RUTHFULLY YOURS

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump is expected to announce on Friday that he won’t certify Iran is complying with the 2015 multinational nuclear agreement and will take Tehran to task more broadly for practices ranging from missile tests to support of violent groups, U.S. officials said.

The refusal to certify Iran’s compliance doesn’t mean the U.S. will pull out of the deal, the officials added, and Mr. Trump isn’t expected to ask Congress to re-impose economic sanctions that had been lifted as part of the agreement. But it could send the White House down a road of trying to change a deal that U.S. allies still support.

Mr. Trump, a longtime opponent of the accord negotiated under his predecessor’s administration, is expected to announce his decision in a speech in which he will also lay out plans to crack down on Iran’s missile program and its support for Hezbollah and other militant groups in the Middle East, the officials said.

Mr. Trump is also likely to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s elite military branch, as a terrorist organization, a step that has been the subject of internal administration debates, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Iran vowed a “crushing” response if the U.S. takes that step.

The venue for Mr. Trump’s remarks was the subject of debate as well. Officials said they had discussed the possibility of the speech taking place in front of the unoccupied Iranian Embassy in Washington, although that plan was set aside.

Mr. Trump’s speech will mark the end of a months-long Iran policy review by the administration and begin an uncertain process under which Congress has 60 days to consider on an expedited basis reinstating sanctions that had been lifted under the terms of the nuclear accord.

The president will speak in advance of a Sunday deadline to inform Congress about whether or not Iran is complying with the nuclear deal, under the terms of a U.S. law passed in 2015 meant to provide congressional oversight. CONTINUE AT SITE

UNITED NATIONS—The U.S. will withdraw from Unesco, the United Nations culture and heritage organization, officials said Thursday, a move that could further strain relations between the Trump administration and the U.N.

The State Department said the U.S. decision to leave Unesco “was not taken lightly” and reflects American concerns over the need for overhauls in the organization, as well as its “continuing anti-Israel bias.” The withdrawal will take effect at the end of next year.

The U.S. exit is the latest development in a long and tense relationship between Washington and the Paris-based body, which promotes international cooperation in areas of education, science, culture and communication.

Washington withdrew from Unesco in 1980 because it said the organization had become politicized. It rejoined in 2003, but since 2011 has withheld funds to Unesco amounting to nearly $550 million because of its decision to confer membership on the Palestinian territories.

In a statement on his official Twitter account Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country too was preparing to exit Unesco, “in parallel with the United States.”

Unesco has denied that it is biased against Israel.

Since arriving at the U.N. earlier this year, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley has voiced criticism over what she has called a bias against Israel, both in the Security Council and at various U.N. agencies. She has signaled the U.S. also is reviewing its commitment to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, citing concerns stemming from issues related to Israel, Iran and Venezuela and has warned that the U.S. would withdraw from the Council without changes.

In July, Unesco designated the Old City of Hebron and Tomb of the Patriarchs as Palestinian heritage sites despite diplomatic efforts by Israel and political pressure from the U.S. to derail the designation.

Overdue
The U.S. has withheld nearly $550 million in funds to Unesco since 2011 because of its decision to confer membership on the Palestinian territories.

Ms. Haley said in a statement Thursday that those designations had negatively affected the U.S. re-evaluation of its commitment to Unesco. “The United States will continue to evaluate all agencies within the United Nations system through the same lens,” Ms. Haley said.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said: “Today is a new day at the U.N., where there is price to pay for discrimination against Israel.”

The State Department said it wasn’t planning to completely disengage from Unesco and would maintain its connection with the organization as a nonmember, observer state. The statement said this would allow the U.S. to share its views and experiences on a range of issues from education to protection of World Heritage sites.

