US labels elite Iran force a foreign terrorist organization

[GMDino]

First time this has ever been done.  I fear Bolton's woody for Iran might be more dangerous than Trump's aversion to brown people.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-labels-elite-iran-force-a-foreign-terrorist-organization

Quote:The United States on Monday designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization, an unprecedented declaration against a foreign government that may prompt retaliation and make it harder for American diplomats and military officers to work with allies in the region.



It is the first time that the U.S. has designated an entity of another government as a terrorist organization, placing a group with vast economic resources that answers only to Iran's supreme leader in the same category as al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

As a former firefighter and flight medic, Todd knows what it means to be part of a team that puts others first. See how Todd is using his skills as a lineman to help d...

"This unprecedented step, led by the Department of State, recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a state sponsor of terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft," President Donald Trump said in announcing the measure.


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the designation is intended to increase pressure on Iran, isolating it further and diverting some of the financial resources it uses to fund terrorism and militant activity in the Middle East and beyond. But, in addition to the potential for Iranian retaliation, it complicates a delicate balance for U.S. personnel in at least two key countries.


The administration went ahead with the designation despite expressions of "serious" concern by senior defense and intelligence officials about the possibility of retaliation, as well as the effectiveness against an organization already subject to sanctions, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision.


Pompeo said the move is part of an effort to put "maximum pressure" on Iran to end its support for terrorist plots and militant activity that destabilizes the Middle East. Speaking to reporters, he rattled off a list of attacks dating to the 1980s for which the U.S. holds Iran and the IRGC responsible, beginning with the attacks on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983.


No waivers or exceptions to the sanctions were announced, meaning U.S. troops and diplomats could be barred from speaking with Iraqi or Lebanese authorities who have dealings with Guard officials or surrogates. Such contact occurs now between U.S. officials in Iraq who deal with Iranian-affiliated Shiite militias and in Lebanon, where the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement is in parliament and the government.


The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies had raised concerns about the impact of the designation if the move did not allow contact with other foreign officials who may have met with or communicated with Guard personnel. Those concerns have in part dissuaded previous administrations from taking the step, which has been considered for more than a decade.


The Justice Department said Monday it would prosecute violations but officials declined to say how broadly they would interpret the provision barring "material support" to the IRGC. A strict interpretation would leave hundreds of European companies and executives at risk for U.S. travel bans or criminal penalties in addition to limiting American officials' ability to deal with foreign counterparts who have links to the guard.


The designation "raises the question of whether a non-U.S. company or individual could be prosecuted for engaging in commercial transactions with an Iranian company controlled by the IRGC," said Anthony Rapa, an international trade and national security attorney with Kirkland and Ellis.


Critics of the hardline policy also see it as a prelude to conflict.


"This move closes yet another potential door for peacefully resolving tensions with Iran," said Trita Parsi, the founder of the National Iranian American Council. "Once all doors are closed, and diplomacy is rendered impossible, war will essentially become inevitable."


National Security Action, a group made up of mainly former Obama administration officials, said it would put U.S. troops at risk while jeopardizing the 2015 nuclear accord with which Iran is still complying.


"We need to call out today's move for what it is: another dangerous and self-defeating tactic that endangers our troops and serves nothing but the Trump administration's goal of destroying the Iran deal," it said.


The designation could also open hundreds of foreign companies and business executives to U.S. travel bans and possible prosecution for sanctions violations.


The IRGC is a paramilitary organization formed in the wake of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution to defend the government. The force answers only to Iran's supreme leader, operates independently of the regular military and has vast economic interests across the country. The U.S. estimates it may control or have a significant influence over up to 50% of the Iranian economy, including non-military sectors like banking and shipping.


Iran has long been designated a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. and the State Department currently designates more than 60 organizations as "foreign terrorist organizations." But none of them is a state-run military.


Iran immediately responded to the designation with its Supreme National Security Council designating the U.S. Central Command, also known as CENTCOM, and all its forces as terrorist, and labeling the U.S. a "supporter of terrorism."


The Council denounced the U.S. decision as "illegal and dangerous" and said the U.S. government would be responsible for all "dangerous repercussions" of its decision. It defended the IRGC, which has fought Islamic State fighters, as being a force against terrorism.


American military commanders were planning to warn U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region of the possibility of retaliation. Aside from Iraq, where some 5,200 American troops are stationed, and Syria, where some U.S. 2,000 troops remain, the U.S. 5th Fleet, which operates in the Persian Gulf from its base in Bahrain, and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, are potentially at risk.


