President Donald Trump wrongly dismissed the continuing threat of the Islamic State group and spread a false tale of the U.S. paying out billions of dollars to Iran as part of the multinational deal freezing its nuclear program in an address Wednesday that fell short on facts.He also made an assertion that is as dubious as it was provocative: that the Iranian missiles fired by Tehran at two military bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq were paid for by money “made available” to Iran by the Obama administration.A look at some of the president’s claims in his remarks on Iran’s missile strike on the two Iraqi bases:TRUMP: “Three months ago, after destroying 100% of ISIS and its territorial caliphate …”THE FACTS: His claim of a 100% defeat is misleading as the Islamic State still poses a threat.IS was defeated in Iraq in 2017, then lost the last of its land holdings in Syria in March, marking the end of the extremists’ self-declared caliphate.Still, extremist sleeper cells have continued to launch attacks in Iraq and Syria and are believed to be responsible for targeted killings against local officials and members of the Syrian Democratic Forces.As recently as this week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the fight against ISIS in Syria was continuing.IS controlled large swaths of northern and eastern Syria, where it declared a caliphate in 2014, along with large parts of neighboring Iraq.U.N. experts warned in August that IS leaders are aiming to consolidate and create conditions for an “eventual resurgence in its Iraqi and Syrian heartlands.”
___TRUMP: “Iran’s hostility substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013. And they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.”THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury or other countries.When Iran signed the multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in return for being freed from sanctions, it regained access to its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. Iran was allowed to get its money back. The deal actually was signed in 2015, after a 2013 preliminary agreement. Trump has taken the U.S. out of it.The $1.8 billion is a separate matter. A payout of roughly that amount did come from the U.S. treasury. It was to pay an old IOU.In the 1970s, Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. After the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest.The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s previous dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers.___TRUMP: “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”THE FACTS: That accusation comes without corroboration. The administration has offered no information supporting the contention that in regaining access to $150 billion of its assets that had been frozen abroad, Iran steered a chunk of that money to the missiles that hit the bases in Iraq.“I doubt anyone has the insight into Iran’s budgetary mechanisms to say that this money was used for this purpose,” said Gerald Feierstein, a career U.S. diplomat who retired in 2016 as the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs.“It’s a funds-are-fungible kind of argument,” he said. “I mean, if they have money, can you say that dollar went directly to buy a missile, as opposed to freeing up another dollar that went to buy a missile?”Gen. Joseph Votel, who retired from the U.S. Army in March as the top military commander for the Middle East, said he was not aware of any specific intelligence on this question. “I don’t have anything that would particularly support that,” he said. “I’m not saying it did or it didn’t, but I don’t have details to demonstrate it one way or the other.”As President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry said it was possible Iran would use some of the money being returned to it for malign activities. Whether it did in this case has not been established.Iran has many sources of revenue, despite the severe pinch of sanctions. Oil sales to China and other countries dominate its exports. It also sells chemicals, plastics, fruits and more abroad.___TRUMP: “We are independent, and we do not need Middle East oil.”THE FACTS: Trump’s declaration of energy independence is premature. The U.S. still needs plenty of oil from the Mideast.The volume of U.S. oil imports from the Persian Gulf alone — 23 million barrels in October – would not be easy to make up elsewhere, at least not without major changes in U.S. demand or production.Technological advances like fracking and horizontal drilling have allowed the U.S. to greatly increase production, but demand remains brisk and the country still imports millions of barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iraq and other countries. Moreover, much of what the U.S. produces is hard for domestic refiners to convert to practical use. So the U.S. exports that production and imports oil that is more suitable for American refineries to handle.On energy more broadly, the U.S. is indeed close to parity on how much energy it produces and how much it consumes. In some months, it produces more than it consumes. But it has not achieved self-sufficiency. In the first nine months of last year, it imported about as much energy as it exported.___TRUMP: “The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration, at a cost of $2.5 trillion.”THE FACTS: That’s an exaggeration.It’s true that his administration has accelerated a sharp buildup in defense spending, including a respite from what the U.S. military considered to be crippling spending limits under budget sequestration.But a number of new Pentagon weapons programs, such as the F-35 fighter jet, were started years before the Trump administration. And it will take years for freshly ordered tanks, planes and other weapons to be built, delivered and put to use.The Air Force’s Minuteman 3 missiles, a key part of the U.S. nuclear force, for instance, have been operating since the early 1970s and the modernization was begun under the Obama administration. They are due to be replaced with a new version, but not until later this decade.
…