U.N. officials including Secretary-General António Guterres said they regretted the Trump administration’s withdrawal and said the U.S. had been a crucial and historic partner in helping Unesco improve education for the poor and protect culture and historical sites across the globe. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Trump Administration isn’t known for public-relations savvy, and Thursday’s surprise that the U.S. is withdrawing from the United Nations’s main cultural agency is a case in point. The decision was still the right one.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the U.S. will leave the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or Unesco, on Dec. 31 and become a non-member observer. She cited “concerns with mounting arrears,” “the need for fundamental reform” and “continuing anti-Israel bias.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision “courageous and ethical” on Twitter and said his country will also quit.

For decades Unesco has been a political agency masquerading as a cultural institution. The Soviets ran its education programs and its anti-American bent continues. Unesco’s current chief, Irina Bokova, is a Bulgarian with a Communist past who ran for U.N. Secretary-General with the backing of Vladimir Putin.

In 2011 Ms. Bokova let the Palestinian Authority join Unesco as a member state, triggering a U.S. law that prevents U.S. funding for any U.N. body that accepts a Palestinian state. Unesco claims the U.S. now owes about $550 million in missed payments.

In July Unesco declared Israel’s Tomb of the Patriarchs and other areas as Palestinian heritage sites, an act of political incitement. As U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley explained Thursday, the agency has engaged “in a long line of foolish actions, which includes keeping Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad on a UNESCO human rights committee even after his murderous crackdown on peaceful protestors.”

Ms. Haley also wants to reform U.N. peacekeeping and has warned the U.S. may withdraw from the Human Rights Council absent reform. The Unesco withdrawal is a good first step.

Experience has shown that soft rhetoric and so-called “smart diplomacy” have served only to enable North Korea and Iran to produce more nuclear weapons and better ballistic missiles.

Not only has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) been prevented from monitoring Iranian compliance, but it is not pushing the issue for fear that “Washington would use an Iranian refusal as an excuse to abandon the JCPOA.”

During his first press conference after taking office in January 1981, US President Ronald Reagan called détente a “one-way street that the Soviet Union has used to pursue its own aims.” Echoing this remark while addressing reporters later the same day, Secretary of State Alexander Haig said that the Soviets were the source of much support for international terrorism, especially in Latin and Central America.

The following day, both Reagan and Haig were criticized for their remarks, with members of the media describing the president’s words as “reminiscent of the chilliest days of the Cold War,” and appalled that the administration’s top diplomat was accusing the Russians of backing terrorist activities.

Nearly four decades later, in spite of the successful defeat of the Soviet empire, the White House is still frowned upon when it adopts a tough stance towards America’s enemies. Today’s outrage is directed at President Donald Trump’s warnings about — and to — North Korea and Iran. The Washington Post called his recent “fire and fury” threats to Pyongyang a “rhetorical grenade,” for example, echoing top Democrats’ attacks on his remarks for being “reckless” and “irresponsible.”

Critics of Trump’s attitude towards Tehran go equally far, describing his opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the nuclear deal with Iran — as “rushing headlong into war.”

Trump’s detractors, however, are just as wrong as those who berated Reagan in 1981. Experience has shown that soft rhetoric and so-called “smart diplomacy” have served only to enable North Korea and Iran to produce more nuclear weapons and better ballistic missiles.

Although the JCPOA stipulates that Iran is not permitted to produce more than a certain quantity of enriched uranium or to enrich uranium beyond a certain level, not only has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) been prevented from monitoring Iranian compliance, but it is not pushing the issue for fear that “Washington would use an Iranian refusal as an excuse to abandon the JCPOA.”

Furthermore, among its many other flaws, the JCPOA does not address Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities or financing of global terrorism.

Nevertheless, it is the administration’s rhetoric that is under attack. Isn’t it high time for the media and foreign-policy establishment to wake up to the reality that seeing regimes as they are, rather than as we wish them to be, is the only way to confront our enemies effectively, and with the least number of casualties?

There is a season for acceptance and a season for rejection. When it comes to compliance with the Obama nuclear weapons deal, it is time to withdraw completely at the congressionally mandated October 15 certification deadline.

