Several Saudi Oil Tankers sabotaged, blame being turned towards Iran; DOD & EUROPE PLANNING!
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
ill
Superstar
Here we go 
Iran Accuses U.S. of Framing It for Tanker Sabotage to Provoke Conflict
Iran Accuses U.S. of Framing It for Tanker Sabotage to Provoke Conflict
Foreign minister said ‘radical individuals’ were attempting to pull Iran and the U.S. into military conflict; drone attack by Houthi rebels allied to Tehran shut Saudi pipeline
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif denied Iran was involved in the attacks. PHOTO: ANUSHREE FADNAVIS/REUTERS
By
Aresu Eqbali and
Sune Engel Rasmussen
Updated May 14, 2019 12:41 p.m. ET
Attacks on oil tankers and facilities in the Persian Gulf have set the Middle East on edge, as Iranian officials on Tuesday accused officials in the Trump administration of trying to pull it into a war with the U.S. and its regional allies.
Iran denied it was behind an attack on oil tankers near a strategic Persian Gulf waterway over the weekend, saying Washington and its Middle East allies were attempting to frame the country.
Tehran’s denial came as Houthi rebels fighting a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen said they had targeted the kingdom’s oil pipelines with armed drones, forcing the Saudis to halt pumping on a major oil pipeline.
There was no immediate connection between the pipeline attacks and the tanker incident. Saudi and U.S. officials say Iran provides the Houthis with training and designs to build their drones, accusations that Iran denies.
Still, the series of attacks have ratcheted up tensions at a time when the U.S.’s European allies have raised their concerns about the risk of an accidental conflict between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. in the past week warned that its troops face growing threats from Iran and dispatched an aircraft carrier, assault ship and antimissile system to the region. On Monday, a U.S. official said an initial U.S. assessment indicated Iran was likely behind the attack on the two Saudi Arabian oil tankers and two other vessels damaged near the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. The U.S. official, who declined to be identified, didn’t provide evidence to support that assessment.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif rejected the allegations, saying “some radical individuals inside the U.S. administration and the region” were pursuing “dangerous policies” in an attempt to pull the Americans into a military conflict with Iran.
“We had predicted that some would want to escalate tension in the region by some actions,” Mr. Zarif said in New Delhi after a meeting with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj.
Chokepoint Squeezed
Two Saudi oil tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz.
200 miles
200 km
IRAQ
IRAN
Strait
of Hormuz
KUWAIT
BAHRAIN
Abu
Dhabi
QATAR
Fujairah
U.A.E.
OMAN
SAUDI ARABIA
Alireza Miryousefi, the spokesman for Iran’s United Nations delegation, rejected the allegations as “categorically false.” Iran had called for an investigation into the incident shortly after it occurred.
“Spreading “fake intelligence” should alert everybody to what we call the B-team’s mal-intentions toward the region and the stability of the Persian Gulf,” Mr. Miryousefi said.
Iranian officials often use the term “B-team” for a quartet of people they say are trying to stoke conflict with Iran: White House Security Adviser John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
The White House has yet to directly blame Iran for the attack, but President Trump said Monday that, “If [the Iranians] do anything, they will suffer greatly.”
Since pulling out last year from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, Washington has imposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as it intensifies pressure on the Islamic Republic to scale back its military activities in the region.
The Norwegian oil tanker Andrea Victory, one of the tankers that was attacked, in a handout photo from the United Arab Emirates. PHOTO:EMIRATI NATIONAL MEDIA COUNCIL/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
While Tehran has lashed out against the Trump administration for ditching the accord, it also spent weeks trying to de-escalate tensions by staying in the deal along with the other parties.
Even some U.S. officials acknowledge a reluctance from Iran to ratchet up tensions. In late April, one week after Washington said it wouldn’t renew waivers to Iran’s oil customers, a U.S. official said its military intelligence showed that the Iranian Navy had not changed its behavior in the Persian Gulf despite threats to close down the strait if Tehran itself was unable to use it.
