Sanctions levied against Iran after its recent ballistic missile test may reflect President Donald Trump’s recent bellicose language, but it’s likely the work designating those targeted was begun under the Obama administration, according to experts.
The U.S. on Friday morning announced new punitive sanctions against individuals and organizations helping boost Iran’s ballistic missile program as well as its militant armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in response to a ballistic missile test conducted 140 miles east of Tehran on Sunday.
Trump appeared to portray the action as a major policy change. “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them,” he tweeted Friday. “Not me!”
Yet at least some of the work related to the sanctions likely began under Obama, which undertook similar measures against Iran.
“Certainly, based on past precedent, designations can take time,” said Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, in an interview. “But it’s expected — consistent with what the Obama administration has done in the past. It’s not surprising given Iran has continued to test ballistic missiles.”
While Davenport couldn’t be sure that the vetting had begun before President Trump took office, it would make sense, she said. “The Obama administration left open the possibility of additional designations.”
As part of the new sanctions, the Treasury Department placed 13 people and 12 companies on a list of “specifically designated nationals” — meaning U.S. citizens and permanent residents cannot do business with them.
Eric Lorber, a senior associate at the Financial Integrity Network with experience advising clients on compliance with the Office of Foreign Assets Control, agreed the Obama administration had likely “at least identified” possible targets for future designation. “It looks fairly straightforward,” he told The Intercept during an interview.
Treasury uses certain “tags” to explain why people and organizations get added to the list. In this case, Treasury connected these new additions to terrorism, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and ballistic missile development.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not currently listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department — though lawmakers have tried to change that several times, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in early January.
The sanctions notably include not just Iranian individuals and corporations but Chinese ones, too. “We’ve seen this before,” Lorber said. “In China, certain companies and individuals provide services and equipment for Iran’s ballistic missile program.”
By adding them to the list, the U.S. is discouraging Chinese participation in Iran’s escalating weapons testing, he said
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not directly confirm the sanctions had been worked on during President Obama’s tenure, but said they “had been staffed and approved” and “were in the pipeline” for some time during a press conference on Friday afternoon. He noted the sanctions were a direct response to Iran’s ballistic missile test last Sunday.
The announcement also came after President Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, brazenly said Iran was “put on notice” — a statement President Trump echoed on Twitter.
“The days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over,” Flynn said in a statement.
According to Davenport, the United Nations Security Council will likely conduct its own investigation into whether or not the missile testing violated UN security resolutions. The council met on Tuesday to discuss the missile test at the United States’s request. At the time, the State Department was still determining whether or not the test violated security resolutions currently in place.
According to the State Department, the test involved a medium-range missile that was designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.
A State Department official confirmed to The Intercept that the United States considers the episode to be “in defiance” of the UN resolutions. “This launch was a destabilizing factor in the region,” the official said.
Top photo: A military truck carries a Sejil medium-range missile during the annual military parade marking the anniversary of the start of Iran’s 1980-1988 war with Iraq, on Sept. 21, 2016, in the capital Tehran.
Why would an American President be so concerned about Iran (there have been several)? What has Iran done to the USA?
I see absolutely ZERO reason for the USA to be involved in the ME in anyway.
The only possible reason, is that it is not an American interest, but an Israeli interest.
Trump hates Iran and China and loves Russia, which was all clear during the campaign. Maybe it’s because Chinese and Iranian people aren’t white enough for him?
So we can expect more of this crap against Iran and China, while Trump allows Russian to drill more oil. While I’d much rather the U.S. did business with Russia (Trump) than risk getting into a war with it (Clinton), doing oil business with Russia is also a very bad thing. No good scenarios here.
I second the sentiment of rrheard below Ms. McLaughlin.
If you wish to quote an anonymous source within the US government without evidence, then you must quote a response by someone from the Iranian government. Let us readers figure it out.
NYT reporters that quoted Bush officials and got us into war did not learn that lesson and remained employed as stenographers. My impression is that The Intercept does not wish to follow in the footsteps of NYT.
This was so easy to see coming. Donald Trump possesses a mere fraction of Barack Obama’s intellect. Alt-right conservatives don’t see it because, well….to slightly twist the use of an old saying: ‘A dog don’t smell its own shit’. Trump supporters think Trump is a genius, in the same way Curly thought Moe was.
