The Obama administration is stonewalling a Congressional inquiry that's looking into how the 'other $1.3 billion' in ransom money got paid over to Iran.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice have all rebuffed a
congressional probe into the circumstances surrounding the $1.3 billion
payment to Iran, which is part of an additional $400 million cash payout
that occurred just prior to the release of several U.S. hostages and
led to accusations that the administration had paid Iran a ransom.
The Obama administration has admitted
in recent days that the $400 million cash delivery to Iran was part of
an effort to secure the release of these American hostages, raising
further questions on Capitol Hill about White House efforts to suppress
these details from the public.
...
The administration is also withholding key details about the payment
from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas)
and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice all failed to respond
to the inquiry by Monday’s deadline, according to congressional sources
tracking the matter.
“The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion
payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks
since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the
Iranian regime last January 16th,” Cruz said to the Free Beacon. “If
this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a
straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost
America more to contest, why all the secrecy?”
The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3
billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred. Cruz described
this disclosure as “confounding.”
...
“While we are deeply concerned about the national security
implications of the administration’s cash-for-hostages scheme,
especially in light of reports that Iran has already arrested additional
Americans, the purpose of this letter is to inquire about the legality
of the payment,” the senators wrote in an Aug. 12 letter.
“It is imperative that the administration provide a full accounting
of its conduct with respect to the $400 million cash payment to Iran,”
they wrote. “If the administration violated the law, then Congress and
the American people should be made aware of it so that they can hold the
appropriate officials accountable and take whatever steps necessary to
strengthen the law and prevent any reoccurrence.”
While the administration has remained silent about the circumstances
surrounding the payment, investigative reporter Claudia Rosett recently disclosed that the Treasury Department transferred just under $1.3 billion to the State Department in 13 “large identical sums.”
The funds, allocated for “foreign claims,” could shine a light on how
the administration moved taxpayer funds into the State Department’s
purview in order to provide the additional payment to Iran.
In 13 individual payments of $99,999,999.99, the Treasury Department
moved a total of 1,299,999,999.87, which roughly amounts to the
remaining money owed to Iran.
"Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies... on an unmarked cargo plane."
The United States government paid $400 million in cash - in small unmarked euros and Swiss francs and other currencies packed on pallets and delivered in unmarked cargo planes - in return for the release of hostages in Iran in January.
Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies
were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these
officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the
Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.
The settlement, which resolved claims before an international
tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation
that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between
Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.
“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.
Senior
U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner
exchange. They say the way the various strands came together
simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.
Really? They expect us to believe there's no connection? Or perhaps that this is 'normal political fibbing'? I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it.
But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the
prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained
something tangible.
Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas
and a fierce foe of the Iran nuclear deal, accused President Barack
Obama of paying “a $1.7 billion ransom to the ayatollahs for U.S.
hostages.”
“This break with longstanding U.S. policy put a price
on the head of Americans, and has led Iran to continue its illegal
seizures” of Americans, he said.
Ya think?
Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard
has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained
dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.
But this is just the start of the rewards for Obama's and Kerry's sellout to Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials have said they were certain Washington was
going to lose the arbitration in The Hague, where Iran was seeking more
than $10 billion, and described the settlement as a bargain for
taxpayers.
That's in line with Obama's approach to budgeting: A trillion here, a trillion there, eventually it starts to add up to real money.
Of course, the Iranians are happy to call a spade, a spade.
Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials
describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry
didn’t respond to a request for comment.
And the Americans are all too happy to accommodate them.
The $400 million was
paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S.
dollars is illegal under U.S. law. Sanctions also complicate Tehran’s
access to global banks.
“Sometimes the Iranians want cash
because it’s so hard for them to access things in the international
financial system,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the January
cash delivery. “They know it can take months just to figure out how to
wire money from one place to another.”
In yet another news dump at 6:00 pm on New Years Eve (see the tweet time above), the Obama administration announced that it is delaying the imposition of new sanctions on Iran because of the Mullahcracy's ballistic missile program.