In southwestern Kentucky, near the border with Tennessee sits Fort Campbell, a US Army base that is one of the largest military installations in the world. Its personnel and families are profoundly affected by all things military. VOA’s Martin Secrest reports on how the community is dealing with recent hostilities in Iraq involving the United States and Iran.
…

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to approve a resolution Thursday directing President Donald Trump to not use the military to engage in hostilities with Iran.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the vote in a statement that criticized the Trump administration for conducting the airstrike last week that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani without consulting Congress.She called the airstrike a “provocative and disproportionate” action that endangered U.S. troops and diplomats.WATCH: Iran Tensions Easing as Democrats Plan Trump War Powers VoteSorry, but your player cannot support embedded video of this type, you can
download this video to view it offline. Embed” />CopyThe resolution calls for the president to halt the use of U.S. forces against Iran unless Congress has declared war or given statutory approval, or unless such military action is necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States, its territories or armed forces.“The administration must work with the Congress to advance an immediate, effective de-escalatory strategy that prevents further violence,” Pelosi said. “America and the world cannot afford war.”With Democrats in control of the House, the measure is expected to easily pass. Its fate in the Republican-controlled Senate is less clear.Administration briefingTop administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and CIA Director Gina Haspel, went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to brief members of both the House and Senate about the decision to carry out the airstrike against Soleimani.Many Democrats criticized the session as lacking specific justifications for the strike. Republicans, with a few exceptions, emerged supportive of the administration’s actions.“I’m convinced that had decisive action not been taken, we could very well be standing here today talking about the death of dozens, if not hundreds of Americans at the hands of Shia militias working as proxies for the Iranian regime,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio said.Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said that based on the officials’ presentation, “It does not meet what I consider to be an imminent threat.”Republican Senator Jim Risch said that after hearing the information available to Trump, “it would have been negligent, it would have been reckless and it would have been an intentional disregard for the safety of Americans for the president not to act and not to take out Soleimani.”Two Republicans back debateSenators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, both Republicans, said after the briefing they would support a resolution under the War Powers Act.“The debate is a 70-year-long debate that began in 1950 with Korea and Truman. This is a debate and many have written that Congress has abdicated their duty today,” Paul said. “This is Senator Lee and I stepping up and saying we are not abdicating our duty. Our duty under the Constitution is for us to debate when we go to war. And we, for one, are not going to abdicate that duty.”The House resolution text labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism that engages in destabilizing activities across the Middle East, with Soleimani as the lead architect of many of those actions.It says the United States has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent attacks, but that in those cases the executive branch should tell Congress why military action is necessary, why it needs to happen within a certain period of time, and what the harm would be in missing that window. It also says the administration should explain why taking military action would likely prevent future attacks.
…

Congressional Democrats will vote Thursday to curb U.S. President Donald Trump’s ability to pursue open conflict with Iran. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran appeared to be easing Wednesday, after Trump said Iran’s ballistic missiles attack on an Iraqi base proved the country was standing down. But congressional Democrats said the administration has yet to outline a clear strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic following the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson has more from Capitol Hill.
 
…

The top U.S. general says Iran was intending “to kill” when it fired missiles at Iraq bases used by U.S. forces, contradicting the administration’s general belief that Iran deliberately avoided casualties.”In my professional assessment, at al-Asad [Airbase] … the points of impact were close enough to personnel and equipment,” Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley said Wednesday. “Based on what I saw and what I know, they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and aircraft, and to kill personnel.”Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley arrives to conduct briefings for members of Congress on last week’s targeted killing of Iran’s senior military commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Jan. 8, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington.Milley said early warning systems and what he called “defensive techniques” were the reasons no U.S. or Iraqi troops were hurt.The overall assessment by the Trump administration so far is that Iran deliberately avoided casualties because it wanted to avoid a more serious military confrontation with the United States.Milley stressed that his belief about Iran’s true intent was his own assessment. He also said he thought it was “too early to tell” if Iran intended to strike again.Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Iran fired 16 missiles — with 11 hitting al-Asad and one falling outside a second airbase in Irbil. Four others failed in midflight.Most of the damage was to tents, parking lots and airbase taxiways. A U.S. helicopter was also damaged.Late Wednesday, two rockets were fired into Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, home to a number of foreign embassies, including the U.S. Embassy.Iraqi officials said no one was hurt and that no one was claiming responsibility yet.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the United States would immediately impose “punishing” additional sanctions on Iran, a day after Iran fired missiles on two Iraqi bases with American personnel in retaliation for the U.S. killing of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.
 
“These sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior,” Trump said during a televised speech from the White House.
 