John Kerry already warned us about the consequences of violating the JCPOA by dubiously imposing sanctions on Iran after signing the deal. It will result in the lose of the dollar as the world world reserve currency. Yet Jack Lew at the Treasury Department and the Israel lobby could careless about the greatest source of wealth for Americans. Thanks Israel!
https://youtu.be/99Sf918pUkQ
Hey Jenna,
I agree with your assessment that the Obama administration laid the groundwork upon which Trump is relying in the attempt to bring new sanctions against Iran. Although the US claim that Iran’s medium range nuclear test is a legal violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, it seems to be a stretch due to rather open-ended language. There seems to be a general consensus that the missile test was conducted “in defiance of” the spirit of that resolution however. I was also pleased to see that you made brief reference to the fact that the Iranian missile test had placed Chinese corporations in the cross hairs of The trump administration as well. However, the evolution of economic cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and Syria seem to be the elephant in the room as the missile tests appear to be the pretext by which the US can set into place the necessary military infrastructure capable of physically challenging the predictable consequence of that emerging bloc in the region. In fact, China and Russia are currently poised to challenge the US placement of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is South Korea that is perceived as a countermeasure to their growing influence in that region. I thought that Peter Kenyon wrote a decent article concerning the perceived legality of the Iranian missile test:
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/03/513229839/did-irans-ballistic-missile-test-violate-a-u-n-resolution
I appreciate the link Karl. Genuinely.
The NPR piece, and not a big fan of NPR, was at least attempting to do what I was getting at. Sourcing the story appropriately from perspective of not just Trump administration, but Iran, Europe, and reference to various UN resolutions and/or the parties to them.
Thank you again, hopefully Ms. McLaughlin will read it and think about it by comparison to her piece.
Hi Karl,
thanks for the link you provided, it is addresses a vital. Yet I wanted to drawl your attention to the battle that took place between the Treasury department and the State department (which had Obama’s backing). It gives insight to Treasury department personnel that sided with Israel to pursue a separate agenda from that of our former president. Yes this did happen technically within Obama’s administration, yet rouge agendas shouldn’t be portrayed as the former presidents policies.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/imperilled-hardliners-hillary/
Unfortunetly the TI only allows me to post one link. I could have provided many more with specific details, each containing the individual political battles that transpired. Yet I choose this one because it contains links to additional sources, so that Americans can easily educate themselves on the events and players in our resent past that have now brought to the brink of another war.
*vital question
Hi Mark,
I share your concern for the degree to which an Israel backed agenda is shaping US foreign policy on an ongoing basis. Have you seen this report by the Real News Network:
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18289:Lies-Promote-Trump%27s-Economic-War-Against-Iran
It appears to be arguing that these actions are merely the logical progression of a regional economic strategy that has been facilitated by a US/Saudi/Israel alliance for nearly four decades.
Hi Karl,
I just watched the clip via the link you provided. Thanks for sharing the video.
” new punitive sanctions against individuals and organizations helping boost Iran’s ballistic missile program as well as its militant armed forces,”
Why isn’t there at least equal sanctions against Israel? They are the source of most of the ME problems that the USA should stay completely out of.
I support Trump, but he does have a blind spot with Israel. Hellary would have been the same or worse.
“the work designating those targeted was begun under the Obama administration, according to experts.”
What a misleading statement. You’ve taken up the Trump narrative and are spreading it without looking into the details of what happened. Although your exact wording is accurate, it should be noted that this was in no way Obama’s policies. Obama was met with stiff resistance before, during and after the Iran deal by the Israel lobby. The head of the treasury department, Jack Lew, who is loyal to Israel, worked hard to ensure that the commitments under the Iran deal were thwarted. So much so that the State Department and Treasury department were pursuing opposite policies. Now that the State Deparment has been dismantled the Israel lobby is prevailing. So these were not Obama’s policies, as implied. They are the Israel lobbies policies.
“the Israel lobby is prevailing”
This is not a banana republic, is it?
