The transfer was agreed upon in January, but only came to light after
Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) called for an inquiry into a $1.7
billion payment to Iran. He suggested that the money was given to
encourage Iran to release hostages.
An assistant secretary for legislative affairs has now provided the
Administration's answer to the charges. She claims that the talks focus
on clearing up Iranian legal claims against the US, and have been
ongoing since 2014. She added that concluding the issues is worth
billions of dollars in public money.
The legal issues deal with a large arms deal between the two
countries that was signed before the 1979 Iranian revolution. After
terrorists besieged the US embassy and took officials hostage, the US
canceled the deal. The case is still under review at the Iran-US Claims
Tribunal at the Hague.
Iran’s "fact-intensive claims involve over 1,000 separate contracts
between Iran and the United States," the assistant secretary explained.
There has been no answer to Pompeo's question of whether the payments were intended to convince Tehran to free a group of American prisoners, which it did shortly after the US agreed to hand over the money.
"It would not be in the interest of the United States to discuss
further details of the settlement of these claims in an unclassified
letter due to the ongoing litigation at the Tribunal," the State
Department told Pompeo.
An inside source warned the Free Beacon, "When Iran releases
American hostages, and then, on that same day, President Obama
announces he is paying Iran $1.7 billion, Congress of course has to ask
the hard questions. And when the Obama administration admits that over
$1 billion in taxpayer money is going to the Iranian regime, Congress is
obligated to respond. The State Department has ducked and
dodged–providing a history lesson on international tribunals, focused on
actions decades ago, instead of addressing dangerous misdeeds that were
potentially just committed. That is suspicious."
Deja vu all over again: Iran takes 10 US sailors hostage
It's 1979-80 all over again. Iran has seized two US Naval boats and has taken the 10 sailors on board hostage. But it's worse than 1979-80 - the Obama administration is already blaming the sailors.
Iran detained two small Navy craft
and was holding 10 American crew members Tuesday in the Persian Gulf, U.S.
officials said, an incident that seized the attention of Congress just hours
before President Barack Obama planned to deliver his final State of the Union
address.
Defense officials scrambled to determine what
happened, saying they were looking into whether a mechanical issue caused the
incident. Officials also said one or both of the small boats may have veered
into Iranian territorial waters near Iran’s Farsi Island. The U.S. Navy had lost
contact with the two boats, U.S. officials said.
A senior administration official said the U.S.
has received assurances that the two small boats and their crew were to be
released “promptly.” The Iranians held 10 U.S. sailors, who were on board the
two craft on a trip to Bahrain from Kuwait, officials said.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called his
Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on Tuesday to try and arrange the release of
two U.S. boats, according to a second senior administration official. The second
official said the U.S. expected the American personnel to be released
soon.
Obama signs bill barring Iranian terrorist from US, says he won't enforce it
Somehow, the JPost missed the most important part of the story.
On Friday, President Hussein Obama signed into law a bill proposed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) that would prevent Iran from sending one of the former kidnappers at the US Embassy in Tehran to the US as ambassador to the United Nations. But Obama also announced that he would never enforce the law.
Obama decided to treat the law as mere
advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and
our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I
share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such
activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation,"
Obama said in his signing statement.
"Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush
also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to
receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical
solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as
originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in
circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this
discretion."
Obama frequently criticized President George W. Bush for such
signing statements during his 2008 campaign. “Congress's job is to pass
legislation," he said, as The Daily Beast recalled. "The president can veto it or he can sign it.”
“It is unconscionable that, in the name of international diplomatic
protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national
who showed a brutal disregard for the status of our diplomats when they
were stationed in his country,” Cruz said when he introduced the bill.
The legislation was directed at
Hamid Abutalebi, whom Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tapped as U.N.
ambassador, because of his alleged role in the 1979 student takeover of
the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for
444 days. Abutalebi insists his role was limited to translation and
negotiation.
'Moderate' Rohani appoints hostage taker as UN ambassador
'Moderate' Iranian leader Hassan Rohani has appointed Hamid Aboutalebi, a 1979 hostage taker at the United States embassy in Tehran, as Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.
