Iyfjky

Question

This is the official stance of the Trump administration. Was it also the position of the Obama administration and Bush administration? What is this based on?

I know that America considers Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations. EU states official stance is that their militant wings are. It's also an ally of Syria's Assad administration, which the US alleges has committed chemical weapons attacks against civilians.

But clearly, even if Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations (I'm not sure Hezbollah specifically meets that criteria, but that's another debate), these aren't the biggest terrorist groups in the middle east, or the world. Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front, ISIS would all be bigger terrorist groups.

Who sponsors/funds these terrorist groups? Wouldn't the source of their funding be the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world? Or is it that no single state has voiced support for them, and rather individuals within those states are responsible?

Who knows. Maybe after the communist bogeyman gave up the ghost the West had to find a new one to scare everybody with. Or is that too simple an assessment? — 4 hours ago
Clearly Iran is not being targeted for terrorist activities or support of terrorist activities, and rather due to US allies Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel regional rivalries and power struggles. It's pretty obvious. What I'm interested though, is how the determination was made, and if it is technically true, in that Iran as a state has officially supported these groups, whereas Saudi Arabia (probably the real biggest state sponsor of terror) has not officially voiced national support, even if it is the primary financial source. — 4 hours ago

score 4 · Answer 1 · 2018-09-27 07:34:50Z

The US does not identify any of its ally states (at government level) as state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq for example was removed in 2004, following the US invasion. The current US list of state sponsors of terrorism is actually pretty short (as of 2017): besides Iran, only North Korea, Sudan and Syria (Assad's regime) are on it. The official reports don't seem to put a lot of effort in arguing which of these is the biggest, except perhaps as a threat-level to US interests:

In its annual Ã¢Â€ÂœCountry Reports on TerrorismÃ¢Â€Â released Wednesday, the State Department said Iran was the planetÃ¢Â€Â™s Ã¢Â€ÂœforemostÃ¢Â€Â state sponsor of terrorism in 2016, a dubious distinction the country has held for many years. It said Iran was firm in its backing of anti-Israel groups as well as proxies that have destabilized already devastating conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. It also said Iran continued to recruit in Afghanistan and Pakistan for Shiite militia members to fight in Syria and Iraq. And, it said Iranian support for LebanonÃ¢Â€Â™s Hezbollah movement was unchanged. [...]

Ã¢Â€ÂœIran remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2016 as groups supported by Iran maintained their capability to threaten U.S. interests and allies,Ã¢Â€Â said the report [...]

Interestingly, the 2017 edition of the report lacks the "strategic assessment" chapter where the "foremost" declaration was usually made. The 2016 edition had this reasoning for Iran the being "foremost":

Iran remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2016 as groups supported by Iran maintained their capability to threaten U.S. interests and allies. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Ã¢Â€Â“ Qods Force, along with Iranian partners, allies, and proxies, continued to play a destabilizing role in military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Iran continued to recruit fighters from across the region to join Iranian affiliated Shia militia forces engaged in conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and has even offered a path to citizenship for those who heed this call. Hizballah continued to work closely with Iran in these conflict zones, playing a major role in supporting the Syria governmentÃ¢Â€Â™s efforts to maintain control and territory, and providing training and a range of other support for Iranian aligned groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Additionally, Hizballah continued to develop its long-term attack capabilities and infrastructure around the world.

In the 2017 edition this assessment was reworded and moved to the foreword:

Iran remained the worldÃ¢Â€Â™s leading state sponsor of terrorism and continued to support attacks against Israel. It maintained its terrorist-related and destabilizing activities through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hizballah. Iran is responsible for intensifying multiple conflicts and undermining the legitimate governments of, and U.S. interests in, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. In particular, Iran and Hizballah are emerging from the Syria conflict emboldened and with valuable battlefield experience that they seek to leverage across the globe. IRGC leader Qasem Soleimani recruited and deployed Shia militias from diverse ethnic groups across the Middle East and South Asia to fight in defense of the Assad dictatorship in Syria. Beyond the Middle East, Iran and its terrorist affiliates and proxies posed a significant threat and demonstrated a near-global terrorist reach. Notably, in June 2017, the FBI arrested two suspected Hizballah operatives in Michigan and New York who allegedly were conducting surveillance and intelligence gathering on behalf of the organization, including in the United States.