There are those in the Congress and the Trump administration who believe it is too dangerous to simply walk away from an agreement. Secretary Mattis, for example, said it was in America’s national security interest to stay in the Iran deal. He, among others, has seized on the statutory provision that every 90 days the president must certify that the accord is in the nation’s security interest. They contend that President Trump should maintain the deal, but not sign the next certification this month, an odd combination of events.

As I see it, this strategic position, is clever by half. The issue isn’t really certification; it is the protection of U.S. interests. An Iran that promotes terrorism worldwide and at least in spirit has violated the accord is hardly a reliable partner.

The ayatollahs are unwilling to consider any change in the agreement, an agreement which will assuredly lead to the development of nuclear weapons in five or ten years depending on your interpretation of the JCPOA understanding. In fact, the Iranian leaders have cleverly convinced many in the U.N. that its missiles are not “designed” to carry nuclear weapons, a claim that cannot be verified based on the ambiguous inspection rules, or lack thereof.

Should the U.S. withdraw from the deal, it would not have the slightest practical effect on present conditions. Surely, there will be a U.N. condemnation. But President Trump’s instincts on this matter have been stated repeatedly. “This is a bad deal, a very bad deal,” he noted. If that is the case, it is time to send Iran a message: the U.S. will not countenance your violations, nor will the Trump administration stand by as you promote terrorism around the globe.

What the Obama administration promoted with Iran is now regarded as a precedent for fledging nuclear nations like North Korea. It has been argued that what is good for one devilish nation should be good for another. North Korea claims it has a right to possess and test nuclear weapons. When challenged on this point, the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations invariably refers to the P5+1 accord with Iran. After all, five of these six nations constitute the Security Council, the legal test for the United Nations.

Should the Trump team withdraw from the Iran deal – as I believe it should – the effect on our ties to Iran would be negligible. In fact, the deterrence that undergirds the U.S. position would be unaffected. North Koreans would learn that a different stance on world affairs is now on order, one not particularly eager to compromise with rogue states.

U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

President Trump cannot afford to wait and do nothing as Iran and North Korea grow ever stronger, ever more menacing and become greater and greater threats. He must do something — now.

Reporters continue scratching their heads about what PresidentTrum p meant when he spoke of the “calm before the storm” Thursday as he was hosting a dinner for military commanders and their spouses. It seems clear to me that he was sending a powerful message to North Korea and Iran: change your behavior now, or prepare to face new but unspecified painful consequences.

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump pose for pictures with senior military leaders and spouses after a briefing in the White House on October 5, 2017. During the photo session, President Trump spoke of the “calm before the storm”. (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

North Korea and Iran are taking the measure of President Trump to see how far they can push him and how much they can get away with. The North Koreans continue testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles and threaten to launch a nuclear attack on America and our allies that could kills millions. Iran is likely engaging in activities that could contribute to the design and development of its own nuclear explosive device.

If these worrisome actions by the two rogue nations persist, there will be a storm. And as candidate Trump said during his campaign for the White House, he will not tell our enemies what kind of storm to expect — only that he will not allow current trends that endanger our national security and that of our allies to continue unabated.

The president must make some difficult decisions: whether to continue to rely on economic sanctions that don’t appear to be working against North Korea; and whether to refuse to certify Iranian compliance with the bad nuclear deal and demand that additional constraints be placed on the Islamic Republic’s dangerous and provocative activities.

President Trump faces an Oct. 15 deadline to decide whether to certify Iranian compliance with the nuclear agreement, which is designed to keep it from developing nuclear weapons for the next few years. News reports say he is expected to refuse to make that certification.

U.S. policy toward both Iran and North Korea is closely related, because we must prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club and becoming another, even more dangerous version of North Korea.

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump is expected to refuse to certify that Tehran is complying with the 2015 international nuclear agreement, as part of a broader policy change on Iran to be set out as early as next week, people familiar with the deliberations said.

That move would place key decisions about the future of the nuclear deal before Congress, which could move to reinstate sanctions under an expedited 60-day review process.

