Trump does not backtrack on Iran, US Treasury sanctions networks in four countries

In the 6:30 edition this newspaper led with an Iranian claim of attacks against American bases, published for what it was: the statement of those asserting they had acted, without independent tally and without a US version. The afternoon does not change that picture. There is no denial, no confirmation, no toll: something else arrives, and it is worth distinguishing.

The first thing to arrive is a political position. Donald Trump stated he has no regrets about the decision to enter the war against Iran and rejected accounts suggesting part of his electorate is demoralized by the conflict. The sentence with which he summed up the point is brief: “I would do exactly what I did” (transl. from English).

The second thing to arrive is an administrative act, and it carries a different weight from a statement because it produces measurable effects on accounts and transactions. The US Department of the Treasury announced new sanctions against companies and individuals who, according to the department itself, provide support to Hezbollah and other groups linked to Tehran. The targeted parties are located in four countries — Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Turkey — and are named as connected to Kata’ib Hezbollah and Hezbollah.

It must be stated clearly where this material comes from: the news currently originates from a single source (Just Security, which cites a Reuters wire report and the Treasury Department’s announcement); no independent confirmation available. On the sanctions, the characterization of the parties — who helps whom, and how — is the position of the administration adopting them, not a third-party finding: we report it as such.

The day’s two American news items do not touch the figures claimed by Tehran this morning: they leave them exactly where they stood.

The second theater: Mocha. Far from the Gulf, on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, the other front of the same regional fault line is moving. On September 10, three Yemeni government sources told Al Jazeera that the Houthis have taken control of the coastal city of Mocha, on the Red Sea. Also according to Al Jazeera, the vice president of the Presidential Leadership Council ordered a reorganization of government forces on the western coast.

A second account comes from Xinhua (Chinese state agency), which adds geographical details: the Jabal al-Nar camp, the locality of Yakhtul, the city and the port. A port official cited by the agency reports that the Houthis entered the port. Under this newspaper’s standards, a state source counts as attribution, not as independent verification: the convergence between the two accounts is a useful element for the reader, not proof that the fact has been verified by a third party. What we have, as things stand, are Yemeni government sources — that is, one of the parties to the conflict — plus a port official cited by a state agency.

If confirmed, the loss of Mocha has a consequence that concerns not only Yemen: it is a city with a port on the Red Sea, that is, on a maritime corridor distinct from that of the Gulf. The reorganization of government forces on the western coast, ordered according to Al Jazeera by the vice president of the Presidential Leadership Council, indicates that on the ground the loss is being treated as such.

What we do not know. We do not know the list of parties sanctioned by the Treasury nor the amount of frozen assets. We do not know whether Trump’s statements were accompanied by operational directives. We do not know whether Yemeni government forces dispute the account of the port’s capture, nor what the position of the coalition supporting them is. And twelve hours after the morning edition, we still have no American version regarding the Iranian claim of attacks on bases in Jordan and the Gulf.