ISIS etc. are deemed non-state actors.

Since 2016 at least Pakistan is listed as a "safe haven" for terrorists, but not outright sponsor of terrorism. The latter list of "safe haven" countries, which I'm not sure when it first appeared, is actually pretty long. In the 2017 edition it includes Venezuela, Colombia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, "The Southern Philippines", "The Sulu/Sulawesi Seas Littoral", "The Trans-Sahara", "The Lake Chad Region", and Somalia.

Also, some people, including Trump himself before the election have been implicitly critical of the official categorization, e.g.:

In his 2015 book, Ã¢Â€Â˜Time to Get Tough,Ã¢Â€Â™ which was published ahead of the presidential election, Trump wrote: Ã¢Â€ÂœThen look at Saudi Arabia. It is the worldÃ¢Â€Â™s biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars Ã¢Â€Â“ our very own money Ã¢Â€Â“ to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people, while the Saudis rely on us to protect them.Ã¢Â€Â

Regarding not identifying allies as terrorism sponsors: is that purely a diplomatic thing ("we don't want to upset the Saudis") or is it also a legal thing ("US companies are prohibited from selling weapons to states sponsoring terrorism")? — 2 hours ago
This is I think, both. US politics is strongly affected by buisiness in this case. This is close ally of course. Especially in terms of new "middle-east NATO" Trump's idea. And also - Saudis have one of the biggest military budgets in the world. And US military industry definetly wants their money. — 1 hour ago
And I doubt if this is an answer. This is just re-post of declarartions and nothing more — 14 mins ago

score 0 · Answer 2 · 2018-09-27 06:33:38Z

It is not a secret, that Trump administration make big emphasis with US-Israeli relations. Recognition Jerusalem as Israeli capital is just one of examples.

It is also not a secret, that Israeli has VERY complex relations with Iran. Especially because Iran is a shia state, unlike arabian kingdoms of the gulf.

Example of evidence of Israely support to syrian so-called 'rebels':
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/with-eye-on-iran-israel-increases-military-support-for-syrian-rebels-1.5826348

And let us make a question: is ISIS and 'wild lands' filled with different armed groups around the borders are more comfortable for Israel than some strong shia-mostly arabian states, like SAR and Iran? 'Maybe' you may say. And Israel officials don't say 'maybe', they say YES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqV9_670pms

So, who do you think supports ISIS and these terrorist groups you name?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JZj5F0G3R4 - one of examples of Israel canned food in use of syrian 'rebels'.
And, according to fact, that these groups are much bigger, their sponsors are definetly the biggest.

And about Al-Qaeda separately. Do you remember it's birth? It was born in Afganistan, during Soviet war. US in those times supports armed groups, and were searching some ideology for them. And they've found it - radical islam was born.

And about strictly the question - why Iran? On what it is based? Iran is an Israel and US opponent, so if all media will shout 'Iran supports terrorists', US and Israel goverments can easily say: 'Yes, we supporting rebels, but this is because of Iran'. On what it is based? It is baseless. It is just because sponsors want to justify themselves.

It is more than baseless, because radical islam was initally sunni islam, not shia.

While I agree with your assessment, it doesn't answer the question as to how the determination was made? Is it entirely baseless? Is there logic or empirical evidence to back up the determination? — 4 hours ago
Hmm. Missed it. Will update the answer. Shortly - in modern world of so-called 'post-truth' media may shout "terrorists" and claim on someone. And when it is already claimed, not many people make a question 'why'. So, if you supports terrorists, but want to justify yourself - what you can do? You can say: yes, we are arming 'rebels', but it is because Iran is supporting terrorists. — 4 hours ago
Not a downvoter, but this misses out openly acknowledged Iranian support of groups that are terrorist according to any definition. Hamas being the obvious example, and also not fitting in with the Shia/Sunni split of your thesis. — 2 hours ago
ISIS is defined as terorrist organization by ALL countries. And Hamas is not. By Russia, Lebanon, Iran, for example. Another example: YPG is treated as terrorists organization by Turkey and not treated as such organization by US and Russia. — 2 hours ago

score 4 · Answer 3 · 2018-09-27 07:34:50Z