Sponsor

Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trump adds to tough talk on Iran even as he sticks with deal -- for now



Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump doubled down on the administration's tough rhetoric on Iran Thursday, echoing his Cabinet officials as he declared Tehran isn't abiding by the spirit of the nuclear deal.
Iran is "not living up to the spirit of the agreement" that curbs its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief, Trump said at a White House news conference with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni. "And they have to do that." Trump said.
    "I think they are doing a tremendous disservice to an agreement that was signed," Trump added.
    The President was following Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who ratcheted up the rhetoric on Iran Wednesday, declaring the international deal to restrain Tehran's nuclear program had failed and that Iran continues to be "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism."
    The nuclear deal forged by the Obama administration and allies "completely ignored all of the other serious threats that Iran poses," Tillerson said from the department's ornate Treaty Room.
    Donald Trump and Iran: the one thing to know 01:44 On Tuesday, Tillerson -- required by law to report regularly to Congress on Tehran's adherence to the deal -- had affirmed that Iran is abiding to the pact curbing its nuclear program. On Wednesday, however, he detailed Iran's "alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time," and said that if Iran goes unchecked, it "has the potential to travel the same path as North Korea." His statement was the latest in a drumbeat of warnings from the Trump administration that it is set to crack down on Iran and might reconsider the nuclear deal reached between the US, EU partners, Russia and China. But despite the rhetoric, diplomats and analysts say they don't expect the administration to walk away from the deal, which aims to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Words of warning? Instead, they see the administration's harsh words as both a warning to rogue regimes such as North Korea and an effort to create political cover for sticking with the deal after Trump's campaign criticism of the pact as a "horrible deal." They note that the US is making these moves in the lead up to a quarterly international meeting in Austria to review the deal. "We understand there is some tough talk for internal consumption and the US electorate," one Western diplomat explained. "But we don't foresee the US trying to reinterpret the agreement. At least that's our understanding from the American side for now. We could be wrong." Another Western diplomat called the administration comments "a politically acceptable way of sending the certification to Congress" that Iran is holding to the deal, describing it as "certification dressed up in rhetoric" of criticism toward Tehran. When it comes to Iran, Trump and Obama aren't yet looking much different When it comes to Iran, Trump and Obama aren't yet looking much different "The administration is doing an Iran review, but from what we hear the focus is more about what happens as parts of the deal expire, as opposed to actually opening the agreement up for renegotiation," the second diplomat said. "None of the other countries would be up for that." The diplomat said the intensified language is also a shot across the bow by the US to Iran to warn: "Just because North Korea is misbehaving, it doesn't mean we aren't still watching you." But a senior administration official said the White House is serious about its reservations with the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The immediate concern is the ways in which the financial relief provided by the deal's rollback of sanctions is being used by Iran to destabilize the region. Iranians worried about US-Iran relationship 02:07 "The JCPOA was meant to provide economic relief to Iran in exchange for their suspending their nuclear program," the official said. "It's not clear we've achieved that result, and the economic relief they've received has been used on weapons systems and support for terrorism." The decision the administration is considering "is if providing additional such relief will be in the national security interests of the United States," the official said. Candidate Trump made criticism of the pact a centerpiece of his campaign, telling the American Israel Political Action Committee in March 2016 that "my number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran." He added, "let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic for America, for Israel and for the whole of the Middle East." While Tillerson blasted the deal because it didn't address Iran's destabilizing activities in the region, analysts and diplomats said it was designed that way because more comprehensive negotiations that took in other issues would have tanked the deal. A limited deal "The deal was limited by design," said John Kirby, an Obama State Department spokesman and CNN military and diplomatic analyst. "There would have been no way to get a deal if we lumped in everything else we don't like about Iran." Like the diplomats, Kirby said the administration may be looking for political cover. "I think they felt he needed to come out and make this statement because (Tillerson) was forced by congressional reporting to admit Iran was in compliance" with the deal, Kirby said. Though Tillerson certified on Monday that Iran is sticking to the terms of the nuclear deal, he announced that the US would be reviewing whether the deal's requirement to lift sanctions in exchange for Iran curbing its nuclear program is in US national interests. US planning additional sanctions on Iran 02:31 Reapplying sanctions would violate the terms of the deal orchestrated by former President Barack Obama alongside Russia, China and the EU. Proponents of the deal say that abandoning it would make other challenges in the Middle East even harder, emboldening Iranian hardliners and triggering Iran to restart its nuclear program, which could start a nuclear race in the region as other countries rushed to get their own bomb. Ahmad Majidyar, director of the Iran Observed Project at the Middle East Institute, said that "with a nuclear deterrent, Iran would most likely increase its support for groups in the region, which would definitely not improve regional or international security." The administration official countered that "Iran's program is ongoing, they continue to enrich uranium, and other regional powers are already considering their options. The hardliners are already emboldened. And our allies, notably Israel, are extremely upset at the moment about Iranian aggression in the region." Iranians: Death to Trump 02:29 The official concluded, "I'm not sure that's a compelling case to stay in the JCPOA and continue to provide the sanctions relief that is fueling Iran's belligerent and dangerous behavior." Administration officials said the US is looking at ways to more strictly enforce the terms of the nuclear deal and impose tougher sanctions related to Iran's activities in the Middle East, which the US and its allies see as destabilizing. That includes Iran's support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, its backing for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for Islamic militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon. But Majidyar argued that scrapping the deal wouldn't help Washington. "It would more isolate the United States than it would isolate Iran," he said, noting that other world powers are party to the deal. "What I see is a more strict (US) interpretation of the deal and that interpretation will be different than Iran's interpretation." Stricter implementation Those parties have been talking for some time to the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency about clarifying various aspects of the deal that were ambiguous to ensure stricter implementation, the first diplomat said. Administration officials have made clear in recent days that they are very focused on Iran. White House press secretary described the attention as a sign that Trump believes there are problems with the deal. "If he thought everything was fine, he would have allowed this to move forward," Spicer said. In the Middle East, Defense Secretary James Mattis on Wednesday told reporters who asked about Iran's role in Yemen and elsewhere that, "Everywhere you look, if there's trouble in the region, you find Iran." "Right now, what we're seeing is the nations in the region and others elsewhere trying to checkmate Iran and the amount of disruption and the amount of instability they can cause," he said after a meeting with officials in Saudi Arabia, Tehran's Sunni rival. And last week, CIA Director Mike Pompeo told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "we're actively engaged in a lot of work to assist the President in making sure he has an understanding on where the Iranians are compliant and whether they might not be." Since the pact was signed, Pompeo said, "The list of Iranian transgressions has increased dramatically."

