Mediaboss Marketing

STATE DEPARTMENT

While President Donald Trump's administration is seeking a reason to keep American troops in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, U.S. officials are also examining options to stabilize conflicts in the region, including a dialogue that would move forward a peace process.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is not advocating for military options, but looking to facilitate a dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban, according to the State Department.

"I think one of the things that the secretary feels very strongly about is trying to develop get to a place where we can have some sort of a peace process. And that means actually sitting down and talking with members of the Taliban and starting to facilitate that kind of dialogue," State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said earlier this week.

"Ultimately, like in many situations in many other countries, military options or our military strategy is not necessarily going to win those countries and put peace back together," Nauert told VOA. "It's part of it. But in the long run, you have to bring both sides to the table or multiple sides to the table together to determine their future."

Watch: Seeking a Way Forward in Afghanistan, Tillerson Pushes for Diplomacy

Policy under review

The Trump administration has yet to complete its policy review to stabilize Afghanistan. Officials say it will likely be weeks before a plan is finalized and announced.

When Trump was asked by a reporter on July 20 whether he would deploy additional American troops to the war-torn country, the president responded: "We'll see."

Trump's team is said to split over how to stabilize Afghanistan.

The military contingency National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford all seem to agree with their commander on the ground that a troop increase in Afghanistan should be one part of a complex solution.

"But the secretary of state is not going to advocate or is not going to work on Mr. McMaster's behalf or on General Mattis' behalf," Nauert said. "Our piece of it to work on is more from the diplomacy standpoint and humanitarian assistance."

Dangers of security over diplomacy

Some analysts warn of the danger of prioritizing security over diplomacy. They argue Washington should find a comprehensive strategy, which addresses many of the challenges Kabul is facing.

"I really think that the Trump administration could really suffer politically if it were to commit to an open-ended troop commitment in Afghanistan, which seems to be one of the directions that it is considering going," Michael Kugelman, deputy director for South Asia at the Wilson Center, told VOA.

"It has to be a strategy, it cannot be limited to a security solution," Kugelman said. "We really need to be thinking about the diplomatic strategy, and specifically, how to engage with the Afghan government, which is in a lot of trouble."

In a recent interview with VOA's Afghan Service in Kabul, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he strongly opposed a policy that sends a message to intensify the war.

Instead, Karzai said he supported a U.S. strategy that is meant to pursue peace, promote unity and foster good relations with Afghanistan's neighbors.

"A surge of troops will lead to the intensification of war in the country. I wholeheartedly and strongly oppose it. We want peace, peace and peace," Karzai told VOA.

Meanwhile, responding to a New York Times report that Afghanistan's mineral wealth may be a reason for Trump to remain engaged in the country, Nauert told VOA on Thursday that she had seen the report, but with the Afghanistan policy review still under way, she would not get ahead of the final decisions made by the president.

"They will come to conclusion about that," she said.

Read the original post:
Seeking a Way Forward in Afghanistan, Tillerson Pushes for ... - Voice of America

Brand MHR Madeleine King has returned from a nine-day trip to the Middle East, where she had a chance to see the Australian Defence Forces role in forging peace in Afghanistan.

Travelling with Defence personnel being deployed and five other Federal politicians, Ms King got a whirlwind tour of what life is like for Australians posted in the previously war-torn country.

This included first-aid training, weapon handling and familiarisation with protected mobility vehicles.

Australia are involved in Operation Highroad, with Defence personnel helping to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces as the country looks towards a peaceful future.

In conjunction with the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support, about 300 Australians are based in the Islamic country.

Ms King said the trip had opened her eyes to the good work the Defence Force conducted in Afghanistan and that it would play a role in helping her as part of several Parliamentary groups in Canberra.

I am grateful for the opportunity and I am glad that I have done it, she said.

It is a fair bit of time out of the electorate but it was a valuable experience.

My take out of it is the enthusiasm our people there had for the task at hand. That commitment to the task makes you really proud.

People should be reassured of the vast good that we are doing there.

Ms King said Afghanistan was thoroughly benefiting from the guidance of Australia.

I think a lot of people are not aware of what is going on there and are oblivious to the very good work that Australians are doing in Afghanistan, she said.

Driving through Kabul, you see someone selling balloons on a street that people used to be hung.