Meanwhile, Iranian officials such as Mr. Zarif have said some officials in the U.S., alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, might try to lure Iran into a military confrontation. “There are worries about suspicious actions and sabotages in the region, and we have predicted them before,” Mr. Zarif said Tuesday. He has previously said he doesn’t believe President Trump wants a war with Iran.
The U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia appeared to temper tensions after the attacks on the tankers. “We need to do a thorough investigation to understand what happened, why it happened, and then come up with reasonable responses short of war,” Ambassador John Abizaid told reporters in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Monday.
“It’s not in [Iran’s] interest, it’s not in our interest, it’s not in Saudi Arabia’s interest to have a conflict,” he said.
Saudi officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Mr. Zarif's comments. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are engaged in a proxy war against Iran in Yemen, where Tehran is backing Houthi rebels fighting the government. Mr. Netanyahu is a staunch supporter of the Trump administration’s line on Iran, and Israel says it has conducted more than 200 strikes against Iranian positions in Syria.
Yet Iran has a history of asymmetrical warfare in the Middle East, including harassing oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. It has maintained a strong presence with allied militias across the region, which in the past it has used to attack U.S. forces and their allies in Iraq. Iranian state TV broadcast breaking news about the Houthi drone attacks on Saudi oil pipelines for hours on Tuesday.
Houthi rebels said they had targeted “vital Saudi facilities” with seven drones in retaliation for Saudi “aggression”, according to pro-Houthi media.
Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said in a statement that Saudi Arabia halted pumping on a major oil pipeline after two pipeline boosters were attacked by drones. Mr. Falih said Saudi oil production wasn’t interrupted by the attack.
The Houthis have often targeted Saudi oil energy infrastructure in the past year with missiles and drones, focusing many of their attacks on oil facilities and tankers in the Red Sea on the kingdom’s west coast or on oil facilities and terminals on land. The site of the attacks on the Saudi tankers over the weekend was in the Persian Gulf on the kingdom’s east coast.
Newsletter Sign-up
—Saleh al-Batati and Benoit Faucon in London, and Jared Malsin in Cairo contributed to this article.
Iran Accuses U.S. of Framing It for Tanker Sabotage to Provoke Conflict
Iran Accuses U.S. of Framing It for Tanker Sabotage to Provoke Conflict
Foreign minister said ‘radical individuals’ were attempting to pull Iran and the U.S. into military conflict; drone attack by Houthi rebels allied to Tehran shut Saudi pipeline
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif denied Iran was involved in the attacks. PHOTO: ANUSHREE FADNAVIS/REUTERS
By
Aresu Eqbali and
Sune Engel Rasmussen
Updated May 14, 2019 12:41 p.m. ET
Attacks on oil tankers and facilities in the Persian Gulf have set the Middle East on edge, as Iranian officials on Tuesday accused officials in the Trump administration of trying to pull it into a war with the U.S. and its regional allies.
Iran denied it was behind an attack on oil tankers near a strategic Persian Gulf waterway over the weekend, saying Washington and its Middle East allies were attempting to frame the country.
Tehran’s denial came as Houthi rebels fighting a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen said they had targeted the kingdom’s oil pipelines with armed drones, forcing the Saudis to halt pumping on a major oil pipeline.
There was no immediate connection between the pipeline attacks and the tanker incident. Saudi and U.S. officials say Iran provides the Houthis with training and designs to build their drones, accusations that Iran denies.
Still, the series of attacks have ratcheted up tensions at a time when the U.S.’s European allies have raised their concerns about the risk of an accidental conflict between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. in the past week warned that its troops face growing threats from Iran and dispatched an aircraft carrier, assault ship and antimissile system to the region. On Monday, a U.S. official said an initial U.S. assessment indicated Iran was likely behind the attack on the two Saudi Arabian oil tankers and two other vessels damaged near the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend. The U.S. official, who declined to be identified, didn’t provide evidence to support that assessment.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif rejected the allegations, saying “some radical individuals inside the U.S. administration and the region” were pursuing “dangerous policies” in an attempt to pull the Americans into a military conflict with Iran.