However, Congress may choose not to, people familiar with the discussions have said, as such a step could lead to the agreement’s collapse. Reimposing sanctions would be considered a breach of the accord’s provisions requiring sanctions to be lifted as long as Iran is deemed to be in compliance by international consensus.

If Congress doesn’t take action, the outcome of the administration’s approach may be to accuse Iran of failing to comply with the agreement while leaving the deal in place.

A senior administration official said Mr. Trump has decided on a strategy to confront Iran’s ballistic-missile development, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, the country’s shipping of weapons as well Iranian behavior that the administration believes destabilizes the region. But the president hasn’t made a final decision on whether to decertify Iran’s compliance, and if so, under what grounds, the senior official said.

His national security team completed a monthslong policy review in September and Mr. Trump approved it, the official said.

Other people familiar with the deliberations expect Mr. Trump will refuse to certify that Iran is complying with the agreement, although they note that the administration is known for changing policy directions.

Mr. Trump, speaking on Thursday ahead of a briefing with senior military leaders at the White House, said Iran had “not lived up to the spirit” of the nuclear deal and added, “You will be hearing about Iran very shortly.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that Mr. Trump has decided on the certification issue “and he’ll make that announcement at the appropriate time.” The president told reporters last month during United Nations General Assembly meetings that he had made a decision, but he didn’t divulge it. He also didn’t share his decision with either French President Macron or U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, officials said.

Mr. Trump is expected to deliver a speech in the next week or two to outline the broader Iran strategy, although officials said planning was preliminary and could change.

“The main focus that he has had has been a comprehensive strategy on how to deal with Iran,” Ms. Sanders said. “I think you will see that announced in short order. And that will be a comprehensive strategy, with a unified team behind him supporting that effort.”

Mr. Trump has called the accord “the worst deal ever” and told The Wall Street Journal in July that he planned to tell Congress that Iran isn’t complying, even if doing so meant going against the advice of his advisers. Many of Mr. Trump’s cabinet advisers, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others support staying with the deal. They advised Mr. Trump to certify the deal as the policy review was under way. CONTINUE AT SITE

If the Trump administration withdraws from the deal, German Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Wittig said, it would send a signal to North Korea that diplomacy is not reliable.

“This nuclear deal is worth preserving. It prevents Iran for the foreseeable future to acquire a nuclear bomb. It’s a plus for region security. It’s a plus for global security, and it can’t be said enough. This is the most intrusive, most comprehensive inspection and verification regime in the world that this Iranian deal created,” Wittig said during a discussion about the future of the Iran deal last week at the Atlantic Council.

“Those who want to walk away or advocate to walk away, they will have to think about the larger issues. First of all, of course, yeah, there’s a danger that Iran resumes its enrichment activity. There’s a danger then that there will be a nuclear arms race in the region and beyond,” he added.

Trump reportedly plans to “decertify” the Iran deal, which would kick it back to Congress. There, lawmakers will determine if sanctions should be reimposed and if the agreement should stand.

Wittig said a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement would weaken the “nonproliferation regime” that has been established. He also said the French government believes there is no way the deal can be renegotiated.

“What kind of signal would this send to countries like North Korea? It would send a signal that diplomacy is not reliable – that you can’t trust diplomatic agreements, and then would affect our credibility in the West when we are not honoring an agreement that Iran has not violated,” he said.

“Those who advocate to walk away from this agreement have to come with an alternative – how to prevent, in a peace way, a resuming of Iranian nuclear capabilities and military capabilities. And those who advocate to renegotiate, and there are some who do, have to make a case whether renegotiation is possible and whether renegotiation will deliver better results. We don’t think it will be possible to renegotiate it, and we believe there is no practical peaceful alternative to this deal,” he added.

Wittig explained that France and the U.S. share concerns about Iran’s “nefarious role” in the Middle East.

“We can talk about it, but on the basis of complying with this agreement,” he said.

EU Ambassador David O’Sullivan said Iran is “fully living up to its commitments” under the agreement. CONTINUE AT SITE