The Iranian government has applied for a U.S. visa for
Hamid Aboutalebi, Iran’s former ambassador to Belgium and Italy,
who was a member of the Muslim Students Following the Imam’s
Line, a group of radical students that seized the U.S. embassy
on Nov. 4, 1979. Imam was an honorific used for Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution.
Relations between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. and its
allies are beginning to emerge from the deep freeze that began
when the self-proclaimed Iranian students overrun the embassy
and took the hostages. The State Department hasn’t responded to
the visa application, according to an Iranian diplomat.
A controversy over Aboutalebi’s appointment could spark
demands on Capitol Hill and beyond during this congressional
election year for the Obama administration to take the unusual
step of denying a visa to an official posted to the UN. It also
could hamper progress toward a comprehensive agreement to curb
Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. and five other world
powers are seeking to negotiate with Iran by July 20.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani chose Aboutalebi to serve
at the UN, which is headquartered in New York City on
international, soil after the interim nuclear deal was forged
last Nov. 24.
...
Aboutalebi has said he didn’t take part in the initial
occupation of the embassy, and acted as translator and
negotiator, according to an interview he gave to the
Khabaronline news website in Iran.
“On a few other occasions, when they needed to translate
something in relation with their contacts with other countries,
I translated their material into English or French,” Aboutalebi
said, according to Khabaronline. “I did the translation during
a press conference when the female and black staffers of the
embassy were released, and it was purely based on humanitarian
motivations.”
He referred to the release of some embassy staff members
during the first few weeks of the crisis in November 1979.
...
Although Aboutalebi downplays his involvement, his
photograph is displayed on Taskhir, the website of the Muslim
Students Following the Imam’s Line. Taskhir can mean both
capture and occupation in Persian.
According to Mohammad Hashemi, one of the students who led
the occupation of the embassy, Iran’s revolutionary government
sent Aboutalebi and Abbas Abdi, another architect of the
occupation, as emissaries to Algiers. The Algerian capital at
that time was a mecca of third-world liberation movements,
including the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Hamid Babaei, a spokesman for the Iran’s UN Mission in New
York, declined to comment.
I wish it were otherwise, but I can't see Hussein Obama denying a visa to an Iranian diplomat. Anyone disagree?
By the way, the story is not just a cartoon. There were protests in Iran last Monday (the anniversary of the US embassy hostage crisis) in which thousands shouted 'death to America' and those protests are unlikely to stop anytime soon.
The issue of Iran-American rapprochement, and the possible diplomatic
thaw between Tehran and Washington becomes controversial when we look
into the domestic politics Iran.
Recently, one of the most
powerful military and ideologically hardline institutions in Iran, the
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) stated
(http://news.yahoo.com/iran-guards-want-keep-death-america-chant-164840915.html)
on the Persian Sepah News website (http://www.sepahnews.com/), that the
slogan “Death to America” was a sign and manifestation of the Iranian
people’s will, determination, and robust resistance against “the
dominance of oppressive and untrustworthy America.” Hardliners also
created several new anti-U.S. Islamic songs a few days before the
protests, to be played next to the American embassy.
In addition,
hardliners have strongly repelled any call to remove the “Death to
America” or “Death to Israel” chants. They have verbally attacked
figures such as former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad
Khatami, and some supporters of Mousavi and Rowhani who called to
possibly remove these slogans in order to rebuild the economy, remove
economic sanctions that have endangered the hold on power of Iranian
leaders, clerics, and Ayatollahs across Iran’s political spectrum. On
the opening session of Iran’s parliament (or Majlis), all members of the
Majlis joined the hardliners call, stating that they will proudly carry
the slogan “Death to America.”
...
The antagonism towards the United States and Israel, as well as the
Iranian leaders’ and their supporters’ rivalry against Washington and
Tel Aviv, are deeply embedded in the power dynamic and in the domestic
politics of Iran.
First of all, the main political institutions
in Iran, such as the IRGC, the paramilitary Basij militia, the Ministry
of Intelligence and Security, the Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic
Revolution (which owns and manages approximately 350 subsidiary and
affiliate companies in fields including industry, transportation,
commerce, agriculture, and tourism), the Supreme National Security
Council, the army, and the Expediency Council, gain the major part of
their legitimacy from considering United States and Israel as the “Great
Satan.”
