new executive order would put teeth behind Washington's assertion that the U.N. arms embargo would remain in place beyond October by giving the president secondary sanctions authority to punish arms transfers to or from Iran with U.S. sanctions.

 

Secondary sanctions are those where one country seeks to punish a second country for trading with a third by barring access to its own market, a particularly powerful tool for the United States because of the size of its economy.

 

Most foreign companies do not wish to risk being excluded from the vast U.S. market in order to trade with smaller countries such as Iran.

 

The new executive order may be more symbolic than practical because so many Iranian entities and individuals are already subject to secondary sanctions, said one sanctions lawyer, Doug Jacobson.

 

"It's essentially piling on," Jacobson said. "It’s designed to send a message on this particular issue ... that the U.S. is unhappy that the other parties (to the Iran nuclear deal) did not agree to a snap back of arms sanctions."

 

Speaking on Wednesday, U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela and Iran, Elliott Abrams, said Washington planned to impose sanctions on those who violated the U.N. arms embargo, though he did not say it would do so with an executive order.

 

Also on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo obliquely hinted at the upcoming U.S. action by stressing the power of U.S. sanctions restored since it abandoned the Iran nuclear deal two years ago to deter foreign trade with Iran.

 

"We'll do all the things we need to do to ensure that those sanctions are enforced," Pompeo said of the U.N. arms embargo, recalling many experts argued U.S. unilateral sanctions imposed after it abandoned the nuclear deal would fail.

 

"We've been very successful in spite of what the world said would happen," he added, saying U.S. sanctions had drastically reduced Iran's financial resources.

 

(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and Michelle Nichols; Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick@; Editing by Mary Milliken and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-18

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[tonray]

Let's see if he sanctions Putin, who is Iran's primary supplier

[ChouDoufu]

 

nothing more than political posturing for his evangelical base.

 

chinese and russian arms manufacturers aren't particularly worried about losing the "lucrative" us market.

[bendejo]

Fake news, didn't happen.  And DT had nothing to do with it.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by bendejo

[Matzzon]

Just one question. This man has been irritating people long time enough. What in the world is it that US have that the rest of the world can not be without?

It´s time to put sanctions against this little country, with it´s about 350 million people. Nothing, compared to the rest of the world.

[wombat]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

The United States, which abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018, says it has triggered a "snap back," or resumption, of all U.N. sanctions on Iran, including the arms embargo, which would take effect at 8 p.m. on Saturday night or 0000 GMT on Sunday.

 

confused asks....The United States abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018 so how can they trigger a "snap back"?
what finer point am i missing?

[wombat]

8 hours ago, tonray said:

Let's see if he sanctions Putin, who is Iran's primary supplier

thats funny...that makes this whole thing a farce.

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

what finer point am i missing?

Trump! (If that is a finer point or a big ar5e point, ......hmmmm up to you) ????

[Sujo]

Trump pulled out of the agreement so should just shut up.

 

Yeah sanction china and russia, see how that works out.

[OneMoreFarang]

How about arms trade with Saudi Arabia? Or how about all the military equipment which is worth billions of dollars which the USA gives to Israel for free? Bloody double standards. 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How about arms trade with Saudi Arabia? Or how about all the military equipment which is worth billions of dollars which the USA gives to Israel for free? Bloody double standards. 

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

confused asks....The United States abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018 so how can they trigger a "snap back"?
what finer point am i missing?

 

The Trump administration either truly feels that the USA is strong enough to force its policies and views on relevant countries, or banking on said countries' reluctance putting it to the test. If going by the example set in the past, such assertions are not all that far-fetched, if not fool-proof.

 

Then there are the upcoming elections, and playing Tough Guy on the Iran card could gain some support.

 

There are no real fine points to this, I think. More like an administration who's grasp of diplomacy is a bit on the limited side.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

 

On that part, we have no argument. But I will add this - back when this administration broadcasted its aim to enforce sanctions on Iran, and other sanctions on parties dealing with Iran, many posters were angered by it and at the same time derisive when it came to prospects. The bottom line is that, that generally speaking, they pulled it off. Not fully, of course, but enough to give pause - and exert negative effects for the Iranian economy.

 

That set of sanctions had to do with oil, business ventures, investment and finance. All seen as legitimate, and relatively less controversial than arms sales. So granted, the USA's international standing might not be the same as it was back then (the UNSC flatly rejecting the USA's position is a good indicator) - but it can still muster enough clout to make this work, sort of.

 

If Trump wins another term, and countries realize they need to deal with him for four more years, then it's quite possible they'll rethink positions. Sure, there are profits to be made selling arms to Iran, and more influence to be gained. But weighed against the negatives - maybe less worthwhile than it seems.

 

I'm not saying this is a great move by Team Trump. IMO, more like posturing and being semi-committed to a course of action. It's not a righteous move given the USA's ditching of the agreement, even if the goal, specifically, is not a bad one. But for all that, it could work.

[Lacessit]

38 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up.

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

 

It could be, but I don't recall relevant agencies eager to back up the President's take. Generally speaking it can be said that Iran was following terms. That it may have been seeking ways to circumvent it is quite probable, but doubt that such efforts were the main drive behind Trump's move. Unless mistaken it was stated (by the USA) that Iran breached the 'spirit of the agreement' rather than specific substantial issues being raised.

 

His narrative was that it was a 'bad deal', and that he could force Iran to renegotiate a new, stricter one. The details weren't, IMO, all that central to this.

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It could be, but I don't recall relevant agencies eager to back up the President's take. Generally speaking it can be said that Iran was following terms. That it may have been seeking ways to circumvent it is quite probable, but doubt that such efforts were the main drive behind Trump's move. Unless mistaken it was stated (by the USA) that Iran breached the 'spirit of the agreement' rather than specific substantial issues being raised.

 

His narrative was that it was a 'bad deal', and that he could force Iran to renegotiate a new, stricter one. The details weren't, IMO, all that central to this.

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

 

Yes, but on the other hand, they weren't over supportive of the President's initial claims either. As far as I'm aware, he had to walk back from quite a bit of that. And, of course, he did extend the agreement shortly after assuming office. It took some time to build the narrative and overcome resistance to the policy he favored.

 

As for not calling him stupid, I could do that for you - but probably unnecessary given he's been displaying such for most of his term. You could say he's got the hand of hooking people, working a crowd, and other stuff. That doesn't make him into much of an international relations expert, or one who can handle details, or a great diplomat. That he routinely claims to know the best or more than professionals, is IMO just one more indication he's not too bright.

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, but on the other hand, they weren't over supportive of the President's initial claims either. As far as I'm aware, he had to walk back from quite a bit of that. And, of course, he did extend the agreement shortly after assuming office. It took some time to build the narrative and overcome resistance to the policy he favored.

 

As for not calling him stupid, I could do that for you - but probably unnecessary given he's been displaying such for most of his term. You could say he's got the hand of hooking people, working a crowd, and other stuff. That doesn't make him into much of an international relations expert, or one who can handle details, or a great diplomat. That he routinely claims to know the best or more than professionals, is IMO just one more indication he's not too bright.

IQ is not the only measure of intelligence. Probably the description of cunning as a s##thouse rat fits him best.

[candide]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

Iran is controllled by the IAEA, which has intrusive investigation power. The US could have discretely leaked information and told them where to investigate.

If there was really some intelligence material, it could also have been given to some of the other signatories. Not to Russia, of course, but I guess to countries such as the UK, which is already more or less integrated in the US intelligence system.

 

None of it happened. Only Trump's word.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IQ is not the only measure of intelligence. Probably the description of cunning as a s##thouse rat fits him best.

 

I'm quite willing to attribute him with lack of intelligence of multiple measures. Again, he supplies proof of this on an almost daily basis. Cunning? A bit. But as his plans are upset quite often, maybe not a YUGE gap from Baldrick.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Iran is controllled by the IAEA, which has intrusive investigation power. The US could have discretely leaked information and told them where to investigate.

If there was really some intelligence material, it could also have been given to some of the other signatories. Not to Russia, of course, but I guess to countries such as the UK, which is already more or less integrated in the US intelligence system.

 

None of it happened. Only Trump's word.

 

Controlled is a very strong word, and not quite correct. There are protocols detailing investigative rights and inspections. But ultimately Iran can, if it so chose, to try and hide, delay or limit access. It is a restrictive agreement, but not full-proof.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Controlled is a very strong word, and not quite correct. There are protocols detailing investigative rights and inspections. But ultimately Iran can, if it so chose, to try and hide, delay or limit access. It is a restrictive agreement, but not full-proof.

Iraq succeeded in hiding a lot of factories under desert sand. No reason to believe the Iranians can't take a leaf out of their book.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Iraq succeeded in hiding a lot of factories under desert sand. No reason to believe the Iranians can't take a leaf out of their book.

 

Yes, but once one country does it, the powers that be become more aware of the possibility. Then there's the level of scrutiny offered by the agreement, which is way beyond the measures that were available in Iraq's case.

[OneMoreFarang]

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

By now I believe Iran more than President Trump. And it seems he gets most of his so called knowledge from fox "news" and he ignores what the intelligence agencies try to tell him.

But then again it does not seem that Trump really cares about the world or even the USA. He cares to have power and be reelected. And he does what he feels is necessary to keep his voters happy.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

By now I believe Iran more than President Trump. And it seems he gets most of his so called knowledge from fox "news" and he ignores what the intelligence agencies try to tell him.

But then again it does not seem that Trump really cares about the world or even the USA. He cares to have power and be reelected. And he does what he feels is necessary to keep his voters happy.

 

Making flippant comments does not convey much knowledge or familiarity with things discussed. One can certainly doubt both parties without preference. Given that you do not know what Iran's ruler bases his own assessments on and what are his motivations, the comparison is hollow. And I think you are aware this is not coming from a pro-Trump position.

 

I think what he cares about is his ego, and not getting thrown in jail/face real public censure (the latter is obviously related to the former). All of what he does seem, ultimately, to come down to this.

 

 

[Lacessit]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Making flippant comments does not convey much knowledge or familiarity with things discussed. One can certainly doubt both parties without preference. Given that you do not know what Iran's ruler bases his own assessments on and what are his motivations, the comparison is hollow. And I think you are aware this is not coming from a pro-Trump position.

 

I think what he cares about is his ego, and not getting thrown in jail/face real public censure (the latter is obviously related to the former). All of what he does seem, ultimately, to come down to this.

 

 

The FBI, Justice Department and intelligence services have all been scorned and politicized by him one way or another. IMO if he is not re-elected they will be lining up for a piece of him. He and his cronies know it. Expect even more desperation in the coming weeks.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The FBI, Justice Department and intelligence services have all been scorned and politicized by him one way or another. IMO if he is not re-elected they will be lining up for a piece of him. He and his cronies know it. Expect even more desperation in the coming weeks.

 

As organizations, I doubt they will. People (and even some influential people) being extra active doing their job in this context, sure. I would expect more book deals, too. That's where Iran's ruler got things under so much better control - his authority is both political and religious, the body appointing/confirming anyone who matters is under his thumb, a huge slush fund on the side managed by himself, and a parallel army at his command.

 

 

[Sujo]

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

Or if you think as simple as trump does. Obama made the deal so it must be broken, regardless.

[cmarshall]

Looks like the October Surprise is going to be war with Iran once the US starts seizing Iranian ships on the high seas.