“We had predicted that some would want to escalate tension in the region by some actions,” Mr. Zarif said in New Delhi after a meeting with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj.
Chokepoint Squeezed
Two Saudi oil tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz.
200 miles
200 km
IRAQ
IRAN
Strait
of Hormuz
KUWAIT
BAHRAIN
Abu
Dhabi
QATAR
Fujairah
U.A.E.
OMAN
SAUDI ARABIA
Alireza Miryousefi, the spokesman for Iran’s United Nations delegation, rejected the allegations as “categorically false.” Iran had called for an investigation into the incident shortly after it occurred.
“Spreading “fake intelligence” should alert everybody to what we call the B-team’s mal-intentions toward the region and the stability of the Persian Gulf,” Mr. Miryousefi said.
Iranian officials often use the term “B-team” for a quartet of people they say are trying to stoke conflict with Iran: White House Security Adviser John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
The White House has yet to directly blame Iran for the attack, but President Trump said Monday that, “If [the Iranians] do anything, they will suffer greatly.”
Since pulling out last year from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, Washington has imposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as it intensifies pressure on the Islamic Republic to scale back its military activities in the region.
The Norwegian oil tanker Andrea Victory, one of the tankers that was attacked, in a handout photo from the United Arab Emirates. PHOTO:EMIRATI NATIONAL MEDIA COUNCIL/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
While Tehran has lashed out against the Trump administration for ditching the accord, it also spent weeks trying to de-escalate tensions by staying in the deal along with the other parties.
Even some U.S. officials acknowledge a reluctance from Iran to ratchet up tensions. In late April, one week after Washington said it wouldn’t renew waivers to Iran’s oil customers, a U.S. official said its military intelligence showed that the Iranian Navy had not changed its behavior in the Persian Gulf despite threats to close down the strait if Tehran itself was unable to use it.
Meanwhile, Iranian officials such as Mr. Zarif have said some officials in the U.S., alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, might try to lure Iran into a military confrontation. “There are worries about suspicious actions and sabotages in the region, and we have predicted them before,” Mr. Zarif said Tuesday. He has previously said he doesn’t believe President Trump wants a war with Iran.
The U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia appeared to temper tensions after the attacks on the tankers. “We need to do a thorough investigation to understand what happened, why it happened, and then come up with reasonable responses short of war,” Ambassador John Abizaid told reporters in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Monday.
“It’s not in [Iran’s] interest, it’s not in our interest, it’s not in Saudi Arabia’s interest to have a conflict,” he said.
Saudi officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Mr. Zarif's comments. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are engaged in a proxy war against Iran in Yemen, where Tehran is backing Houthi rebels fighting the government. Mr. Netanyahu is a staunch supporter of the Trump administration’s line on Iran, and Israel says it has conducted more than 200 strikes against Iranian positions in Syria.
Yet Iran has a history of asymmetrical warfare in the Middle East, including harassing oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. It has maintained a strong presence with allied militias across the region, which in the past it has used to attack U.S. forces and their allies in Iraq. Iranian state TV broadcast breaking news about the Houthi drone attacks on Saudi oil pipelines for hours on Tuesday.
Houthi rebels said they had targeted “vital Saudi facilities” with seven drones in retaliation for Saudi “aggression”, according to pro-Houthi media.
Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said in a statement that Saudi Arabia halted pumping on a major oil pipeline after two pipeline boosters were attacked by drones. Mr. Falih said Saudi oil production wasn’t interrupted by the attack.
The Houthis have often targeted Saudi oil energy infrastructure in the past year with missiles and drones, focusing many of their attacks on oil facilities and tankers in the Red Sea on the kingdom’s west coast or on oil facilities and terminals on land. The site of the attacks on the Saudi tankers over the weekend was in the Persian Gulf on the kingdom’s east coast.