On Wednesday, the [Wall Street] Journal, citing US officials, said the Obama
administration was preparing to sanction nearly a dozen companies and
individuals in Iran, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates for their
role in developing Iran's ballistic-missile program.
The US sanctions were expected to be formally announced this week, the newspaper said.
Sources familiar with the situation confirmed to Reuters that the United States was preparing sanctions.
The
Obama administration is committed to combating Iran's missile program
and the sanctions being developed by the US Treasury Department remain
on the table, the Journal reported on Thursday, citing US officials.
But
US officials offered no definitive timeline for when the sanctions
would be imposed, the newspaper said. At one point, they were scheduled
to be announced on Wednesday morning in Washington, according to a
notification the White House sent to Congress, the Journal reported.
Imposing
such penalties would be legal under the landmark nuclear agreement
forged between global powers and Iran in July, the officials said,
according to the Journal.
Iranian officials have said the
country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would view such
penalties as violating the nuclear accord.
US officials have said the Treasury Department retains a right under the
nuclear deal to blacklist Iranian entities suspected of involvement in
missile development.
I don't know how anyone even knows what's in the nuclear deal, given that it was never signed.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says that Iran 'will pay' for starting 'rumors' that Turkey is buying oil from ISIS.
Turkey on Sunday said it was "astonished" by Iranian accusations that
Ankara is supporting Islamic State (ISIS) and involved in oil dealing
with the jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
Turkish foreign ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic said in a statement
there was nothing in Tehran's accusations to take "seriously."
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday he had warned
his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani over some Iranian media reports
that he and his family were involved in oil trade with ISIS jihadists.
Erdogan said that he spoke with Rouhani on the phone and told him:
"You will pay a high price if it continues like that." He added that the
Iranians later removed the news from their website.
Turkish foreign ministry spokesman Bilgic confirmed the telephone
conversation between the two presidents and said any attempts to distort
its content were "not only immoral but also equal to hiding the truth
from neighboring Iranian people."
In response to Erdogan, Iranian foreign ministry on Friday called for
"mutual politeness and respect in relations," according to the Iranian
media.
"The continuation of policies and positions that, wanted or unwanted,
have led to the support of terrorism in Syria and Iraq, only escalate
the current crisis in the region and increase problems for countries
that continue such policies," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hossein
Jaber-Ansari said according to IRNA.
MEMRI reports on a tweet by Ayatollah Ali Khameni that links to a video called 'If any war happens.'
The video, which is 1:43 in duration and accompanied by some English
subtitles, opens by showing U.S. President Barack Obama stating that the
U.S. will not have a problem "knocking out [Iran's] military with speed
and dispatch if we choose to." In response, Khamenei, in a July 18,
2015 address,[1]
calls this threat by Obama "nonsense stemming from ignorance." Khamenei
goes on to advise the Americans to "use their experiences [in the
Middle East] correctly" as images play in the background: a swift boat
attack on an American aircraft carrier, photos of the advanced American
RQ-170 drone that Iran brought down on its soil, a photo of Hizbullah
leader Hassan Nasrallah against a backdrop of a missile flying the
Hizbullah flag, photos from the 2006 Lebanon war, Khamenei delivering a
speech to soldiers from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps
(IRGC), Iranian missiles being launched and striking ships, bodies of
American soldiers returning from Iraq, and a photo of Khamenei leading
Iran's top military echelon as a crowd calls "Khamenei is the leader."
Khamenei is then heard to say: "We will not be the first to [launch]
any war, we do not welcome any war. But if any war happens here, the
invading and criminal America will be the side that will leave the war
arena defeated." In the background a crowd calls "We will stand until
the end, Khamenei is the leader."
Let's go to the videotape.
You have to wonder why Khameni is bothering. Obama has been shown time and again to be nothing but bluster (the Bin Laden rubout was carried out by others without his approval), and he doesn't want to do anything to undermine this 'deal,' which is now his foreign policy legacy.