That is what the city was it was one of the more dreadful places in the world for humans to be in that it has been able to progress to todays freedoms is heartwarming.

Ms King said the HMAS Arunta, which returned to Garden Island in Rockingham on Sunday after nine months at sea, was frequently mentioned and it drove home the sacrifices the Defence community make.

More here:
MP's Afghanistan visit opens eyes to good work of Defence - The West Australian

The State Department said Thursday that Irans launch of a space satellite was a provocative action that violates a U.N. resolution on ballistic missiles as well as the spirit of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday that reports that Iran had launched a rocket carrying a satellite into space violated U.N. Security Council resolution 2231, which calls on Iran not to conduct any activity involving ballistic missiles that are designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Nauert said the United States regards the launch as continued ballistic missile development that is discouraged in the U.N. resolution.

We consider this to be a provocative action, and a provocative action that undermines the security, the prosperity of those in the region and around the world as well.

We believe that what happened overnight in the early morning hours here in Washington is inconsistent with the Security Council resolutions, she added. We believe that what happened overnight and into the morning is in violation of the spirit of the nuclear agreement.

[U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran, after certifying its compliance with nuclear deal]

The launch of a satellite-carrying rocket was reported by Iranian state media on Thursday, but it was unclear exactly when the launch occurred. Officials in Israel and the United States fear Iran could use the technology to produce long-range missiles that could pose a threat to the region, and beyond, if they help Iran develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Irans defense ministry denies that its space program is a vehicle for weapons development, and the head of its space agency has even offered to cooperate with NASA and share its data with other countries.

The Trump administration has been highly critical of Irans ballistic missile tests. This month, the White House certified that Iran was in compliance with its commitments under the nuclear agreement. But while the language on Irans nuclear program is precise and extensive, the language involving missiles is ambiguous.

Resolution 2231 was passed in 2015 to endorse the deal in which six world powers, including the United States, agreed to ease nuclear-related economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program. The agreement is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The language on ballistic missiles replaced a resolution dating from 2010 that said Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The 2015 version merely calls on Iran not to conduct such activity.

Originally posted here:
US calls Iranian satellite launch 'provocative' - Washington Post

Mr. Trump had expected to be presented with options for how to get out of the deal, according to two officials, and in the words of one of them, he had a bit of a meltdown when that wasnt one of the choices.

Mr. Trump himself made it clear he does not plan to let that happen again.

Were doing very detailed studies, he told The Wall Street Journal in an interview this week. Later, he added that when the next 90-day review of the deal comes around mandated by Congress two years ago I think theyll be noncompliant.

His aides say they are not so sure of the outcome, and they described the studies Mr. Trump referred to as evenhanded efforts to evaluate the costs and benefits of staying inside the deal with its sharp limitations on Irans ability to produce nuclear fuel for at least the next nine years versus abandoning it.

Some concede that the diplomatic cost of abandoning the agreement would be high. The other parties to the agreement Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia do not share Mr. Trumps objections. If the United States withdraws support for the accord, it will be isolated on the issue, much as it is on the climate change agreement.

But the presidents mind seems made up. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship, he said of Mr. Tillerson. Its easier to say they comply. Its a lot easier. But its the wrong thing. They dont comply.

Even longtime critics of the deal in Congress have their doubts about the wisdom of abandoning it. In an interview this week with David Ignatius of The Washington Post, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, strongly suggested that this is not the moment to abandon something that is largely working.

What I say to the president, and this is what Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster say, said Mr. Corker, referring to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, is that you can only tear the agreement up one time.

Right now, he added, its not like a nuclear weapon is getting ready to be developed.

Absent any urgency, he argued for a more nuanced approach. Radically enforce it, he said of the deal, demanding access to various facilities in Iran.

If they dont let us in, Mr. Corker said, boom.

He added: You want the breakup of this deal to be about Iran. You dont want it to be about the U.S., because we want our allies with us. Mr. Tillerson, he said, ultimately wanted to renegotiate a deal that would stop Iran from enriching uranium forever a concession it is hard to imagine Iran ever making.