Newsletter Sign-up
—Saleh al-Batati and Benoit Faucon in London, and Jared Malsin in Cairo contributed to this article.
Again this shyt would be bad as Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. This shyt could possibly start something more drastic that will involve multiple parties.
Iran would make Vietnam look like laser tag.
AND iranian terrorism abroad would make ISIS look like a trip to disney world.
:ALERTRED:
washingtonpost.com
Senior arms control official resigns from State Department, aides say
By John Hudson and
4-5 minutes
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, center, flanked by national security adviser John Bolton and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, at the White House last month. (Susan Walsh/AP)
John Hudson
National security reporter focusing on the State Department and diplomacy.
Paul Sonne
National security reporter focusing on the U.S. military
May 13 at 8:56 PM
A top U.S. arms control official and prominent Iran hawk has resigned from the State Department after serving just over a year in the position, said U.S. officials and congressional aides familiar with the decision.
The State Department on Monday did not offer a statement explaining the planned departure of Yleem Poblete, the assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance.
Her departure, which is expected to take effect in the coming weeks, creates a vacancy as the Trump administration faces major new threats and challenges specifically related to arms control.
Iran recently threatened to resume production of nuclear centrifuges in response to President Trump’s decision last year to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimpose economic sanctions. Trump has also ordered his top aides to make a new push for a historic trilateral arms control agreement involving Russia and China, something Beijing has long dismissed.
During her tenure, Poblete clashed with her boss, Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson, Vice President Pence’s former national security adviser, said the officials and aides familiar with the infighting.
In particular, disagreements surfaced over the State Department’s report on international compliance with arms control accords, the people said.
“The tension over the compliance report has been very real, and [Thompson’s office] is now demanding sign-off much earlier in the clearance process,” said one State Department official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel moves.
In April, Reuters reported that some U.S. officials were concerned that the compliance report politicized and slanted assessments about Iran, which the Trump administration has singled out as the country’s principal foe.
Poblete, whose views on arms control were more aligned with national security adviser John Bolton rather than Thompson’s, previously served as the chief of staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee among other jobs.
As her confirmation process for the senior arms control job dragged on, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders excoriated Democrats and emphasized the importance of the position.
“It has been almost 150 days since Dr. Poblete was nominated,” Sanders said. “Senator Schumer is holding her up, putting the safety and security of the American people and, frankly, the entire world in danger.”
Poblete was a favorite among hard-line anti-Iran groups such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which hosted her for a speech in July 2018 in which Poblete praised the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal.
“The JCPOA was flawed at both the technical and political levels, and at the practical level,” she said in the speech, referring to the acronym for the 2015 deal.
Nonproliferation experts who supported the Iran deal viewed her departure with ambivalence.
“While the State Department can hardly afford to lose another senior leader, it is not clear that Assistant Secretary Poblete was contributing to the advancement of arms control in a helpful or substantive way,” said Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and nonproliferation and a former Obama administration official. “The recent debacle involving the sloppy and politically charged summary of the unclassified 2019 Compliance Report is an example of that.”
“The Trump administration should immediately move to appoint a qualified, seasoned expert to the position,” she added.
Anne Gearan contributed to this report.
washingtonpost.com
Senior arms control official resigns from State Department, aides say
By John Hudson and
4-5 minutes
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, center, flanked by national security adviser John Bolton and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, at the White House last month. (Susan Walsh/AP)
John Hudson
National security reporter focusing on the State Department and diplomacy.
Paul Sonne
National security reporter focusing on the U.S. military
May 13 at 8:56 PM
A top U.S. arms control official and prominent Iran hawk has resigned from the State Department after serving just over a year in the position, said U.S. officials and congressional aides familiar with the decision.
The State Department on Monday did not offer a statement explaining the planned departure of Yleem Poblete, the assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance.