Jeffrey Goldberg admits what Obama and Kerry still don't get
You walk away from reading this piece by Jeffrey Goldberg - in which he asks President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Kerry about their views on Iranian anti-Semitism - thinking that Obama and Kerry are naive fools.
A few days ago, I spoke with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry about the politics of the Iran deal (you can find the full interview here),
and at one point in our conversation I put to Kerry what I thought
was—to be honest—something of a gimme question: “Do you believe that
Iranian leaders sincerely seek the elimination of the Jewish state?”
Kerry responded provocatively—provocatively, that is, if you
understand Iranian leaders, and in particular the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the way I understand them: as people
theologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Quotes such as this one
from Khamenei help lead me to this conclusion: “This barbaric,
wolflike, and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no
cure but to be annihilated.” The supreme leader does not specialize in
nuance. (Here
is a long list of statements made by Iranian leaders concerning their
desire to bring about an end to Jewish sovereignty in any part of the
ancestral Jewish homeland.)
Kerry’s
stated understanding of the regime’s anti-Semitism is somewhat
different from mine. He told me, “I think they have a fundamental
ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether
or not that translates into active steps, to quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know
…”
He paused, and so I filled in the blank: “Wipe it off the map.”
Kerry continued, “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen
anything that says to me—they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed
at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t
make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed
on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we
have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to
get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
Kerry’s understanding, in shorthand: Iran is dangerous to Israel at
this moment (he repeated the term “at this moment” in his next
statement, in fact); Iran has had plenty of opportunity to hurt Israel
but has chosen not to; and, finally, the answer to the question
concerning the true intentions of Iran’s leaders when it comes to Israel
is unknowable, and also irrelevant to the current discussion.
And Kerry almost looks clairvoyant compared with what Obama told Goldberg.
“Well, we’ve discussed this before,
Jeffrey,” the president said. “I take what the supreme leader says
seriously. I think his ideology is steeped with anti-Semitism, and if he
could, without catastrophic costs, inflict great harm on Israel, I’m
confident that he would. But as I said, I think, the last time we spoke,
it is possible for leaders or regimes to be cruel, bigoted, twisted in
their worldviews and still make rational calculations with respect to
their limits and their self-preservation.”
In the May interview, I asked him to help me understand a seemingly
contradictory set of ideas he has advanced relating to Iran. I noted
that he himself has stated publicly that the regime is infected with an
anti-Semitic worldview, and that those who are infected with such a
worldview generally do not grapple well with cause-and-effect in
international politics and economics, and cannot be counted on to
interpret reality correctly. I then asked how he squares these two
observations with a third observation he has made: that the regime in
Tehran is in many ways capable of behaving according to its rational
self-interest, as American politicians understand the notion of rational
self-interest.
His answer: “Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist,
doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t
preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy
afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about
how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is
anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other
considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism,
Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders—and there were deep
strains of anti-Semitism in this country—”
Here I interrupted him: “And they make irrational decisions.”
He continued: “They may make irrational decisions with respect to
discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as
an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may
pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the
costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the
Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to
ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for
whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions
represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve
represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that
there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that
they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of
legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get
themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in,
and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to
strike an agreement on their nuclear program.”
Except that there is no 'military option' (and no one ever believed Obama would be the one to employ it anyway) and if Obama gets his way there will be no sanctions. And by the way, what was Hitler - a 'community organizer'?
I made a decision on the spot—later partially regretted—not to deploy the H-bomb just then because I am a) very mindful of Godwin’s Law;
b) I don’t believe the Iranian regime is the modern-day equivalent of
the Nazi regime, in part because the Nazi regime is without peer; and c)
the invocation of Hitler’s name in these matters tends to set teeth too
much on edge. In retrospect, though, I should have raised it, because
Hitler is the perfect, but not singular, example of a world leader who
made decisions that seemed, to his adversaries, deeply irrational except
if you understood his desire to wipe out the Jews of Europe as an
actual overriding policy goal, a raison d’etre of his rule.