But with Iran already under a crippling sanctions regime that costs it billions of dollars a year, the question is, what additional penalties can the administration impose on Tehran?
 
“Well, that’s a very good question because every sector of the Iranian economy is very thoroughly sanctioned right now,” said Kenneth Katzman, the lead Iran analyst at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. “So I think experts including myself are wondering what more can be done, because really there is not a lot of ground to plow beyond what’s already been done.”FILE – Sections of pipes are seen at the start of construction on a natural gas pipeline in Chabahar, southeastern Iran, March 11, 2013.IIranian natural gas exports, currently exempt from sanctions, could potentially be targeted, but that would hurt buyers such as U.S. ally Turkey, Katzman said.
 
Longtime proponents of sanctions on Iran remain bullish on additional penalties.
 
“There are additional levers the U.S. has, particularly as it relates to assets of the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” said Annie Fixler, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative think tank that has long advocated for punishing sanctions on the Iranian regime. “Targeting those assets in particular would put the regime under additional pressure while sparing the Iranian people.”
 
The White House did not provide any details on the president’s announcement. A Treasury Department spokesperson said she had no information on whether any additional sanctions were under consideration.
 
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, U.S. administrations have turned to a broad array of sanctions to try to drive change in Iranian behavior. These restrictions have included “primary sanctions” such as a ban on direct trade between the U.S. and Iran and “secondary sanctions” such as restrictions on foreign companies doing business with Iran. In recent years, sanctions on Iran have sometimes been referred to as “nuclear-related sanctions” and “non-nuclear sanctions.”FILE – Pharmacists pick medicine from shelves in a drugstore in Tehran, Iran, June 19, 2019. From imported chemo drugs and other medicines to those made domestically, many Iranians blame shortages on U.S. sanctions.Non-nuclear sanctions
 
These sanctions date back to the early days of the Islamic Republic and were imposed well before the emergence of an Iranian nuclear threat in 2010. They include a ban on U.S. trade with Iran as well as penalties related to Iran’s support for terrorism and efforts to acquire advanced missile technologies. These remain in place. The restrictions also include a ban on foreign companies conducting business with Iran in U.S. dollars.
 Nuclear sanctions
 
These sanctions were imposed during the 2006-15 period amid Western concern that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. The sanctions helped reduce Iranian oil exports by half, impeded Iranian banks from doing business with the outside world, and cut off Iran’s access to between $100 billion and $150 billion of assets held abroad. Supporters say the sanctions helped bring Iran to the negotiating table.
 2015 nuclear deal and sanctions relief
 
In 2015, Iran agreed to halt its nuclear program in exchange for broad international sanctions relief. As part of the agreement, the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iranian individuals as well as the oil, banking and shipping sectors. It also lifted nearly all restrictions on Iran’s access to the international financial system, allowing the $100 billion to $150 billion in assets to flow back into Iranian coffers. Trump denounced that provision of the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, saying the money was used to promote Iran’s terrorist activities. However, sanctions related to Iran’s ballistic missile sector and a weapons export and import ban remained in place.
 Reimposition of sanctions
 
In November 2018, six months after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration announced what it called the largest sanctions action against Iran, reimposing penalties that had been lifted or waived as part of the 2015 nuclear agreement as well as imposing additional restrictions. More than 700 individuals, entities, aircraft and vessels were targeted. The action was part of the administration’s “maximum pressure” policy intended to force Iran into renegotiating the nuclear deal.  According to the Congressional Research Service, reimposition of the sanctions has pushed the Iranian economy into recession, sparking unrest around the country. In addition, while direct European sanctions on Iran remain lifted, the threat of U.S. sanctions has reduced the volume of business between Iran and Europe.
 
Yet the sanctions have failed to change Iran’s behavior, Katzman said, noting that the Iranian regime continues to support proxies and allies in the Middle East.
 
“Iran has shown an ability to continue to conduct high levels of these activities even in the face of very stiff sanctions,” Katzman said. “So I don’t think any additional sanctions would change that in any material way.” 
…