Her departure, which is expected to take effect in the coming weeks, creates a vacancy as the Trump administration faces major new threats and challenges specifically related to arms control.
Iran recently threatened to resume production of nuclear centrifuges in response to President Trump’s decision last year to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimpose economic sanctions. Trump has also ordered his top aides to make a new push for a historic trilateral arms control agreement involving Russia and China, something Beijing has long dismissed.
During her tenure, Poblete clashed with her boss, Undersecretary of State Andrea Thompson, Vice President Pence’s former national security adviser, said the officials and aides familiar with the infighting.
In particular, disagreements surfaced over the State Department’s report on international compliance with arms control accords, the people said.
“The tension over the compliance report has been very real, and [Thompson’s office] is now demanding sign-off much earlier in the clearance process,” said one State Department official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel moves.
In April, Reuters reported that some U.S. officials were concerned that the compliance report politicized and slanted assessments about Iran, which the Trump administration has singled out as the country’s principal foe.
Poblete, whose views on arms control were more aligned with national security adviser John Bolton rather than Thompson’s, previously served as the chief of staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee among other jobs.
As her confirmation process for the senior arms control job dragged on, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders excoriated Democrats and emphasized the importance of the position.
“It has been almost 150 days since Dr. Poblete was nominated,” Sanders said. “Senator Schumer is holding her up, putting the safety and security of the American people and, frankly, the entire world in danger.”
Poblete was a favorite among hard-line anti-Iran groups such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which hosted her for a speech in July 2018 in which Poblete praised the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal.
“The JCPOA was flawed at both the technical and political levels, and at the practical level,” she said in the speech, referring to the acronym for the 2015 deal.
Nonproliferation experts who supported the Iran deal viewed her departure with ambivalence.
“While the State Department can hardly afford to lose another senior leader, it is not clear that Assistant Secretary Poblete was contributing to the advancement of arms control in a helpful or substantive way,” said Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and nonproliferation and a former Obama administration official. “The recent debacle involving the sloppy and politically charged summary of the unclassified 2019 Compliance Report is an example of that.”
“The Trump administration should immediately move to appoint a qualified, seasoned expert to the position,” she added.
Anne Gearan contributed to this report.
:ALERTRED:
nytimes.com
Skeptical U.S. Allies Resist Trump’s New Claims of Threats From Iran
10-13 minutes
Video
Tensions between the United States and Iran have sharply increased. John Bolton, the national security adviser, has long pushed for regime change in Iran. One of his chosen replacements is the dissident group Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration draws up war plans against Iran over what it says are threats to American troops and interests, a senior British military official told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that he saw no increased risk from Iran or allied militias in Iraq or Syria.
A few hours later, the United States Central Command issued an unusual rebuke: The remarks from the British official — Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, who is also the deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State — run “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region.”
[To follow new military deployments to the Middle East, sign up for the weekly At War newsletter.]
The rare public dispute highlights a central problem for the Trump administration as it seeks to rally allies and global opinion against Iran. On Wednesday, the State Department ordered partial evacuations of the American embassy and a consulate in Iraq, despite skepticism from Iraqi officials over American intelligence showing a heightened risk.
Over the last year, Washington has said Iran is threatening United States interests in the Middle East, encouraging aggression by Shiite militias in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, shipping missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen and allowing its naval forces to behave belligerently in the Persian Gulf.
All are concerns that have been leveled against Iranian forces for years.
“We are aware of their presence clearly and we monitor them along with a whole range of others because of the environment we are in,” General Ghika said.
But he said, “No, there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”
On Tuesday, Spanish defense officials withdrew a Spanish frigate that was part of an American-led carrier strike group heading to the Persian Gulf, to avoid entanglement in any upcoming conflict with Iran.
Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington — where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.
One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” and did not merit the military planning being driven by Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.
Since May 2018, the Trump administration has withdrawn from the major powers agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, reimposed punishing sanctions on Tehran, demanded that allies choose between Iranian oil and doing business in the American market, and declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.