Anti-Semitism was not simply an “organizing tool” for him. And if you’re
paying attention, you will see that bringing about the end of the
sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East is a paramount political and
theological mission of the Iranian regime.
And so I was glad that Obama acknowledged the supreme leader’s
heartfelt anti-Semitism, and I’m glad that he understands that the
supreme leader seeks to do great harm to Israel. I suppose I part with
the president’s analysis on the question of exactly how much pain the
supreme leader believes Iran should absorb on behalf of this goal. Obama
believes the Iranian leadership will check its behavior in order to
avoid potentially catastrophic fallout. He may be right, but I would
like to see his administration place slightly less faith in the idea of
regime rationality.
Of course, there's a more cynical view of this - which I have alluded to many times, but with which I believe that Goldberg himself would take issue. That view holds that Obama is an anti-Semite (you can tell a man by the company that he keeps) and that Kerry may well be one as well. It's already been stated in polite society that Obama at least has a blind spot for anti-Semitism. In that view, Obama and Kerry are lulling much of the United States into complacency when they know full well Iran's desire to destroy the Jewish state.
Whether or not it happens before January 20, 2017, Islamophile Hussein Obama's 'legacy' is meant to be the destruction of the one and only Jewish state of Israel. Here's hoping he will never succeed.
Khameni publishes instruction manual for how to destroy Israel
Lest anyone think he's moderated, Amir Taheri reports that Ayatollah Ali Khameni has published a book (so far only in Persian but soon available in Arabic) of instructions how to destroy Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a
416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover
credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”
A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is
currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.
Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.
Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.
He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The
other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval”
meaning “effacement.”
Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is
not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon.
His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even
briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam
is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants
are non-Muslims.
The Obama administration will be relieved to hear that Khameni doesn't suggest incinerating the Jews with a nuclear weapon.
Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe
Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he
recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make
life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that
they leave the country.
His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of
Israelis have double-nationality and would prefer emigration to the
United States and Europe to daily threats of death.
Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the
subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice
before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action
against the Islamic Republic.
In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become
too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have
supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of
doing so is higher than possible benefits.
Aren't you glad he's getting another $150-700 billion to spend promoting this stuff? What could go wrong?
Hmmm. The entire AIPAC budget to fight the deal is supposedly around $40 million.
Aipac expects to spend some $40m on an ad campaign in about 40 states,
focusing on vulnerable Democrats, turning up the pressure on them in
their home states over the summer recess. Its liberal, pro-deal
counterpart, J Street, can only hope to spend up to $5m.
But with Iran allowed to contribute, who needs J Street's money. Khameni can just take $1 billion or so of his 'sanctions relief' and use it to make sure all goes 'smoothly.'
Obama's other Iran coverup: The Iran-al-Qaeda connection to 9/11 and other al-Qaeda terror
I'd like to show you a report that was played on Fox News back in May of this year.
Let's go to the videotape.
Hayes and William Kristol are demanding the release of those documents before the Congressional vote on the Iranian deal.
The bin Laden documents have long been the subject of a
behind-the-scenes battle between the White House and elements of the
intelligence community. After an initial scrub of the documents in the
months after the May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, the Obama administration
let them sit untouched for as long as a year. When officials at the DIA
and Central Command requested access to the collection to extract
intelligence and provide it to war fighters, they were initially denied.
And soon after the team from DIA and CENTCOM was given limited access
to the documents, they were ordered to stop their exploitation. What
they did see was illuminating.
Among the most significant were documents that shed new
light on the complicated relationship between Iran and al Qaeda. Even
the Obama administration has acknowledged the relationship. In 2011, the
administration designated six al Qaeda operatives who were responsible
for what officials described as al Qaeda’s lifeline. The network was
based in Iran.
“This network serves as the core pipeline through which
al Qaeda moves money, facilitators, and operatives,” according to the
Treasury Department’s designation. In an interview with The Weekly
Standard at the time, a senior Obama administration official involved in
the designation said, “Without this network, al Qaeda’s ability to
recruit and collect funds would be severely damaged.”