Barry’s WH may have brokered the deal over Iran’s energy program, but let’s not forget he leveled his share of illegal sanctions against them too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/world/middleeast/white-house-moves-to-tighten-sanctions-on-iran.html?hp
Ms. McLaughlin,
I’ve always been impressed with your work.
My one critique of this sort of piece is the following:
You did that without link or specific attribution to a person at State Department (or another journalist who did).
First, it would be nice if you could source that claim with an identifiable non-anonymous person (and the basis for that factual claim).
Second, if Iran actually did test a particular missile, should be fairly easy to find confirmation for such a test from the IRG or one of Iran’s ministry officials, and what Iran’s position is on a) any particulars about the test, and b) their position on the legality of such a test.
My point being, every time someone in the West reports on what Iran does or doesn’t do, particularly with regard to Iran’s fundamental right (like every other nation) to develop weapons for its own self-defense, and that fact rarely if every gets “textualized” in the context of international laws or treaties.
Iran is always reported on as if it is doing something in violation of treaty or international law, and without every citing to any theoretically relevant treaties, agreements or laws. It is also consistently reported on, without direct attribution, as a funder of terrorism, and yet America given its relationship with Saudi Arabia and various other dictators, is never reported on as a “state” sponsor of “terrorism” as a function of inherent bias in the reporting.
That needs to change. There needs to be a consistent standard, particularly here at The Intercept, that holds nation states to the same standards legal standards. As others have pointed out, Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles capable of delivering them, yet they aren’t chastised in the press for this well known fact and their testing of ballistic missiles, because quite frankly, like the US, Israel doesn’t even bother to sign on to certain international treaties, make itself available for inspection by international agencies in this arena, and holds itself to no international standards not of their own design. Much like America in many instances.
That’s what needs to be reported on in context of these sorts of stories. In my humble opinion, otherwise I think you do a fine job for The Intercept, and whether or not you choose to address the questions I’ve asked above is up to you. But this demonization of Iran for doing what every other nation does, for the entire 51 years of my life, particularly in the context of how the West (American and UK specifically) has treated Iran is patently unethical given the history of those relationships.
Iran has every right to back whichever regional players it chooses, particularly in their own backyard, and in a region they’ve never aggressively attacked any nation in hundreds of years, regardless of how the West thinks they should be the key player in the region and be entitled to dictate or manipulate everything in the region. To argue the latter is to argue the same colonial propaganda that has been prevalent for decades from the West.
And I’d really hope The Intercept could begin to change that dynamic particularly with the Orange Emperor in charge rattling his dingy little saber at Iran. Fucking around with Iran has disaster for America and probably the world written all over it, if push ever comes to shove. And I would hope The Intercept wouldn’t be a part of that disastrous lead-up in any way shape or form.
I agree. That statement in the article bothered me also. Statements like that just repeat and amplify U.S. propaganda, which is not the proper or legitimate function of the press (though it has long been the function of the corporate media).
Bibi said jump…
+3
“You think I asked him, ‘How high?’ I don’t even have to ask how high. I’ve got tremendous hops. I’ll jump to the Sun for Bibi, believe me. I’m gonna make the best wall at the Mexican border, and I can jump over that too. My airtime is beautiful. You know Michael Jordan? I’m like White-chael Jordan.”
As with the nuclear weapons issue, Israel got there first a long time ago:
This little fact goes almost unmentioned in any mass media outlet (let alone the Israeli nuclear weapons program) but the fact that Israel can nuke anyone with a 5000 km range with its nuclear arsenal, and yet refuses to submit to any kind of IAEA inspections – in a rational world, that would be as much as subject of discussion as North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is. There are a few articles on this, for example from May 2015:
http://www.ibtimes.com/israels-defense-ministry-successfully-tests-missile-propulsion-system-1908446
HAHA! If doing something to be considered a “destabalizing factor in the region” is empire’s litmus test then the U.S. State Department and military should be hiding their heads in shame, not pointing at others hypocritically. NOTHING since WWII has more greatly destabilized that region than the unwarranted invasion and destruction of Iraq! No matter empire’s future – Iraq was never a threat to the United States, and neither is Yemen or Iran.
The U.S. has been a Germany invading Poland there – and history should not be kind.
Iran’s a peaceful country when compared to damn near everyone suggesting otherwise.