The anti-Iran push has proved difficult even among the allies, which remember a similar campaign against Iraq that was led in part by Mr. Bolton and was fueled by false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s efforts this week to recruit European countries to back the administration’s steely posture on Iran are being received coolly.
Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, called for “maximum restraint” after meeting on Monday in Brussels with Mr. Pompeo, a proponent of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.
Iraqi officials said they were skeptical of the American intelligence that Mr. Pompeo presented last week on a surprise trip to Baghdad. Mr. Pompeo said the threat was to American “facilities” and military personnel in Iraq.
In September, Trump administration officials blamed Shiite militias with ties to Iran for firing a few rockets into the area near the United States Embassy in Baghdad and the American Consulate in Basra. There were no injuries, but Mr. Pompeo ordered the Basra Consulate closed.
Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it.
While Mr. Trump has made no secret of his reluctance to engage in another military conflict in the Middle East, and has ordered American troops home from Syria, his secretary of state and his national security adviser have pushed a maximalist hard-line approach on Iran. Mr. Bolton, in particular, has repeatedly called for American military strikes against Tehran.
At an April military parade in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran’s weaponry was for defensive purposes. John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, had advocated a hard-line approach on Iran.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
At an April military parade in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran’s weaponry was for defensive purposes. John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, had advocated a hard-line approach on Iran.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images
Officials said Mr. Trump was aware that Mr. Bolton’s instinctual approach to Iran could lead to war; aides suggested that the president’s own aversion to drawn-out overseas conflicts would be the best hope of putting the brakes on military escalation.
A spokesman for Mr. Bolton declined to comment.
The Trump administration is looking at plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump dismissed that as “fake news.” “We have not planned for that,” he told reporters.
But he immediately added, “If we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”
Some of the president’s critics accept that Iran continues to engage in what United States officials call “malign behavior,” be it in Yemen, Syria or the Palestinian territories. But they blamed the administration for aggravating the standoff with Tehran.
“This is a crisis that has entirely been manufactured by the Trump administration,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
He pointed to Mr. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, coupled with the administration’s failure to get any other nations to do so.
“None of the other signatories to the deal were persuaded by the case the U.S. was making,” Mr. Nasr said. “And that is because this administration’s policy on Iran, at a fundamental level, does not have credibility.”
That lack of trust has proved to be a major obstacle in convincing allies that Iranian behavior in the region warrants military action.
And while the acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, has carefully cultivated a more acquiescent stance to Mr. Bolton’s demands than did his predecessor, Jim Mattis, many military officials and congressional representatives worry about the escalating tensions. Mr. Mattis had balked at Mr. Bolton’s request for military options against Iran after the rockets landed on the American Embassy grounds in Baghdad.
“Bolton did the same with President George W. Bush and Iraq,” Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts and an Iraq war veteran, said in a statement last week. “As someone sent four times to that misguided war, I have seen the costs of Bolton’s disastrous foreign policy in a way he never will — firsthand, and at the loss of thousands of American lives.”
One big worry is that the Trump administration has issued the most expansive type of warning to Iran, without drawing specific red lines. That has increased the chance of a military conflict over misinterpretations and miscalculations.
In a statement this month, Mr. Bolton outlined vague terms of what appeared to be conditions for military engagement, responding to what he said were “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings.”
He said “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” And he warned that the administration was “fully prepared to respond to any attack” by the Iranian military or a “proxy” — one of the Middle East’s many Arab militias that are supported by Iran.
Those militias often do not operate under direct command and control from Iran, and they have varying levels of allegiance to the Iran military.
In Yemen’s civil war, the Houthis are Shiite-offshoot rebels who oppose a government backed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Sunni nations. The Houthis’ ties to Iran are murky. But the Trump administration labels the rebels as Iranian proxies, and Mr. Bolton’s statement left open the possibility that a Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. — both United States allies — could set off an American military assault against Iran.