David Cohen, then undersecretary of the Treasury for
terrorism and financial intelligence and currently the deputy director
of the CIA, told The Weekly Standard the intelligence on Iran’s support
for al Qaeda was incontrovertible. “There is an agreement between the
Iranian government and al Qaeda to allow this network to operate,” Cohen
said. “There’s no dispute in the intelligence community on this.” Those
conclusions were based, at least in part, on the bin Laden documents.
Contacted about the status of al Qaeda’s Iran network
earlier this spring, two intelligence officials confirmed that it was
still functioning and still critical to al Qaeda operations. That’s not
all.
We are told that one document fills in the picture of
possible Iranian foreknowledge and complicity in the 9/11 attacks first
raised in the 9/11 Commission report, published in 2004. According to
the report, al Qaeda detainees in U.S. custody
described the willingness of Iranian officials
to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way
to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would
be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these
travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi
members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the
al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary.
But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi
“muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000
and February 2001.
The 9/11 Commission detailed much of that travel and reported:
There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated
the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before
9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is
circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely
tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran
in November 2000.
The commission concluded: “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone. For those who do not know, today is Tisha b'Av, a day that commemorates the destruction of the two Jewish Temples in Jerusalem 1,940 and 2,601 years ago. For a list of the tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people on this day, go here.
I just returned from afternoon prayers at the Kotel (Western Wall - the sole remnant of the Temple that is standing) myself.
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khameni is celebrating in his own way:
US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military. We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but.. pic.twitter.com/D4Co7fVuVg
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) has told the Washington Examiner that as a result of the Iranian nuclear sellout, President Hussein Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have become the World's leading financiers of Islamic terrorism.
"If this deal goes through, the Obama administration, President
Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, will become the leading global
financiers of radical Islamic terrorism," said Cruz. He further
criticized the deal for lifting the ballistic missile embargo, claiming
it is tantamount to arming a theocratic regime that has pledged to
murder Americans.
"In the middle of negotiating this deal, the Ayatollah Khamenei led
chants of shouting 'death to America'," stated Cruz. The 2016 Republican
candidate went on to compare Obama to former President Jimmy Carter,
charging that Obama has abandoned American hostages in Iran.
...
"Barack Obama left them in a squalid Iranian hellhole," Cruz said.
"Four hostages, Barack Obama cannot even bring himself to utter their
names."
Cruz extended his criticism to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton
and called on the media to ask her to say the names of the four
Americans being detained in Iran. "If she would be commander in chief of
this country, demonstrate leadership. Stand up and speak out," he said.
Cruz added that no conversation should have begun without the release
of the American hostages.
When asked about the likelihood of Congress stopping the deal, Cruz
said it is on the American people to engage their elected officials. But
he admitted that blocking the deal ultimately depends on Democrats.
The idea that solving the nuclear crisis would unlock a new Iran of economic riches and political moderation has been enthusiastically promoted
by the Rouhani administration and its supporters. This is good
political spin. But as a reflection of political reality it is seriously
flawed – for the simple reason that it conflates a process into a
single transformational moment; and perhaps more importantly, it fails
to account for the reality of contemporary Iran’s political landscape.
It is a landscape that has been sculpted by the Ahmadinejad years,
and in which the pragmatic presidency of his successor Rouhani stands as
an island in an ocean of hardline institutions. Hassan Rouhani has done
little to change this during his two years in power, in large part
because his strategy has been predicated on a successful conclusion of
the nuclear issue – gambling that popular support and economic necessity
will not only see the agreement through but release some political
capital to enact social and political reforms.
He is on firmer ground with the former – and while there continues to
be a popular clamour for change, it has been a long time since the
politics of the Islamic Republic has been dictated by the will of the
people.
Last week supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei decided to set the record
straight. This was in sum the pursuit of an arms control agreement, he
said – nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not a transformational
moment in the politics of the Islamic Republic.
If only they knew what the deal was.... What could go wrong?