    Friday, March 17, 2017

    Trump, Merkel try to sidestep differences in first meeting

     
    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to sidestep their differences in a meeting at the White House Friday, but their first public appearance was punctuated by some awkward moments.
    During a photo op in the Oval Office, the two did not shake hands before reporters. Trump pushed back against the notion in Europe that his “America First” agenda means he’s an isolationist, calling such a suggestion “another example of, as you say, fake news.” And he referred to the United States as “a very powerful company,” before quickly correcting that to “country.”
    When a German reporter asked Trump if he regrets any of his commentary on Twitter, Trump said, “Very seldom.”
    Merkel maintained her composure even when Trump repeated his contention that former President Barack Obama may have tapped his phones in Trump Tower. He sought to turn the explosive charge into a light joke when asked about concerns raised by the British government that the White House is now citing a debunked claim that U.K. spies snooped on Trump.
    “At least we have something in common, perhaps,” Trump said casually, referring to 2013 reports that the U.S. was monitoring Merkel’s cellphone conversations. As for the most recent report, Trump said he shouldn’t be blamed for quoting a Fox News analyst who had accused British intelligence of helping Obama spy on him.
    When the subject turned to economic issues, Merkel attempted to project a conciliatory approach. She said the “success of Germans has always been one where the German success is one side of the coin and the other side of the coin has been European unity and European integration. That’s something of which I’m deeply convinced.”
    Those comments appeared aimed at making a case to Trump on the benefits of the European Union. Trump backed Britain’s departure from the EU and has expressed skepticism of multilateral trade agreements.
    The two leaders tried to express their common bonds but showed minimal rapport in their first encounter, a departure from Merkel’s warm relations with Obama during his eight years as president. At the start of the news conference, Merkel sought to break the ice, saying that it was “much better to talk to one another than about one another.”
    Merkel said delicately that while she represents German interests, Trump “stands up for, as is right, American interests. That is our task respectively.” She said they were “trying to address also those areas where we disagree but tried to bring people together.”
    “We need to be fair with each other,” Merkel said, saying both countries were expecting “that something good comes out of it for their own people.”
    The meetings at the White House included discussions on strengthening NATO, fighting the Islamic State group, the conflict in Afghanistan and resolving Ukraine’s conflict, all matters that require close cooperation between the U.S. and Germany.
    The talks, postponed from Tuesday because of a snowstorm, aimed to represent a restart of a relationship complicated by Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. As a candidate, Trump frequently accused the chancellor of “ruining” Germany for allowing an influx of refugees and other migrants from Syria and accused his campaign rival, Hillary Clinton, of wanting to be “America’s Angela Merkel.”
    During the news conference, Trump predicted that a new health care law would be passed by a substantial margin and “pretty quickly,” expressing optimism for his top legislative priority.
    The new president reaffirmed the United States’ ”strong support” for NATO but reiterated his stance that NATO allies need to “pay their fair share” for the cost of defense. Trump said many countries owe “vast sums of money” but he declined to identify Germany as one of the nations.
    Prior to his inauguration, Trump declared NATO “obsolete” but has since modified his stance, telling European leaders the alliance remains of strategic importance. Only the U.S. and four other members currently reach the benchmark of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. Germany currently spends 1.23 percent of its GDP on defense, but it is being increased.
    Both leaders pointed to their work on the conflict in Afghanistan and efforts to combat terrorism.
    When the topic moved to trade, Trump said the U.S. would do “fantastically well” in its trade relations with Germany. The president has been deeply critical of foreign trade and national security agreements but suggested he was only trying to revise trade deals to better serve U.S. interests, rather than pull back from the world entirely.
    Trump said trade agreements have led to greater trade deficits. The U.S. trade deficit with Germany was $64.9 billion last year, the lowest since 2009, according to the Commerce Department.
    “The negotiators for Germany have done a far better job than the negotiators for the United States, but hopefully we can even it out. We don’t want victory, we want fairness,” Trump said.
    Merkel emphasized the need for trade deals that fairly benefit both countries. “That is the spirit I think in which we ought to be guided in negotiating any agreement between the United States of America and the EU,” she said.
    ___
    On Twitter follow Ken Thomas at https://twitter.com/KThomasDC and https://twitter.com/colvinj
    Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Saturday, March 11, 2017