In statements, Iranian leaders have reacted with both belligerence and diplomatic restraint to a series of American actions that they see as provocative. In a tweet on Tuesday, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, ridiculed Mr. Bolton and three anti-Iran foreign leaders in the Middle East as a “B Team.”
“In interviews in April, I predicted ‘accidents’ — not because I’m a genius — but because #B_Team is so brazenly following @AmbJohnBolton’s script,” Mr. Zarif said. “After all, half of B-Team were co-conspirators in disastrous Iraq war.”
The hard-line tactics against Iran could backfire in two ways, said Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group. If the sanctions crush its economy, then Iran could act with less restraint, he said. And if the sanctions do not work well, then some American officials will advocate military action, a move that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are likely to support.
“There will be people in Washington who will push for limited kinetic action against the Iranian regime to cut it down to size,” he said.
Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman from Washington, and Alissa J. Rubin from Baghdad.
A version of this article appears in print on May 15, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Allies Respond Skeptically To Latest Claims of Iran Threat. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
nytimes.com
Skeptical U.S. Allies Resist Trump’s New Claims of Threats From Iran
10-13 minutes
Video
Tensions between the United States and Iran have sharply increased. John Bolton, the national security adviser, has long pushed for regime change in Iran. One of his chosen replacements is the dissident group Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration draws up war plans against Iran over what it says are threats to American troops and interests, a senior British military official told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that he saw no increased risk from Iran or allied militias in Iraq or Syria.
A few hours later, the United States Central Command issued an unusual rebuke: The remarks from the British official — Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, who is also the deputy commander of the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State — run “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region.”
[To follow new military deployments to the Middle East, sign up for the weekly At War newsletter.]
The rare public dispute highlights a central problem for the Trump administration as it seeks to rally allies and global opinion against Iran. On Wednesday, the State Department ordered partial evacuations of the American embassy and a consulate in Iraq, despite skepticism from Iraqi officials over American intelligence showing a heightened risk.
Over the last year, Washington has said Iran is threatening United States interests in the Middle East, encouraging aggression by Shiite militias in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, shipping missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen and allowing its naval forces to behave belligerently in the Persian Gulf.
All are concerns that have been leveled against Iranian forces for years.
“We are aware of their presence clearly and we monitor them along with a whole range of others because of the environment we are in,” General Ghika said.
But he said, “No, there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”
On Tuesday, Spanish defense officials withdrew a Spanish frigate that was part of an American-led carrier strike group heading to the Persian Gulf, to avoid entanglement in any upcoming conflict with Iran.
Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington — where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.
One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential internal planning, said the new intelligence of an increased Iranian threat was “small stuff” and did not merit the military planning being driven by Mr. Bolton. The official also said the ultimate goal of the yearlong economic sanctions campaign by the Trump administration was to draw Iran into an armed conflict with the United States.
Since May 2018, the Trump administration has withdrawn from the major powers agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, reimposed punishing sanctions on Tehran, demanded that allies choose between Iranian oil and doing business in the American market, and declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.
The anti-Iran push has proved difficult even among the allies, which remember a similar campaign against Iraq that was led in part by Mr. Bolton and was fueled by false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s efforts this week to recruit European countries to back the administration’s steely posture on Iran are being received coolly.
Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief, called for “maximum restraint” after meeting on Monday in Brussels with Mr. Pompeo, a proponent of the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.
Iraqi officials said they were skeptical of the American intelligence that Mr. Pompeo presented last week on a surprise trip to Baghdad. Mr. Pompeo said the threat was to American “facilities” and military personnel in Iraq.
In September, Trump administration officials blamed Shiite militias with ties to Iran for firing a few rockets into the area near the United States Embassy in Baghdad and the American Consulate in Basra. There were no injuries, but Mr. Pompeo ordered the Basra Consulate closed.
Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it.
While Mr. Trump has made no secret of his reluctance to engage in another military conflict in the Middle East, and has ordered American troops home from Syria, his secretary of state and his national security adviser have pushed a maximalist hard-line approach on Iran. Mr. Bolton, in particular, has repeatedly called for American military strikes against Tehran.