“If the Islamic Ummah were united and relied on their own
commonalities, they would certainly be a unique power in the
international political scene but big powers have imposed such divisions
on the Islamic Ummah to pursue their own interests and safeguard the
Zionist regime [of Israel],” Khamenei said in remarks to commemorate the end of Ramadan.
Khamenei also defended Iran’s support for its Lebanese proxy,
Hezbollah, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and the
Assad regime in Syria.
“The Americans dub the Lebanese resistance as terrorist and regard
Iran as a supporter of terrorism because of its support for the Lebanese
Hezbollah, while the Americans, themselves, are real terrorists,”
Khamenei said. Hezbollah was originally created by Tehran’s first
“Supreme Leader” with the mission to “turn Lebanon to a graveyard for
Jews,” according to its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The Iranian dictator claimed that al-Qaeda and the Islamic State
terror group were created by the United States, according to Iran’s
state-controlled media. The U.S. “have created al-Qaeda and Daesh
[ISIL]” and “support the wicked Zionists [Israel],” he said.
...
In declaring victory over the U.S. in nuclear negotiations, he added,
“today, they [world powers] have been forced to accept and stand the
spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of research and
development in Iran, and it has no meaning but the Iranian nation’s
might.”
Noticeably, Khamenei’s more-controversial comments were left out of a CNN story on his remarks.
Really sounds like Iran is headed down a 'different path' now that the West has been so accommodating, doesn't it? What could go wrong?
As I am sure you are all aware, there is currently a meeting going on in Vienna, at the conclusion of which a deal will be announced that will make Iran a nuclear-armed state within ten years. How bad is this deal? Consider the following coming out of Vienna.
BREAKING NEWS - IRAN: All nuclear sites will continue activities and Uranium enrichment will continue.
Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran and an ally
of current President Hassan Rouhani, called for the destruction of
Israel and described the country as “alien” and “temporary,” according
to a report
Monday in Iran’s official IRNA news agency. Rafsanjani, who heads the
powerful Expediency Council, which advises Iran’s Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made the comments in an interview with a
Hezbollah-affiliated news outlet.
In response to a question why the Zionist regime has done
its best to prevent the path for reaching a nuclear agreement between
Iran and the West, Ayatollah Rafsanjani said that even Tel Aviv knows
well that Iran is not after acquiring nuclear weapons.
‘By doing so the Zionist wish to keep Iran engaged in problems
permanently, knowing that the Islamic Republic’s political, economic,
cultural and propagation status will all improve after such an
agreement,’ he said.
Asked about the future of the Palestinian nation, Rafsanjani said
that he still believes that eventually one day the forged and temporary
Israeli entity, which is an alien existence forged into the body of a
nation and a region be wiped off the map.
Rafsanjani, who along with Rouhani is often characterized as a
moderate, appears to associate Israel’s destruction with the completion
of the nuclear deal.
"Whatever happens, Israel will always defend itself, and the Air Force plays a major role in this," Haaretz daily quoted Netanyahu as saying at a pilots' course graduation ceremony.
Netanyahu again expressed concern over the agreement and the
concessions the world is prepared to do in order for Iran to sign the
deal.
"These concessions are increasing Iran's appetite and every day it
raises the bar, with the intention of extorting more concessions," he
said.
"In recent days Iran ruler Ali Khamenei rejected even the most basic
conditions in the bad agreement drafted in Lausanne," Netanyahu added.
"He said no to the restrictions on the nuclear program in the coming
decade, no to conditioning the sanctions' revocation on Iran's keeping
the agreement, no to [supervisors'] access to military sites. Even if
Iran waives some of these demands in a few days, the powers' basic
concession will be huge and it will be a clear withdrawal from red lines
the powers had publicly set earlier."
Netanyahu said the supervision method the powers are discussing with
Iran is "full of holes" and will enable the Iranians to create a nuclear
bomb less than 10 years after the agreement's signature.
The agreement will bring a flow of billions of dollars to the Iranian
economy, enabling Iran to increase its subversion in the Middle East,
Netanyahu said.
"It's still not too late [for the powers] to come to their senses, to
insist on a good agreement and it's certainly not too late not to
advance a bad agreement," he added.