Some version of Mr. Corkers radical enforcement is essentially the strategy that national security officials have described in recent days. They deny they are trying to provoke the Iranians. Instead, they say they are testing the utility of the accord so they can report back to Mr. Trump about whether Irans interpretation of the provisions of the agreement, and its separate commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency, would pave the way for international inspectors to go anywhere in the country.

That probably sets the stage for some kind of standoff.

Iran has long said that its most sensitive military locations are off limits. That issue came to a head in 2015 when international inspectors demanded access to Parchin, a military base near Tehran where there was evidence of past nuclear work. A compromise was worked out in which Iran took environmental samples itself, under surveillance by agency inspectors. The inspectors found little, but the precedent of how the inspection was carried out was cited by critics of the deal as evidence that the Iranians could hide work on uranium enrichment or other technology in off-limits military facilities.

It is unclear whether American intelligence agencies possess evidence of potential violations that go beyond suspicions. Several senior intelligence officials have warned there are risks involved in directing the international agency to specific locations, only to discover nothing nefarious. Such an outcome would have echoes, they caution, of the failed effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003.

One of Mr. Trumps complaints about the 2015 deal is that it covers only nuclear activity, not support for terrorism, or missile testing, or Irans activities in Syria and Iraq. The State Department complained that an Iranian launch of a missile into space on Thursday violated the spirit of the nuclear accord.

The missile test was the first by Iran since Mr. Trump took office. But such tests of what are essentially carrier rockets are not prohibited.

The missile that was launched is known as a Simorgh, or Phoenix, which experts said was a copy of North Koreas Unha space launch vehicle. Irans national news channel said the rocket was capable of placing satellites weighing up to 250 kilograms, or about 550 pounds, into a low earth orbit of 500 kilometers, or about 300 miles.

Nader Karimi Joni, a journalist close to the government of Irans president, Hassan Rouhani, said Thursdays launch was a reaction to the House of Representatives vote on Tuesday approving a new round of sanctions against Iran. The Senate approved the bill Thursday night.

Iran is boosting its missile capabilities in order to increase the accuracy, preciseness and range, Mr. Joni said. Iran will not stop the missile projects.

In a sign of continuing struggles over Iran policy, the White House confirmed that Derek Harvey, the head of Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, was removed from his post on Thursday. No explanation was given, but Mr. Harvey was known to be especially hawkish about Irans role in the region, and he was appointed by the previous national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Harvey was widely reported to have been at odds with General McMaster, the current national security adviser, on Middle East policy.

Follow David E. Sanger on Twitter @SangerNYT.

Thomas Erdbrink contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on July 28, 2017, on Page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Looks for Way to Find Iran in Violation of Accord.

Originally posted here:
Trump Seeks Way to Declare Iran in Violation of Nuclear Deal - New York Times

The Senate has passed a sweeping sanctions package targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 97-2.

The U.S. House passed the sanctions package Tuesday in a 419-3 vote, sending the legislation to the Senate. The White House has not definitively said that President Trump will sign the bill, but the the measure won a veto-proof majority in both the House and Senate.

The measure -- a reprimand for Russian interference in the 2016 election cycle, among other things -- requires congressional approval before the president can ease or lift sanctions. The White House had criticized attempts to limit the president's sanctions powers, but the legislation's solid bipartisan support may be forcing the president's hand. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday night aboard Air Force One said the president is "looking over" where the legislation stood.

Negotiators from the House and Senate came to an agreement on the legislation in recent days after it garnered overwhelming support in the Senate but stalled in the House. The Senate originally passed the legislation in a 98-2 vote in mid-June, but the House claimed the measure violated a clause in the Constitution that says bills that raise revenue for government must originate in the House.

Play Video

The Treasury Department fined ExxonMobil $2 million Thursday for violating U.S. sanctions in 2014 when it signed contracts with a blacklisted Rus...

Although the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act also punishes North Korea and Iran for their aggression, the Russia portion of the legislation has received the most attention, given Mr. Trump'sreluctance to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin or acknowledge Russian meddling in the election. The White House has focused on the need to stand up to Russia instead because of its intervention in Ukraine and Crimea.

According to the latest version of the legislation, Mr. Trump would have to send a report for any plan to ease sanctions to Congress, and Congress would have 30 days to accept or reject the plan.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See more here:
Senate passes sanctions bill targeting Russia, Iran and North Korea - CBS News