Iran Threat President Trump tweeted a threat at Iran, saying: "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran." The message was unusually bellicose for Trump, who—unlike the hawkish John Bolton and Mike Pompeo—has not appeared to be keen on any new wars. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif: "There will be no war because neither do we want a war, nor has anyone the idea or illusion it can confront Iran in the region." CNBC
Yeah , Netanyahu pumped up the war talk with Iran for years and now that he has Trump as his useful tool he wants to quietly pull away. He doesn't want his country bombed and any Israelis dying. The guy is a fucking snake. Benjamin Netanyahu tones down Iran war talk in English transcript Israeli prime minister's office gave no explanation for the change in tone Jerusalem — Israel’s prime minister’s office has quietly toned down talk by Benjamin Netanyahu of a shared interest with Arab states in “war” with Iran, replacing the word with “combating” in its English-language transcript. Netanyahu made the comments on Wednesday on the sidelines of an international conference in Warsaw organised by Washington to discuss Iran and the region, and attended by the foreign ministers of a raft of Gulf Arab states. Netanyahu and his US ally have sought to play up the rare public appearance of senior Arab officials at a common forum with an Israeli prime minister. Both have highlighted the shared hostility towards Iran of Israel — which regards Iran as its biggest foe, and Saudi Arabia — which sees it as the main challenger to its influence in the Middle East. In video footage of his comments that remained on his official Twitter account on Thursday, Netanyahu clearly speaks of a shared interest in war with Iran, using the Hebrew word “milhama”. “What is important about this meeting — and this meeting is not in secret, because there are many of those — is that this is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran,” he said. The prime minister’s office also used the word “war” in its first English-language translation of his comments. But two hours later, it published a “reissue” of its transcript, altering the English translation of the final phrase to “combating Iran”. It gave no explanation for the change when asked by AFP. Netanyahu has repeatedly pledged to use all means at his disposal, including military, to prevent Iran acquiring advance bases on Israel’s doorstep. In recent months, he has broken with the conventional ambiguity of Israeli leaders about military operations to speak openly of Israel’s air war against Iranian targets in neighbouring Syria.
The real threat is the GOP congress: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...-revoking-2001-war-authority-as-iran-tensions House panel approves language revoking 2001 war authority as Iran tensions spike The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved an amendment to the annual defense spending bill that would end the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), as lawmakers grow increasingly concerned over the possibility of war with Iran. The committee voted along party lines, 30-22, for Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-Calif.) amendment to sunset the AUMF, which has been used as legal justification for military operations against terrorist groups. Passed days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it has been cited as a justification for conflict 41 times in 18 countries. “In the last 18 years, it really has become increasingly clear that the AUMF has essentially provided the president, and that’s any president, the authority to wage war anywhere in the world at any time,” said Lee, who was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF when it was passed. “It has already been floated as a possibility for using this AUMF as the legal basis to go to war with Iran, a war, again, that Congress has not debated or authorized,” she added. The amendment would sunset the broad war authorization eight months after the bill becomes law. She argued that it gives Congress and the Trump administration “plenty of time to vote and debate on a new AUMF.” The language was offered as tensions between Washington and Tehran have reached a new high in recent weeks, with the accelerated deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to the region along with a B-52 bomber task force earlier this month. Lee had offered an identical amendment during the last year’s markup of the defense appropriations bill, but that one was voted down. The same amendment also came up for the spending bill in 2017 and surprisingly passed, but House leadership later stripped the provision before it came to the floor, arguing that a spending bill was not the place to address the issue. Lee for years has led the charge to replace the 2001 AUMF with one that imposes geographic and time limits and names specific groups it covers. She argues, for example, that the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) should not be covered under the AUMF as the group did not exist when it was passed. But partisan divisions have upended replacement efforts over concerns that they would hinder a president’s authority to defend the country. GOP lawmakers are also concerned that ending the current war authorization without a new one already approved could hamper military operations. “This amendment would automatically repeal the 2001 AUMF just 240 days after this bill was signed into law. I can think of few things more dangerous and ill-conceived than removing a fundamental underpinning for US military operations without having consensus agreement on what is to replace it,” said the Defense subcommittee's ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas). Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), noted that as “imperfect as it may be, the 2001 AUMF is the foundational authority for ongoing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda and against ISIS.” “This fight is so critical to our national security that it would be utterly irresponsible and dangerous to repeal the 2001 AUMF until we replace it,” he said. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who supported Lee’s amendment in 2017, rose in “very reluctant opposition” on Tuesday. “When I supported the amendment two years ago, I did so as a flare to sort of get the attention of my leadership and the administration that this is an issue, I think, we ought to come back and deal with,” Cole said. “But I think the appropriate place to deal with it is actually in the Foreign Relations Committee.” Cole acknowledged that the House Foreign Relations Committee has yet to hold a hearing on the topic, but stressed that the process of an AUMF repeal and replace “needs to begin and needs to begin there with a thorough discussion and debate.” “After watching this for many years, I understand the frustration. We ought to have the solution before we launch ourselves on a path where we don’t know where we’re going to go.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-uae-arms-trade-congress-yemen-a8929741.html Trump invokes emergency powers to sidestep Congress and sell arms to Saudi Arabia Move comes after congress voted to end US support of Saudi military operation in Yemen Donald Trump has asserted rarely used emergency powers to sidestep congressional objections, and give the green light to an arms deal involving Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, told the leaders of several congressional committees the president was claiming a national emergency existed because of a purported threat from Iran and was, as a result, giving permission for 22 arms deals with around $8bn (£6.3bn). A number of members of congress, which had already voted for the US to terminate its support for Saudi’s military operation against Yemen – a resolution Mr Trump vetoed – fear the weapons could be used in those bombing operations, which have resulted in widespread civilian injuries.