The antagonism towards America and Israel is a powerful
political tool used to rule. For example, any domestic political or
economic shortcomings are usually presented as the fault of the
Americans and Israelis. Every day, Iran’s media blames the United States
and Tel Aviv for most domestic and regional problems. Major forces of
opposition to the government are suppressed, accused of being American
or Israeli-linked conspirators. The major political institutions in Iran
were founded through gaining legitimacy, and being capable of exerting
their power, by using a scapegoat enemy— the “Great Satan.”
Finally,
this unprecedented level of protest was a formidable sign from the
powerful political institutions in Iran to those seeking mend
relationships with the United States. Any fundamental change and
rapprochement between the United States and Iran would strip away all
the political leverage that major Iranian political and military
institutions have. For hardliners, U.S.-Iran rapprochement will
undermine their own domestic power, endangering their legitimacy, their
rule, and suppression of the opposition.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, October 24.
1) Not responding
Earlier this week Lee Smith wrote America's 40 year embassy crisis.
Ben Affleck's movie "Argo" about the Iranian takeover of the American
embassy in Tehran prompted the article. In short, American diplomatic
personnel have often been targets of hostile elements and America -
under both Democratic and Republican presidents - has failed to respond.
Here are a few examples from Smith's list:
In February 1973, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Black
September faction assassinated the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel,
and Deputy Chief of Mission George Curtis Moore. The terrorists broke
into the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, which was hosting a party, separated
the Americans and a Belgian diplomat from the rest of the guests and
demanded the release of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, and
other Palestinians held in European and Israeli jails. When the Nixon
Administration refused to negotiate, the Palestinians, according to one
account, opened fire on their hostages, “from the floor upward, to
prolong their agony of their victims by striking them first in the feet
and legs, before administering the coup de grace.”
...
In June 1976, a different Palestinian faction kidnapped the newly
appointed U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Francis E. Meloy, Jr. along with
Robert O. Waring, the U.S. economic counselor. When Soviet diplomats
were taken in Beirut during the 15-year-long civil war, Moscow took
swift and brutal action against the families of the kidnappers. But
after Meloy and Waring’s bullet-riddled corpses were found dumped on the
side of the road, Washington did nothing.
In February 1979, under President Carter, the American Ambassador to
Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was killed in an exchange of gunfire between
Afghan security forces and the Muslim extremists who kidnapped him.
Again, the Americans failed to respond in kind.
Here's a list of the American victims of Iranian aggression: The 17
Americans killed in April 1983 at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut by the
Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad Organization, later known as Hezbollah. The
241 U.S. servicemen killed by Islamic Jihad at the Marine barracks in
Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983. Master Chief Robert Dean Stethem, beaten to
death in June 1985 by a Hezbollah terrorist in Beirut aboard TWA flight
847. William Francis Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, tortured
to death by Hezbollah that same month. Marine Col. William Higgins,
taken hostage in 1988 while serving with U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon
and hanged by Hezbollah sometime later. The 19 U.S. Air Force personnel
killed in June 1996 in the Khobar Towers bombing, for which several
members of Saudi Hezbollah were indicted in U.S. federal court.
And then there are the thousands of U.S. troops killed by improvised
explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most lethal IEDs were
manufactured in Iran for the purpose of killing Americans.
Let's also not forget the 52 American diplomats held hostage in Tehran
for 444 days; the hostaging in Lebanon of Americans such as Thomas
Sutherland and Terry Anderson; the de facto hostaging of American
backpackers Sarah Shourd for 14 months and of her companions Josh Fattal
and Shane Bauer for more than two years; the capricious imprisonment of
Iranian-Americans visiting Iran such as Kian Tajbakhsh, Haleh
Esfandiari and Roxana Saberi; the mysterious disappearance and apparent
hostaging in 2007 of former FBI agent Robert Levinson; and the current
imprisonment—under a suspended death sentence—of former U.S. Marine and
defense contractor Amir Hekmati.