"As world leaders always say, no agreement is better than a bad agreement."
Meanwhile, the P 5+1 admit that next week's June 30 deadline for an agreement 'might slip.' And Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khameni continues to list the many things Iran won't give up.
Amid unease in Iran's conservative-dominated parliament that Tehran
is giving too much away, Khamenei, on Tuesday appeared to throw several
spanners in the works.
Western powers have stressed sanctions will not be lifted until the
IAEA has confirmed that Iran has carried out key steps under the accord.
But Khamenei, who will have the last word for Iran in the talks, said
banking and economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the US
must be lifted immediately after the agreement is signed.
"Other sanctions can be removed gradually by a reasonable timetable," Khamenei said.
He also reiterated that Iran would not permit the IAEA to visit
military sites or conduct "unconventional inspections" at other
facilities.
Khamenei also took issue with the length of time that some of the restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities would be in place.
In a further sign that Iran remains at odds with the West, Kerry
unveiled a highly critical annual rights report slamming Iran for
continuing to "severely restrict" civil liberties.
One cannot help but be suspicious that even if a deal is reached, Iran will violate and the West will do nothing in response.
Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
feels confident enough, only a few days before June 30 (the deadline
for a final-status nuclear deal with world powers), to thumb his nose at
the international community, including the American government, and
declare Iran's three noes: no to freezing its nuclear program, no to
international oversight at its nuclear facilities, no to a phased
lifting of sanctions (as proposed by the French). In other words,
Khamenei is telling the world: Dear superpowers -- bite me.
Meanwhile, almost simultaneously, we have
received an Associated Press report from Vienna that the U.S. and its
partners conducting the negotiations with Iran are prepared -- for the
sake of reaching a deal -- to even provide the Iranians with advanced
nuclear reactors and equipment. This isn't a joke.
It's possible, perhaps, to imagine Khamenei
rejecting this generous offer outright because the Americans aren't also
including ballistic missiles in the package. If you're going to be
generous, then you might as well go all the way.
Truth be told, this entire business to this
point seems quite like a joke. The problem is that it's coming at our
expense. And it's also not that funny.
...
In November 2013, as a
reminder, we were just several days before the interim agreement. I
remember how the Iranian and Western delegations leaked information
about the many difficulties in the negotiations, but that in the end, in
the middle of the night, the deal was born (how shocking). Eventually,
we saw virtually the same scenario unfold in Lausanne this past March --
the numerous problems were made public, the deadline was extended by a
few days, and finally on April 2 we received the framework deal.
We can assume that in the coming days we will
get to see "the best show in town," at the end of which, in contrast to
the previous rounds, we can expect a final status deal with an Iran that
is not only slated to become a nuclear power but a stabilizing force in
our crumbling Middle East.
In an interview with Max Fisher, Michael Doran, who oversaw Middle East policy on George W. Bush's
National Security Council from 2005 to 2007 and is currently a scholar
at the Hudson Institute, explains why President Obama's agreement with Iran is a bad deal.
Max Fisher: Whatever the end strategic goal,
certainly there may at some point be an agreement on arms control. And a
goal of that is for Iran to surrender its ambitions for a nuclear
weapon. That specific objective seems worthwhile, but is it achievable?
Michael Doran: I don't think it is
achievable without a significant coercive component. I think this is one
of the most faulty assumptions of the administration. What makes the
administration believe Iran has made a strategic shift away from a
desire to have, if not a weapon, then a turnkey capability?
I rarely see any attempt to analyze these negotiations from the
Iranians' point of view and to ask, "What are their fundamental goals,
and why do these negotiations make sense to them?" In that context, I
don't believe they have made a strategic shift, and I don't see why the
administration believes they have.
If the argument is that the very willingness of the Iranians to sit
down and negotiate with us and to stick to the agreement over the last
18 months is proof of a strategic change of some kind, I don't buy it
for a second. It's just proof to me that they want sanctions relief and
they're going to get it, and they see that they're going to get it, and
they will stick with this process as long as they get direct, immediate,
and very desirable benefits from it.