At an April military parade in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran’s weaponry was for defensive purposes. John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, had advocated a hard-line approach on Iran.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
At an April military parade in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani said Iran’s weaponry was for defensive purposes. John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, had advocated a hard-line approach on Iran.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images
Officials said Mr. Trump was aware that Mr. Bolton’s instinctual approach to Iran could lead to war; aides suggested that the president’s own aversion to drawn-out overseas conflicts would be the best hope of putting the brakes on military escalation.
A spokesman for Mr. Bolton declined to comment.
The Trump administration is looking at plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump dismissed that as “fake news.” “We have not planned for that,” he told reporters.
But he immediately added, “If we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.”
Some of the president’s critics accept that Iran continues to engage in what United States officials call “malign behavior,” be it in Yemen, Syria or the Palestinian territories. But they blamed the administration for aggravating the standoff with Tehran.
“This is a crisis that has entirely been manufactured by the Trump administration,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
He pointed to Mr. Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, coupled with the administration’s failure to get any other nations to do so.
“None of the other signatories to the deal were persuaded by the case the U.S. was making,” Mr. Nasr said. “And that is because this administration’s policy on Iran, at a fundamental level, does not have credibility.”
That lack of trust has proved to be a major obstacle in convincing allies that Iranian behavior in the region warrants military action.
And while the acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, has carefully cultivated a more acquiescent stance to Mr. Bolton’s demands than did his predecessor, Jim Mattis, many military officials and congressional representatives worry about the escalating tensions. Mr. Mattis had balked at Mr. Bolton’s request for military options against Iran after the rockets landed on the American Embassy grounds in Baghdad.
“Bolton did the same with President George W. Bush and Iraq,” Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts and an Iraq war veteran, said in a statement last week. “As someone sent four times to that misguided war, I have seen the costs of Bolton’s disastrous foreign policy in a way he never will — firsthand, and at the loss of thousands of American lives.”
One big worry is that the Trump administration has issued the most expansive type of warning to Iran, without drawing specific red lines. That has increased the chance of a military conflict over misinterpretations and miscalculations.
In a statement this month, Mr. Bolton outlined vague terms of what appeared to be conditions for military engagement, responding to what he said were “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings.”
He said “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” And he warned that the administration was “fully prepared to respond to any attack” by the Iranian military or a “proxy” — one of the Middle East’s many Arab militias that are supported by Iran.
Those militias often do not operate under direct command and control from Iran, and they have varying levels of allegiance to the Iran military.
In Yemen’s civil war, the Houthis are Shiite-offshoot rebels who oppose a government backed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Sunni nations. The Houthis’ ties to Iran are murky. But the Trump administration labels the rebels as Iranian proxies, and Mr. Bolton’s statement left open the possibility that a Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. — both United States allies — could set off an American military assault against Iran.
In statements, Iranian leaders have reacted with both belligerence and diplomatic restraint to a series of American actions that they see as provocative. In a tweet on Tuesday, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, ridiculed Mr. Bolton and three anti-Iran foreign leaders in the Middle East as a “B Team.”
“In interviews in April, I predicted ‘accidents’ — not because I’m a genius — but because #B_Team is so brazenly following @AmbJohnBolton’s script,” Mr. Zarif said. “After all, half of B-Team were co-conspirators in disastrous Iraq war.”
The hard-line tactics against Iran could backfire in two ways, said Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group. If the sanctions crush its economy, then Iran could act with less restraint, he said. And if the sanctions do not work well, then some American officials will advocate military action, a move that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are likely to support.
“There will be people in Washington who will push for limited kinetic action against the Iranian regime to cut it down to size,” he said.
Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman from Washington, and Alissa J. Rubin from Baghdad.
A version of this article appears in print on May 15, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Allies Respond Skeptically To Latest Claims of Iran Threat. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe