What's new

House votes to prohibit sale of commercial aircraft to Iran

aliaselin

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,535
Reaction score
-2
Country
China
Location
China
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-led House has acted decisively to bar the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, a move that would scuttle deals already authorized by the Obama administration and potentially worth billions of dollars.

By 243-174 vote on Thursday, lawmakers passed legislation that would prohibit the Treasury Department from issuing the licenses U.S. banks would need to complete the transactions.

The House bill seeks to counter the department’s decision in September to grant aviation giants Boeing and Airbus permission to sell the passenger planes to Tehran. The bill must now clear the Senate, where the measure would face stiff opposition from Democrats. President Barack Obama would veto the bill if it reached his desk, according to the White House.

The proposed sales may involve the purchase and leasing of more than 200 aircraft, which could generate thousands of new jobs, according to Democrats who opposed the legislation. Republicans, however, decried the sale of aircraft to a country they say is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and has flouted United Nations resolutions by testing ballistic missiles.

Iran’s nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers ended international economic sanctions against Tehran and specifically allowed for the sale of commercial aircraft and spare parts. The Treasury Department said the licenses granted to Boeing and Airbus contained “strict conditions to ensure the planes will be used exclusively for commercial passenger use and cannot be resold or transferred to a designated entity.”


But Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., called the aircraft sales a “scandal.” He harshly criticized Boeing and Airbus for seeking to do business with Iran.

“We need to make sure that the American financial system is not complicit in this deal,” Roskam said. “We need to make sure that American taxpayers are not subsidizing this deal.”

Although Roskam is from Illinois, where Boeing is headquartered, the airplanes the company proposed selling to Tehran are built in Washington state.

Democrats cast the legislation as another Republican attempt to undermine last year’s Iran nuclear agreement and embarrass the Obama administration.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a member of the House Intelligence committee, said the bill plunged the House again into the “dreary and dangerous ritual” of considering a measure that would cause the United States to violate the nuclear accord that took years to forge with world powers, including China and Russia.

Himes also argued denying the aircraft sale could cause 100,000 jobs to not be created.

Ahead of the vote, the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement Monday that the legislation would “contravene U.S. commitments” in the nuclear deal and undercut American credibility with its allies.

National carrier Iran Air signed agreements in January to buy 118 planes from Airbus, estimated to be worth $25 billion. Iran later reduced the number of planes to 112.

Though based abroad, Airbus needed Treasury’s approval because at least 10 percent of the manufacturer’s components are of American origin.

Under Boeing’s deal, Iran Air is slated to buy 80 aircraft with a total list price of $17.6 billion, with deliveries beginning in 2017 and running until 2025. Iran Air also will lease 29 new Boeing 737s, raising the potential total value of the deal to $25 billion.

But Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group, doubted that Iran has the money for so many new planes. The country’s economy, rife with corruption and patronage, is in poor shape, he said.

Third party lenders also are likely to be leery of underwriting such large transactions because Tehran is not party to an international agreement called the Cape Town Convention that guarantees financiers can repossess the jets in the event of bankruptcy, he said.

“In the here and now, Iran maybe has the ability to absorb and finance at most a quarter of the aircraft,” said Aboulafia, adding that Tehran would likely have to settle for used and leased planes.
 
.
Trump offers Flynn job of national security advisor

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump announced he will tap Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for the role of national security advisor, the transition announced Friday.

The announcement Friday said that Flynn was among three high profile national security positions -- including Mike Pompeo for CIA director and Jeff Sessions for attorney general -- that had been offered and accepted.
Flynn, 57, was a top adviser and high-profile surrogate to Trump during his campaign, introducing the President-elect at rallies and serving as a top cheerleader on his hyper-active Twitter feed.
"General Flynn is one of the country's foremost experts on military and intelligence matters and he will be an invaluable asset to me and my administration," Trump said in a statement.
His appointment won't require Senate confirmation, which is potentially helpful for Trump, as Flynn has a long history of controversial remarks and was fired as President Barack Obama's director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.
Flynn wrote in his 2016 book, "The Field of Fight," that he was booted from Obama's administration by "censors" who were unhappy he'd told a congressional committee "that we were not as safe as we had been a few years back."
However, US officials said Flynn was pushed out because of his contentious management style.
Flynn's Twitter feed -- regularly updated with pro-Trump comments -- is another source of potential scrutiny. Flynn apologized in July after retweeting a message that bashed Jewish people.
The retweet came after Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on CNN that Russia was to blame for hacks of the Democratic National Committee.
"The corrupt Democratic machine will do and say anything to get #NeverHillary into power. This is a new low," Flynn tweeted. With it, he shared a link to a tweet by a user who had written, ">Cnn implicated. 'The USSR is to blame!' ... Not anymore, Jews. Not anymore."
Flynn later apologized, saying he'd only meant to retweet Mook's remarks.

=======================================================


Flynn Has It In For Iran

by Jim Lobe

On the news that Donald Trump has asked Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to be his national security adviser, I decided to look up Flynn’s testimony on Iran before the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa on June 10, 2015. That was just a month beforethe P5+1 and Iran concluded the the Iran nuclear deal, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). What I found was pretty shocking and deserves wide dissemination. I knew that Flynn was pretty much of an Islamophobe, but I didn’t know to what extent he appears also to be an Iranophobe as well. The testimony is 16 pages long, so I will confine this post to selected excerpts. But one really has to read the whole thing to get the full flavor of this man’s state of mind on the subject.




    • After listing five developments in the region, beginning with the “negative behavior and expanding influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote:
Not only do these impact our security at home, but they also impact our allies and friends in the region, most important, the State of Israel—Israel lives under the threat of total annihilation from Iran and other Islamic radical elements in the region—something the United States must never allow, nor should we deal equally with those who spew this type of hatred and bigotry (we would not stand for it here in this country and we should not stand for it elsewhere in the world where our closest friends are at risk).




    • “Ideas about other ways of waging war are ignored because they do not fit the closed Second Generation paradigm. Meanwhile, Washington cannot consider alternatives to our current foreign policy or grand strategy because anyone who proposes one is immediately exiled from the establishment.”



    • “2. Iran has every intention to build a nuclear weapon. They have stated it many times, they have attempted well over a decade to move rapidly to nuclearizing its capability, and their enrichment to twenty percent and their rapid move to develop a ballistic missile program, are examples of their continued preparedness to weaponize a missile for nuclear delivery.”



    • “Iran’s stated desire to destroy Israel is very real. Iran has not once (not once) contributed to the greater good of the security of the region. Nor has Iran contributed to the protection of security for the people of the region. Instead, and for decades, they have contributed to the severe insecurity and instability of the region, especially the sub-region of the Levant surrounding Israel (i.e, Southern Lebanon, Gaza, and the Border region along the Golan Heights on the Syrian side of the border).”



    • ”9. It is clear that the nuclear deal is not a permanent fix but merely a placeholder. The ten year timeframe only makes sense if the Administration truly believes that it is possible for a wider reconciliation with Iran that is likely to occur, which will make the Iranian regime change its’ strategic course. That’s wishful thinking.”



    • “12. I believe that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the region, and eventually to the world—they are still a U.S. State Department designated Islamic state sponsor of terrorism, they have and they continue to violate international sanctions, and they continue to spew hatred in their rhetoric coming from senior members of their government—to include their top Mullahs.”



    • “15. What we don’t know is the full scope of Iran’s nuclear effort itself. The intelligence community does not have complete “eyes on” the totality of the Iranian nuclear program, nor can it guarantee that we have identified all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and processes. Moreover, given the history of the nuclear age, it is prudent to conclude that there are elements of Iran’s nuclear program that still remain hidden from view (Iran has demonstrated in their own actions, they cannot be trusted).”



    • “17. I believe that Iran’s overarching strategic goals of enhancing its security, prestige, and regional influence have led it to pursue capabilities to meet its civilian goals and give it the ability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, if it chooses to do so. We do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.” [Editor’s note: Contrast this last sentence with the opening sentence in 2. above.]



    • “As the Washington Post editorialists have said, regime change in Tehran is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The same applies to their missile arsenal, which is of high quality and growing.”



    • “Just look at the cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect those dots, and you get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the U.S., our friends, and our allies.”



    • “The North Korean cooperation is also very significant, as the two countries (North Korea and Iran) have long traded expertise, not least regarding nuclear and possibly EMP weapons.”\



    • “There are a number of things that the international community can do however, to level the playing field with Iran and further reduce the chances of its violating its Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty obligations.



    • “Immediately direct Iran to open up all of its facilities, scientific, military, and current nuclear facilities, for international inspections.”



    • “The U.S. must take a more active role in the region for what will be a race for “nuclearization” preferring energy development over weaponization.”



    • “Provide greater authorities to all elements of U.S. National power to defeat the Islamic radicals we now call the Islamic State—put them out of business.”



    • “Immediately recognize, fully support, help organize, and assist those regional partners create an “Arab NATO-like” structure and framework. Build an Arab Army that is able to secure their regional responsibilities.”



    • “Clearly define and recognize that we face a very radicalized enemy in the likes of Islamic extremism. The administration’s refusal to state what we can plainly see is beyond being irresponsible and ranges on being dangerous for the long-term security of the United States. Seek and appoint leaders (regionally, internationally or right here at home), give them the right and appropriate authorities that can actually accomplish the strategic objectives we seek.”



    • “We should expect a far more aggressive Iran as it relates to the Gulf (both overtly and covertly) and one that will remain militarily engaged in the Levant for the foreseeable future even if Assad is overthrown. To the extent that Iranian support to the Huthis is regarded as successful we should expect to see it emulated in Bahrain [!-Editor’s note] and possibly eastern Saudi Arabia.”



    • “What does a more proliferated region mean for US security? Pretty much, what Prime Minister Netanyahu predicted to Congress, which was we would see the end of the Non Proliferation Treaty for all intents and purposes. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the nations of Egypt, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey will all attempt their own missile and nuclear programs with varying degrees of success and competence, and the best-case scenario is that we have our current relationship with Pakistan duplicated five fold in a region where we have seen a significant government turnover from at least 2011 to present.”



    • “And as I stated above, we, the United States of America must comprehend that evil doesn’t recognize diplomacy and nations such as Iran will still maintain the intent of achieving nuclear weapon status.”



    • “What does this mean for Israel? The worst-case scenario is a reversion to a pre-Yom Kippur War security environment, except with less restraint. While the sectarian angle may limit impact against Israel in the near-term, they are likely to be targeted by jihadists of either flavor (Sunni or Shia) and any Egyptian WMD efforts have to be of serious concern because the government has changed three times since 2011 and it won’t be clear who is going to be on top the next time it occurs (my strongest recommendation is for the U.S. to pick President Al-Sisi as a partner and get on with assisting him fight the Islamic radicals trying to take over Egypt).”



    • “It’s difficult to overestimate the risks manifest in an Iran armed with ballistic and / or nuclear weapons. Certainly the ambitions of those who have advocated for this capability for 30 years would be vindicated. That many of the same harbor genuine beliefs which include the responsibility of the faithful to prepare for a return of the Imamate and the end of times, often seen as concurrent with “exporting the revolution” (or the reason for being of the IRGC-QF), all of which should provide us little comfort.”



    • “The most dramatic impact would be the virtual elimination of coercion and persuasion; in nuclear deterrence there remains only warfare by proxy and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).”



    • “Beyond the unbridled use of a full spectrum of surrogate forces, they would have an inordinate and immediate ability to incur deep and sustained economic costs that would alter global alliances with China as penultimate consumer, and Europe as fractured addict. The ripple effects of such control would be felt well before they were exercised, and reshape the balance of power. Confident without repercussions and satisfied behind a nuclear inventory, Iran would flex its newly acquired regional hegemony to extend the buffer well beyond its Arab neighbors and in the process neutralize internal opposition (i.e., Kurds, Ahvazis, Azeris, Baluchs) without regard to international opinion.”



    • “Sunni Arab opposition would be reflexive and likely result in an increased reliance on Russia for assistance (perhaps the real winner in the global shift in power as ally to both Iran and the only port for a listing Arab world desperately seeking military assistance). The conflict would expand, but it’s worth noting that we can expect a host of pernicious and unintended consequences as Arab states fund and support any and all opposition to Iran including but not limited to, ISIS and AQ and its Associated Movements (AQAM—yes, these latter groups still exist).”
Again, these are just excerpts and relatively coherent ones at that (at least compared to other parts of the testimony). To get the full sense of his thinking—if one can call it that—one really has to read the whole thing.

Now, it’s possible that he has since changed his views. After more than a full year of the JCPOA’s actual implementation, he sees that the agreement has effectively constrained what he thought was Iran’s nuclear weapons program so that the horrible scenarios he saw in 2015 may not be appear so realistic to him. But I wouldn’t count on it.

========================================================


Who Is John Bolton? Donald Trump's Possible Secretary Of States Wants To Bomb Iran

John Bolton could be close to being named the next secretary of state in Donald Trump's administration, multiple reports suggested Monday. The former U.S. representative to the United Nations is somewhat of an establishment Republican figure but has also developed a reputation for promoting aggressive military action, including bombing Iran to keep the nation from developing nuclear weapons.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the decision was down to Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The Huffington Post reported that Bolton was close to getting named to the position, while Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker was a "remote possibility" and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was no longer being considered.

Bolton wrote a March 2015 opinion piece in the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran," that claimed "time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed," in setting back the nation's proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Others have called such a strike a terrible idea. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served in presidential administrations of both George W. Bush and Obama, has said, "If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe."

Gates said the retaliation to such a strike would be devastating. "[Iranian] capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate," he said in remarks given in 2012 at the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

Conservative outlet National Review wrote an editorial urging Trump to choose Bolton, who the magazine called a "friend," and a board member of the National Review Institute.

In an editorial published over the weekend, Bolton listed the so-called Islamic State group, Iran/North Korea nuclear proliferation, Russian aggression, territorial claims from China and the U.S.'s "global governance" as the "five gravest challenges confronting America" in the next four years.

Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post wrote on Twitter that choosing Bolton would be seen negatively by Russia and later posted that Bolton was not a "done deal." Bolton has disagreed with one of Trump's foreign policy statements, the possible secretary of state strongly critiquing the president-elect's noncommittal to backing its NATO allies.
 
. . .
Only a Nuclear Armed Iran can permanently keep these war mongers at bay. Trump cabinet is going to be the most Alt right in recent US history.
 
. .
oppertunity to france..
somebody loss is somebodies gain.
Airbus also needs US cabinet's approve, same as SSJ-100, CRJ, ERJ or SSJ because all of them has used made in America component.
 
.
Airbus also need US cabinet approve, same as SSJ-100, CRJ, ERJ or SSJ because all of them has used made in America component.
buy russian then...
anyhow this divide is eventually a reality now...on country can remain non-allianced...
i don't know how indian deplomatic cababilities will manage this , so far they has successfull....
 
. .
Iran, Pakistan and SA, all of these states will have to deal with these KKK terrorists. Now the question is, will Iran and SA bury the hatchet or sharpen it for each other?
 
.
Iran, Pakistan and SA, all of these states will have to deal with these KKK terrorists. Now the question is, will Iran and SA bury the hatchet or sharpen it for each other?

Yep, it is pointless for SA and Iran to keep fighting each other, since those white supremacists hate them both.
 
. . .
Well that's a stupid move. The Americans just gave a multi-billion dollar contract to Airbus.
 
.
Doesn't mean anything until the Senate votes. Even if the Senate doesn't vote against this bill, Obama will veto it. Question remains if Trump will veto it.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom