Days after President Trump’s administration “put Iran on notice,” the Treasury Department of the United States announced a new series of sanctions being levied against the Arab nation for their recent nuclear-capable ballistic missile test.
The sanctions cite twenty-five individuals and companies tied to Iran’s ballistic missile program, but are designed not to interfere with the nuclear deal Iran came to with the United States and a number of other world powers. The Department of the Treasury released a statement indicating that those targeted were “involved in procuring technology and/or materials to support Iran’s ballistic missile program, as well as for acting for or on behalf of, or providing support to, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF).”
The release went on to state, “This action reflects the United States’ commitment to enforcing sanctions on Iran with respect to its ballistic missile program and destabilizing activities in the region and is fully consistent with the United States’ commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).”
President Barack Obama also put sanctions in place over portions of the Iranian government due to the same ballistic missile program in January of last year, though President Trump has made it clear that he felt as though Obama was not forceful enough in the way he dealt with what many consider to be Iran’s aggressive behavior.
“The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over,” Michael Flynn said about the sanctions. Flynn, Trump’s National Security Advisor, was also the source of Trump’s announcement that Iran was “on notice” after their missile test last weekend.
Sean Spicer, President Trump’s press secretary, said that the Trump administration intends to respond to any continued provocations made by the Iranian military, while suggesting that this recent test speaks to the weaknesses in the nuclear agreement that President Trump has been quite critical of.
“Today’s sanctions really represent a very, very strong stance against the actions that Iran has been taking, and make it very clear that the deal that they struck previously was not in the best interest of this country, and that President Trump is going to do everything he can to make sure that Iran is stayed in check,” Spicer said.
A senior administration official that chose to remain anonymous said that these sanctions were only an “initial response,” possibly indicating that there may be further repercussions for Iran’s missile tests, particularly if they follow-up with additional ones as they have claimed to be planning.
“Iran’s continued support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile program poses a threat to the region, to our partners worldwide, and to the United States. Today’s action is part of Treasury’s ongoing efforts to counter Iranian malign activity abroad that is outside the scope of the JCPOA,” said Acting OFAC Director John E. Smith, as cited in the Treasure Department press release. “We will continue to actively apply all available tools, including financial sanctions, to address this behavior.”
The twenty-five people and companies listed in the sanctions will have all assets held within the United States immediately frozen, though it is unlikely that there are any to speak of. They also will be barred from doing business with American companies or individuals – a more symbolic punishment than a practical one, as the Iranian ballistic missile program likely does not draw a significant portion of its commercial purchases from the United States. An US Official stated on Friday that some of those cited do have financial “touch points” within the United States, but did not provide any details as to how negatively these sanctions could affect the program financially.
Tehran responded to the new sanctions almost immediately, calling them “illegal and extraterrestrial.” They claim these new sanctions are in violation of the nuclear deal Trump was careful to steer clear of and are “contrary to the obligations of the United States,” according to a statement released by the Foreign Ministry through the official Iranian news agency, IRNA.
“The Islamic Republic will proportionately and reciprocally confront any action that targets the Iranian people’s interests,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry concluded.
Image courtesy of Getty Images
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
The JCPOA is an appendix to the resolution by the Security Council (and I don't think it's the full UN, just certain countries). And Iran isn't the only one who gave stuff up...the other countries essentially agreed to provide Iran the very materials necessary to develop its nuclear program (gradually) as long as Iran promises not to turn those materials into weapons. That's a lot of trust....and a good reason to be worried, with all those materials lying around, when Iran is testing missiles that could someday take those materials and turn them into weapons. It's a piece of paper, not an impenetrable wall of protection that ensures everyone's safety. If Iran is violating "the spirit" of the document, I'm not sure we've really gotten anywhere...and in the meantime, we've given them some of the parts of the very tools we may see used against us (or our allies). That said...given what I've seen so far, I don't know whether Trump has complied with the resolution to return to the UN first, but it doesn't look like it to me. I also can't immediately tell whether his narrow sanctions against specific groups within Iran is a direct violation, or if that is (like Iran) ignoring "the spirit" of the document. I'll have to keep digging. (But it might have to wait a couple of weeks. I gotta go to Phoenix and Louisiana, so I don't know how much free time I'll have to dig deeper until afterward.) This is serious stuff....thanks for the good conversation and deep thoughts! And I happen to think Trump is a loose cannon, so I'm watching him warily. I also happen to think Obama far exceeded his authority as President by issuing EOs and refusing to execute laws duly passed by Congress, which pisses me off even more than it might otherwise because he's a Constitutional Law professor...but that doesn't mean I think he got everything wrong, either. I'm not willing to put either one of them up on a pedestal, but neither do I believe it's necessary to automatically malign averything the past administration did simply because it was the past administration that did it. However, there are a number of things that Trump is already undoing from Obama's administration that I appreciate, both on a personal and a professional level....although I'm not sure I like the way he's accomplishing those goals. On this particular issue over the missiles, the jury is still out for me, not because I'm unwilling to open my eyes and see him as less than perfect--that ship was sailing away before he threw his hat into the ring--but because I still don't fully understand all the issues and what is happening. But I'm learning, so thanks! :-)
Very quickly, you might be a little confused on the difference between the JCPOA and the UN Resolution. The first is not a UN initiative. Also, to fully understand the issues, I think you need to take a look at what Iran both agreed to give up, and has given up, as a result of the JCPOA. Go back and look at the levels of panic regarding Iranian nuclear weapons pre-JCPOA. That panic is gone, and the agreement is a success. On your point 4, by announcing unilateral sanctions and punishments, Trump might have put the US in both violation of the UN Resolution, both in spirit and in reality. More Trump blundering, in my opinion. Do you believe his actions have violated the 30 day provision for finding a good faith solution? Gotta go...