    Judge blocks Trump administration from banning Syrian family Muslim man granted asylum working to win approval for wife and daughter to leave Aleppo and join him in US A Wisconsin court has blocked the Trump administration from stopping a mother and daughter in Aleppo from trying to get to the US. A Wisconsin court has blocked the Trump administration from stopping a mother and daughter in Aleppo from trying to get to the US. Photograph: Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images View more sharing options Shares 594 Staff and Agencies Saturday 11 March 2017 10.31 EST First published on Friday 10 March 2017 22.21 EST A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing his new travel ban against a Syrian family looking to escape their war-torn homeland by fleeing to Wisconsin. The ruling likely is the first by a judge since Trump issued a revised travel ban on Monday, according to a spokesman for the Washington state attorney general, who has led states challenging the ban. A Syrian Muslim man who was granted asylum and settled in Wisconsin has been working since last year to win US government approval for his wife and 3-year-old daughter to leave the devastated city of Aleppo and join him. Muhammad Ali Jr stopped again after testifying about first airport detention Read more The man, who is not identified because of fears for his family’s safety, filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in February alleging Trump’s first travel ban had wrongly stopped the visa process for his family. US district judge Michael Conley set that challenge aside after a federal judge in Washington state blocked the entire Trump travel order. After Trump signed a new executive order on Monday, the Syrian man filed a new complaint on Friday afternoon, alleging the order was still an anti-Muslim ban that violated his freedom of religion and right to due process. He asked Conley to block its enforcement against his family. Judge Conley granted that request, saying there were daily threats to the Syrian man’s wife and child that could cause “irreparable harm”. He issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the family. The order does not block the entire travel ban. It simply prevents Trump’s administration from enforcing it against this family pending a 21 March hearing. Advocates hailed the ruling as a sign Trump’s revised order could go the same way as the first, which a federal court thwarted with a nationwide injunction. Margaret Huang, executive director Amnesty International USA, said in a statement on Friday night: “This order continues to tear families apart and cause needless pain and anxiety for thousands of people. It is the same hate and fear in different packaging.” But the Wisconsin ruling is limited, meaning the broader challenges lodged in other federal courts, in the states of Hawaii and Washington, will ultimately decide whether Trump’s new order can be implemented on 16 March. On Friday evening, judge James Robart, the federal judge presiding over case in Washington, requested that lawyers suing the government produced a revised complaint. He said he would wait to read amended court documents before he would rule on whether the existing, nationwide injunction against Trump’s first ban could be applied to the second order. ACLU launching People Power to resist Trump immigration policies in 'freedom cities' Read more After the Trump ban was blocked the first time, the approval process restarted for the Syrian family and they are now preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the US embassy, the last step before customs officials decide whether to issue them visas. But the family does not have dates for the interviews yet and Trump’s new travel ban goes into effect on 16 March, stirring fears the process could halt again before visas are issued, according to the Syrian man’s attorneys. Government attorneys argued during a teleconference with Conley on Friday that the new ban may not apply to this family anyway, although they did not go into details. There are various exemptions and waivers in the new ban including some that give consular officers flexibility to decide cases. Conley acknowledged that the family’s situation was murky but still issued the order, saying the man seemed to have a good chance of winning the case. The US Justice Department is defending the ban. Spokeswoman Nicole Navas said agency attorneys were reviewing the man’s complaint and declined further comment on it and Conley’s order. Trump issued an executive order in January banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria, from entering the US. US district judge James Robart in Washington state blocked the entire order on 3 February. Trump travel ban could prevent United States hosting World Cup Read more The revised order issued on Monday removed Iraq from the list of countries and would temporarily shut down the refugee program. Unlike the first order, the new ban would not affect current visa holders and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. Hawaii filed a lawsuit challenging the new ban on Wednesday; other states with Democratic attorney generals plan to sue next week. According to the Syrian man’s lawsuit, he fled his country to avoid near-certain death at the hands of two military factions, one a Sunni-aligned group fighting against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and another group fighting in support of Assad. The pro-Assad forces thought he was sympathetic to the other side and the anti-Assad army targeted him because he was a Sunni and traveled to pro-Assad areas to manage his family’s business. Both sides tortured him and threatened to kill him, the lawsuit said. The pro-Assad forces also threatened to rape his wife. He came to the US in 2014 and was granted asylum last year. He then began filing petitions seeking asylum for his wife and daughter. Associated Press contributed to this report