The U.S. special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Nathan Sales, said the decision was reached after consultation with agencies throughout the government but would not say in a news conference if the military or intelligence concerns had been addressed.


"Doing this will not impede our diplomacy," Hook said, without elaborating. He noted that the U.S. has at various times had contact or even formal negotiations with members of groups that are subject to sanctions.
Reaction from those who favor tougher engagement with Iran was quick and welcoming.


"Thank you, my dear friend, US President Donald Trump," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a tweet, a day before what could be a close election. "Thank you for answering another of my important requests that serves the interests of our countries and of countries in the region."


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the action an "overdue" but essential step that should be followed by additional sanctions.


Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the designation "ends the facade that the IRGC is part of a normal military."


And, the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, called it "an imperative for Middle East security, peace, and stability, and an urgent and necessary step to end war and terrorism throughout the region and the world."

Further reading makes it seem like people with experience and sense were against this but Bolton and Donald "Give me a quickie so I can make s snap decision" Trump went ahead with it anyway.

More and more DJT looks like the cornered rat who will do anything and everything to escape.  In this case it's too escape looking clueless and lost when it comes to policy and getting real things done and not just talking about them.

[Benton]

I want to know more about Todd.

[GMDino]

(04-09-2019, 10:12 AM)Benton Wrote: I want to know more about Todd.

New Trump spokesman? 

That's a good catch!  LMAO!

Edit: I had to go back and look...that's as advert in the middle I forgot to take out!

[Dill]

(04-09-2019, 10:12 AM)Benton Wrote: I want to know more about Todd.

According to the information presently on file, until yesterday he was a firefighter and paramedic.

Now he is in charge of the Iran portfolio, working directly under Jared Kushner.  

[*bfine32*]

What would we think of a US Military force that answered only to Trump? Would we call them 'Brown Shirts" or something of that sort.

The RG is a terrorist organization and it appears we have discussed labeling them as such for over a decade. The recent sentencing of an American to 10 years for insulting an Iranian Leader may have been the straw that broke the Camel's back.

[Yojimbo]

(04-09-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would we think of a US Military force that answered only to Trump? Would we call them 'Brown Shirts" or something of that sort.

The RG is a terrorist organization and it appears we have discussed labeling them as such for over a decade. The recent sentencing of an American to 10 years for insulting an Iranian Leader may have been the straw that broke the Camel's back.

What does somebody breaking Iran’s laws in Iran’s country have to do with terrorism?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-09-2019, 07:18 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: What does somebody breaking Iran’s laws in Iran’s country have to do with terrorism?

They also captured US military and only released them after being paid off. That is basically piracy.

Combine that with Iranian weaponry being constantly sold/supplied to terrorists, and their stance of wanting to eradicate some nations and all their people off of the face of the earth. I am not sure what good the designation will do, but honestly... F Iran.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 07:18 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: What does somebody breaking Iran’s laws in Iran’s country have to do with terrorism?

DAMNIT. You didn't answer the question posed simply posed one of your own. et tu Brute?

But to answer your question it has less to do with how he was sentenced than his actual arrest.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 07:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They also captured US military and only released them after being paid off. That is basically piracy.

Combine that with Iranian weaponry being constantly sold/supplied to terrorists, and their stance of wanting to eradicate some nations and all their people off of the face of the earth. I am not sure what good the designation will do, but honestly... F Iran.

If you ever want Americans to defend a terrorist organization that violates human rights constantly, just have Trump call them on it. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would we think of a US Military force that answered only to Trump? Would we call them 'Brown Shirts" or something of that sort.

The RG is a terrorist organization and it appears we have discussed labeling them as such for over a decade. The recent sentencing of an American to 10 years for insulting an Iranian Leader may have been the straw that broke the Camel's back.

I have to agree, here. I may question the wisdom of the secondary and tertiary effects of this policy decision, but essentially it seems there is a wide agreement that the group is a terrorist organization, even if they don't agree to it being labeled as such. I am curious whether they have some of the details ironed out or if they are planning on making some adjustments on the fly to allow for continued diplomacy.

I guess my main critique is that we approach Iran like this, but we treat the Saudis with kid gloves when they hold so much responsibility for terrorist activity from Islamic terrorists. But that is nothing new with Trump.

[Yojimbo]

(04-09-2019, 07:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you ever want Americans to defend a terrorist organization that violates human rights constantly, just have Trump call them on it. 

The U.S. military commits all kinds of human rights violations. Do we want other countries labeling the U.S. military as terrorist groups and therefore ignoring the Geneva Convention rules of war? FYI that’s why we just did this to Iran.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 07:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, here. I may question the wisdom of the secondary and tertiary effects of this policy decision, but essentially it seems there is a wide agreement that the group is a terrorist organization, even if they don't agree to it being labeled as such. I am curious whether they have some of the details ironed out or if they are planning on making some adjustments on the fly to allow for continued diplomacy.

I guess my main critique is that we approach Iran like this, but we treat the Saudis with kid gloves when they hold so much responsibility for terrorist activity from Islamic terrorists. But that is nothing new with Trump.

Solid post and I agree with the hypocrisy, but I'm not sure this is something that started with Trump:



But I do agree that I wish the current Admin would take a harder stance toward Saudi

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-09-2019, 07:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, here. I may question the wisdom of the secondary and tertiary effects of this policy decision, but essentially it seems there is a wide agreement that the group is a terrorist organization, even if they don't agree to it being labeled as such. I am curious whether they have some of the details ironed out or if they are planning on making some adjustments on the fly to allow for continued diplomacy.

I guess my main critique is that we approach Iran like this, but we treat the Saudis with kid gloves when they hold so much responsibility for terrorist activity from Islamic terrorists. But that is nothing new with Trump.

*But that is nothing new with the US.


- - - - - - 

Saudi buddies is hardly new to Trump. 

Trump, Obama, Bush, Clintons... it really goes back. Oil and oil money buys a lot of forgiveness, forgetfulness, and friends.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 08:05 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: The U.S. military commits all kinds of human rights violations. Do we want other countries labeling the U.S. military as terrorist groups and therefore ignoring the Geneva Convention rules of war? FYI that’s why we just did this to Iran.

I don't think we labeled the Iranian Military as terrorists. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2019, 08:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Solid post and I agree with the hypocrisy, but I'm not sure this is something that started with Trump:



But I do agree that I wish the current Admin would take a harder stance toward Saudi

(04-09-2019, 08:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: *But that is nothing new with the US.


- - - - - - 

Saudi buddies is hardly new to Trump. 

Trump, Obama, Bush, Clintons... it really goes back. Oil and oil money buys a lot of forgiveness, forgetfulness, and friends.

I should clarify that when I said "this is nothing new with Trump" I was intending to say Trump isn't the first. It was a poorly worded sentiment, but we are all in agreement, here.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-09-2019, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I should clarify that when I said "this is nothing new with Trump" I was intending to say Trump isn't the first. It was a poorly worded sentiment, but we are all in agreement, here.

Yeah.

I am a fan of flipping the entire Middle East the bird and minding our own business. There isn't really a GOOD choice of buddies over there so we probably shouldn't have one.

That said, I guess we need some presence over there to protect the waterways for our interests, and it isn't going to be Yemen or Somalia. Lol

Just would like for us to not feel so dirty with our choice of companions.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I should clarify that when I said "this is nothing new with Trump" I was intending to say Trump isn't the first. It was a poorly worded sentiment, but we are all in agreement, here.

We are in agreement and my apologies for making assumptions. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2019, 08:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah.

I am a fan of flipping the entire Middle East the bird and minding our own business. There isn't really a GOOD choice of buddies over there so we probably shouldn't have one.

That said, I guess we need some presence over there to protect the waterways for our interests, and it isn't going to be Yemen or Somalia. Lol

Just would like for us to not feel so dirty with our choice of companions.

This is a hard stance for me to take; especially after seeing first hand how many of the citizens are treated there. But I'm sure I'd be every bit as adamant about keeping a presence in Africa if I had witnessed many of the atrocities there. It is why I find many of the "problems" in the country to be trivial.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-09-2019, 08:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I should clarify that when I said "this is nothing new with Trump" I was intending to say Trump isn't the first. It was a poorly worded sentiment, but we are all in agreement, here.

I knew what you meant, but then again I’m smarterer than them two.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-09-2019, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a hard stance for me to take; especially after seeing first hand how many of the citizens are treated there. But I'm sure I'd be every bit as adamant about keeping a presence in Africa if I had witnessed many of the atrocities there. It is why I find many of the "problems" in the country to be trivial.  

There are things like the UN, Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc for helping folks.

I just believe that the the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth priorities for the US Government and US Money should be the US Citizens.

Sure human rights violations elsewhere are terrible, but lets focus all that effort, money, and manpower on getting places like Flint clean drinking water, rebuilding bridges, making sure all the levies and failsafes are up-to-snuff, making sure our forests are properly forested to limit forest fires.

Saw where 3 US military and 1 US contractor were killed in Afghanistan just recently. Why? F Afghanistan.