Both Smith and Stephens point out that the perpetrators of many
instances of violence against Americans and American interests often
goes without response. If those who attacked Americans and the countries
or powers that harbored them, knew that there would definitely be a
price to pay, they might be less inclined to attack in the first place.
2) Missing from the debate
A "news analysis" in the New York Times claims that Foreign Policy Debate’s Omissions Highlight Skewed Worldview.
The article is mostly critical of the candidates for not discussing the
issues that the writer, Steven Erlanger, deemed important. The problem
is that he doesn't mention the moderator, Bob Schieffer, who chose which
questions to ask thus shaping the debate.
However the article, really was less about what was really important
(and arguments could surely be made that many important issues were addressed superficially) but what was really important for Erlanger's worldview.
For example, regarding the Middle East, Erlanger writes:
There was no mention, let alone discussion, of the role of Turkey or
its dilemma as a Muslim nation sharing a border with Syria, no
discussion of the aging royal family of Saudi Arabia and its sponsorship
of radical and conservative Islam, no mention of Somalia or Islamist
threats to allies like Jordan and Morocco. There was a glancing
reference to the Palestinians, but no discussion of their divisions, of
the role of Hamas, of the separate status of Gaza, of the weakening grip
of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement, of what might happen if and
when Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of the Palestine
Liberation Organization, leaves the scene.
And there was no criticism of Israel, its settlements or its occupation
of the West Bank. Mr. Romney did say that Mr. Obama had not visited
Israel as president even after his 2009 visit to Cairo in which he
pledged a new era in relations with the Muslim world.
Mr. Obama responded with descriptions of an earlier visit as a
legislator, but Mr. Romney missed an opportunity to respond tartly, for
even top Obama aides concede that failing to go quickly to Israel after
Cairo to make a similar speech and then calling for a “settlement
freeze” in East Jerusalem, instead of in the larger West Bank, were
errors.
Note that for Erlanger the problem with Saudi Arabia is its support "of
radical and conservative Islam" but doesn't use the same terms to
describe Turkey. He mentions Hamas without mentioning its continued
terror war against Israel.
Of course, Erlanger still thinks that the "occupation" needs to be
criticized. Even here, he sort of defends the President from criticisms
he's received for his condemnation of Israeli settlements by pointing
out that Obama's aides agree that he shouldn't have focused on
criticizing building in Jerusalem. (At the time of Vice President
Biden's visit, the New York Times in its reporting and editorials was quite supportive of the President's making an issue of apartment building in Ramat Shlomo.)
Erlanger makes too much of the omissions. For better or worse, whichever
candidate is elected in two weeks will deal with everything he needs
to. Debates are shows to give us a sense of the candidates. This "news
analysis" is simply a rant because issues that are important to the New
York Times were not addressed in the way that editors and reporters of
that paper would have liked them to be.
Still, I would argue that the United States has made the right
choice; that this new policy of engagement with even extreme currents of
political Islam in the Middle East is salutary; that the model should
be extended; and that indeed the Obama administration had little choice.
To keep doing the same thing when it does not work is one definition of
madness.
What is the alternative to supporting Morsi and the Brotherhood and
urging them to be inclusive in the new Egypt? Well, the United States
could cut them off and hope they fail — but I can think of no surer way
to guarantee radicalization and aggravate the very tendencies the West
wants to avoid as a poverty-stricken Egypt goes into an economic
tailspin. The same would be true of any attempt to install the armed
forces again, with the difference that there would also be bloodshed.
The United States tried Middle Eastern repression in the name of
stability for decades: What it got was terrorism-breeding societies of
frustrated Arabs under tyrants. (Mohammed Atta came from Cairo.) The
Brotherhood narrowly won a free and fair election. If they fail, throw
them out next time. That’s democracy.
Is it tyranny that bred terrorism? Is it poverty? (Mohammed Atta came from a solid middle class
background.) It is rather ideology. And it is the ideology espoused by
the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood may be better at hiding its
true beliefs and may have adulterated some beliefs in the pursuit of
political power, but its extreme views are the views of the terrorists
who have declared war on us.
Of course, if the Muslim Brotherhood actually adopted politically
moderate positions despite their ideology, it would be worthwhile to
engage them. But what if they are adopting or threatening to adopt
positions at odds with American interests, why not cut them off? It
wouldn't be because the United wanted them to fail, but because they
chose to take American aid and then kick sand in our face.
One hallmark of democracy is a free press. President Morsi has shut down
a number of media outlets he didn't like. Given its control of much of
society and its organization, the Muslim Brotherhood really doesn't need
to worry about the next election. With people like Roger Cohen
apologizing for them (just as he did for the Iranian regime) it will
make their suppression of democracy that much easier.
But there's another danger that the Muslim Brotherhood presents. Just after the Emir of Kuwait handed Hamas a major diplomatic victory by visiting Gaza, Hamas launched another round of attacks against Israel. Barry Rubin gives some context to this escalation:
There are two important factors in this latest offensive. First, the
attacks from Hamas and the smaller groups it allows to operate from the
Gaza Strip are increasing. Second, an emboldened Hamas is now more
directly involved in these operations. This trend is a direct result of the fact that Hamas now feels secure
in that its Muslim Brotherhood allies are governing Egypt and allowing
more, and apparently more advanced, military equipment to enter the Gaza
Strip. The danger is that as the Brotherhood consolidates power in Cairo and
Hamas becomes even more confident it will at some point open a war
against Israel. Such a conflict would bring even more Brotherhood-Hamas
cooperation and such things as escalated attacks across the Egypt-Israel
border and the entry of Egyptian volunteers into the fighting. An
Egyptian army that has been purged by the Brotherhood regime will not
pose an independent barrier to such a situation, which could lead to
Cairo being dragged into war with Israel.
Cohen's thesis of the temperate nature of the Muslim Brotherhood were
obsolete before the pixels were illuminated on the screen. Hamas's
latest escalation is further proof of how asinine his analysis is.
Ryan: Middle East under Obama looks like Tehran during hostage crisis
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a rally in Lima, Ohio on Monday that the Middle East under Obama looks like Tehran during the 1979-80 hostage crisis.
At our festive meal for Hoshana Rabba today, the kids started asking whether and why we really have to release another 550 terrorists in two months' time. After all, Gilad is home already, so why not ignore the rest of the deal? Mrs. Carl dismissed the question, saying that Israel always keeps its word, but I said that it's not so simple. This is from an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration and the day after the second worst President in American history had finally managed to negotiate the release of the last 52 hostages from the American embassy in Iran. They were held for 444 days - about a quarter of Gilad Shalit's toll.
'The agreement the United States made with Iran for return of the hostages has the same moral standing as an agreement made with a kidnapper, that is to say none at all. This is not said in criticism of the Carter administration, which made the deal to save the hostages’ lives. But now that the hostages are free, President Reagan should examine the agreement carefully and if its unfulfilled parts do not, on balance, benefit American interests, there should be no hesitation in renouncing it.’
Could the same not be said about Israel's agreement with Hamas?
The New York Sun raises the question and comments:
What we are counseling is that Israel has a free hand. A spokesman of Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, is being quoted by the New York Times as warning Israel against “maneuvering or playing with any article of the agreement.” But that is not a sentiment for America to echo. It would be wrong to pressure Israel to stick by the deal. Or criticize it if it doesn’t. Particularly because it’s not yet entirely clear what all the elements of the agreement are.
There are reports — cited in Caroline Glick’s most recent column in the Jerusalem Post, for example — that Israel agreed “to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt.” The theory seems to be that the Hamas terror chiefs are suddenly uncomfortable at Syria now that the regime in Damascus is in open war with the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalists there.
We’re not so concerned with any of the particulars. The point here is that if Israel were to renounce any further obligations, it would be — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out that President Reagan was — well within its rights. The kidnapping of Sergeant Shalit was an act of extortion. And an agreement extracted from someone with a gun to his head is not an agreement at all. Israel deserves support in whatever decision it makes in respect to the so-called agreement from here on out. It has the same free hand that America had 30 years ago.
Amen. I hope that Netanyahu's inner circle is taking a long hard look at this.
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