Max Fisher: What is it about Iran, you think,
that makes it so bent on a nuclear weapons program that it would take so
much to deter them from that?
Michael Doran: First of all, there's just
the record of what they've done. They have pursued this program
doggedly and at enormous cost to themselves. They have been willing to
take their economy to the brink of disaster in order to preserve this
program.
They belong to a category of regimes, like the North Koreans, that
calculates that if they can get this weapon then the world will treat
them differently.
We need to look at the fundamental nature of the regime, the ideology
of the Islamic Republic, and the mindset of the men who run it. They
have a very well-known ideology that is hostile to the American order,
that is hostile to the system in the region. They have a vision of
Iran's place in the world, in the Islamic world especially, that they
have not given up on.
If I were going to talk about basic assumptions
of the Obama administration that are wrong, one is that Iran is a
fundamentally defensive power. This reads Iran's nuclear program in a
rather bilateral fashion, to think that a show of a desire to cooperate
and find common ground on the part of the United States would generate
an equal and opposite reaction on the Iranian side.
In fact, the starting point is that the Iranians want hegemony in the
region, and they're reading American policy with respect to their
regional aspirations. The goal of Iran's nuclear weapons program is not
to defend against the United States or Israel — it's to advance its
regional agenda.
From an American point of view, in 2011 or 2012 we had them in a very
advantageous position. Because the sanctions were really biting.
Max Fisher: But the size of Iran's nuclear program was growing, the number of centrifuges was growing.
Michael Doran: But at a greater and greater cost to them, every step they took. ...
Max Fisher: I wanted to ask you about that,
about coercion. Under any reading of what Iran ultimately wants, their
incentive to stick to a nuclear deal would be the fear that if they
cheat, they'll be caught and then they'll be punished for it.
Arms control analysts I've spoken to say the inspections regime
described in the framework would be very effective at catching Iran if
it cheats. But they acknowledge that the agreement is not going to talk
about enforcement — it's not going to spell out what happens if Iran
cheats — because that's just not how these agreements work.
So then you have this big question mark of what happens if Iran gets
caught cheating. It's not just us wondering; the Iranian leaders are
surely gaming this out, as well. And I honestly don't feel like I know what the answer is.
Michael Doran: First of all, I thank you for asking the question, because I think it is the crucial question.
The way the president has set this up, he has incentivized Iran to
pocket huge benefits up front. This has put them in a position to be
able to go for a bomb when they want in a position of much greater
economic strength and diplomatic strength. Because the very process of
the negotiation is destroying the sanctions regime we established, which
is the greatest nonmilitary instrument we have for coercing them. This
is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the coercion strategy.
He's going to use his waiver authority to free up all this money that
is in escrow accounts across the globe that is going to pour into
Iranian coffers nearly immediately. At the same time, the United Nations
Security Council is going to bless the agreement, which is then going
to free up the Europeans and others, including the Russians and the
Chinese, to engage in commercial activity with the Iranians. And so we
will have effectively gutted the sanctions regime.
Iran's status in the international community is going to be greatly
improved, and then there's going to be an international commercial lobby
and a diplomatic-military lobby, which includes the Chinese and the
Russians, in favor of the new order in which Iran is a citizen in good
standing in the international community that they can do business with.
Two comments: First, I am not as confident as Doran is that Iran is a rational actor that would scale back to suspend the nuclear program in response to crippling sanctions or a military strike. They didn't stop it for very long (if at all) in 2003 in response to the US targeting Saddam, and they didn't stop it in 2011-12 when the sanctions were at their most crippling.
Second, it bears pointing out that if Obama had not insisted against all advice and all rationality on withdrawing US troops from Iraq (a decision that he apparently made before ever receiving a national security briefing, although I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made given Obama's inclinations and tendencies), there never would have been a situation where the US would have 'needed' Iran to control ISIS in Iraq. As I pointed out a couple of days ago, many of the people behind ISIS are former Saddam officials who were likely underground so long as there was a US presence in Iraq.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