LOL! Those coy little smiles are their secret weapons! He has definitely figured out your number and how to play this game.
There's a family that tends to sit near me in church, and they have a little boy who is probably getting close to 2 years old. He's a handsome kid. For about the past year, he has mastered the art of flirting, and he uses it to get what he wants, which (as far as I can tell) is to be held by someone not-his-mom so he can sneak away at the first opportunity. You'd think after a year we would wise up to this strategy....but every single time he turns that coy smile my direction, I burst out laughing (quietly, shhh, it's still church), and he knows he's won me over. They learn fast!
So {rubbing hands} I now feel fully Wikipedia-certified to talk about ballistic missiles. :-) (I did actually look up stuff on the State Department and the UN site and a few other places, but it all amounts to about the same level of expertise, which is to say not much, but more than I knew yesterday.) Here's what I picked up: (1) Iran signed a deal with the UN to put the brakes on nuclear development for 8 years to build a relationship of trust with the UN countries (including the US) and that in return, those countries would lift economic sanctions, and Iran would slowly continue work on the peaceful development of nuclear technology (which appears to be: nuclear energy thumbs up, stockpiling ingredients for nuclear weapons, thumbs down). (2) Apparently President Obama *also* felt that the agreement did not go far enough and expressed as much before the agreement went into effect. One of the things he did not like was the softer language--not on the issue of design or designer intent, but on the shift from "shall not undertake" ballistic missile launches included in the 1929 (2010) resolution (which is considered "mandatory" language in the law) to the 2231 (2015) language of Iran being "called upon not to undertake" ballistic missile launches....which in legalese doesn't have quite the same serious tone as "shall not." It sounds more like a suggestion than a mandate. (3) The entire agreement depends on a spirit of cooperation between the countries and their ability to convince each other that they are acting in good faith. Iran has launched ballistic missiles five times since the agreement went into effect. Missiles that (a) so far haven't successfully made it much past a distance of 1,000 km (a medium-range missile) but have the potential to make it to around 4,000 km (a long-range missile); and (b) can carry a payload of around 500-1,000 kg, which apparently is considered to be nuclear capable, or able to carry a nuclear warhead. Iran is claiming to be testing the missiles for defensive purposes only. Possible. BUT, from what I can tell so far, they're not doing it in such a way that engenders a spirit of cooperation and trust........which is the WHOLE POINT of the 2231 agreement. (4) If one of the parties to the 2231 resolution feels that the agreement isn't working, they can (in good faith) seek to find a solution, with a remarkably short timeframe (30 days)......or everyone reverts back to the previous resolutions, including the 1929 resolution, which would use the stronger "shall not" language when it comes to ballistic missile testing. (5) I don't know when the last time the US fired off a ballistic missile, but we did send one (intercontinental variety, unarmed) over to the Marshall Islands (4,200 miles) in September to let North Korea know we still have them (the same day North Korea fired 3 mid-range missiles into the Sea of Japan), with a warning from President Obama that "North Korea needs to know that provocations will only invite more pressure and deepen its isolation." Before that, it had been a few months....we launched five ballistic missiles in January and February 2016. Apparently this is something we do on a fairly regular basis. My take: Iran doesn't seem to be very interested in complying with the spirit of the agreement to stick to the eight-year plan to develop trust. President Obama didn't think the agreement went far enough. Iran keeps testing ballistic missiles, currently sans nuclear warheads, but capable of carrying them, and is working toward successful longer-range testing.......perhaps stretching the credibility that it's only for defensive purposes. (If I recall, we had an agreement with Russia at one point where we promised to give each other a head's up before we went around testing that kind of stuff, just so either side wouldn't get all twitchy-fingered over a test.....I can't imagine it would be all that hard for Iran to say "Yo, head's up, testing a defensive missile today, just want to see if we can beat our last record, wanted everyone to know so y'all don't get worried we're secretly going to bomb your allies any day now. Still keeping an eye on that agreement we made. Peace out." On the legal stuff, at least in America, we actually don't tend to hold manufacturers liable when someone uses something for an unintended purpose. Thus, if you use your lawnmower to shave your dog and the dog gets a bad haircut (...or worse) you actually can't recover damages for being an idiot (hence all the ridiculous "use only for intended purpose" language tacked onto everything.) We had a potential client come to us who wanted to file a lawsuit against Toyota because their rugged and durable Hilux trucks are so often used by terrorist groups in places where rugged and durable is a necessity to get around. It was one of two times I flat out refused to work on a case, and we didn't end up taking it. (Not betraying client confidentiality since the US government has been taking a look at the same thing, though not for liability purposes.) Trucks can be used for *lots* of things (and apparently moving other people's stuff for them is in high demand if the number of bumper stickers saying "Yes this is my truck, no I can't help you move" is any indication)......and the link between manufacturing Toyota trucks and enabling acts of terrorism is tenuous at best, and flat out ridiculous in my opinion. That said, ballistic missiles are serious business, nuclear warheads or not (normal harm, as Joni says, is still big harm), and we're not really worried about the liability of the manufacturer if the missiles are used for something other than their intended purpose. We're worried about whether the missiles can carry a nuclear payload and make things go boom in a radioactive way against our allies.