A man convicted of shooting a U.S. Border Patrol agent nine years ago in a case that exposed a botched federal gun operation known as Fast and Furious'' was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison. U.S. District Judge David C. Bury sentenced Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes to the mandatory life sentence after hearing tearful statements from the sisters of Brian Terry, the agent who was fatally shot while on a mission in Arizona on December 14, 2010. Osorio-Arellanes is one of seven defendants who were charged in the slaying of Terry. Osorio-Arellanes was convicted of first-degree murder and other charges last year after being extradited from Mexico in 2018. Terry's death exposed theFast and Furiousoperation, in which U.S. federal agents allowed criminals to buy firearms with the intention of tracking them to criminal organizations. But the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lost track of most of the guns, including two found at scene of Terry's death. The Obama administration was heavily criticized for the operation. Former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the sting. Terry, 40, was part of a four-man team in an elite Border Patrol unit staking out the southern Arizona desert on a mission to findrip-off“ crew members who rob drug smugglers. They encountered a group and identified themselves as police. The men refused to stop, prompting an agent to fire bean bags at them. They responded by firing AK-47-type assault rifles. Terry was struck in the back and died soon afterward. Five of the seven men charged in Terry’s killing are serving prison sentences after pleading guilty or being convicted. Only one, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, has not been tried. He was arrested in October 2017. 
…

A historically diverse Virginia General Assembly convened Wednesday, led for the first time in more than two decades by Democrats who promised to enact a litany of changes.The House quickly elected Eileen Filler-Corn at the new speaker, the first woman to serve in that role. She is also the first Jewish speaker.“A new torch is being passed today, one that ushers in a modern era representing all Virginians,” Filler-Corn said on the House floor.Many Democratic lawmakers wore blue Wednesday, a nod to the November blue wave that helped them take full control of the General Assembly for the first time in a generation. Democrats have made strong gains in Virginia since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016, significantly changing the makeup of the General Assembly. Women, people of color and millennials have all made gains.African American lawmakers are set to have most power at the legislature in Virginia’s 400-year history, including leading several powerful legislative committees.“It is our time,” Sen. Jennifer McClellan, vice chairwoman of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, said Wednesday morning. She said the black caucus was committed to eliminate the “last vestiges of racism and white supremacy in Virginia law.”Ghazala Hashmi, a first-time candidate who unseated a Republican incumbent to help Democrats flip the Virginia Senate, became that chamber’s first Muslim female member.In the weeks since Democrats won majorities in  the state House and Senate, they have laid out an ambitious agenda. It includes high-profile issues Republicans thwarted for years, including gun control measures and criminal justice reforms. They also have pledged to ease restrictions on abortion access, raise the minimum wage, prohibit discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community and make Virginia the next state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.Lawmakers also will be tasked with passing a two-year state budget and deciding whether to legalize casinos.Gun issues figure to be the most high profile area of debate. Some of the new restrictions Gov. Ralph Northam and Democratic lawmakers want include universal background checks, banning assault weapons and passing a red flag law to allow the temporary removal of guns from someone who is deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others.Republicans and gun-rights groups have pledged stiff resistance. Gun owners are descending on local government offices to demand that officials establish sanctuaries for gun rights. More than 100 counties, cities and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and vowed to oppose any new “unconstitutional restrictions” on guns.Democrats indicated early Wednesday that they were not going to pass a set of rules organizing how the House will operate, as is traditional on its first day. The delay allows Democrats to put off a contentious floor debate on whether to ban guns from the Capitol, which likely would have overshadowed much of Wednesday’s events.The Equal Rights Amendment was expected to be another top issue. Democrats say their caucus unanimously supports ratifying the gender equality measure and have pledged to do so quickly.Hundreds of advocates for what could become the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution staged a lively rally outside an entrance to the Capitol, where they cheered as Democratic lawmakers walked in and chanted “E-R-A” as several Republicans followed.Opponents held a press conference Wednesday morning where they warned ratification would lead to the rollback of abortion restrictions as well as a host of negative consequences for women. Critics of the measure say the ERA is not lawfully before the states for ratification, in part because of a congressional deadline that passed decades ago.ERA advocates’ efforts in Virginia “will be nothing more than political commentary. The time to ratify the ERA expired more than 40 years ago,” said Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of the U.S. Legal Division and Communications for Alliance Defending Freedom.Later Wednesday night, Northam, who has largely rebounded from a blackface scandal that almost drove him from office a year ago, is set to address lawmakers.Wednesday also marks the return of Joe Morrissey, a former Virginia lawmaker who used to spend his days at the General Assembly and his nights in jail after being accused of having sex with his teenage secretary. Morrissey defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary to win a Richmond-area senate seat.Republicans have cast Democrats’ agenda as extreme, saying it would bring Virginia in line with liberal California or New York. They’ve promised to look for ways to hold the majority accountable, keep Virginia business friendly and exercise fiscal restraint.“We think that very quickly, the voters of Virginia will begin to get buyer’s remorse about what they’ve done here,” incoming House Minority Leader Del. Todd Gilbert said. 
…