Daily Archives: July 18, 2016

Hey Obama, Kerry, Rhodes, Explain this Secret on Iran Deal

Posted on by

Related reading: Flying Above the Radar, Sanctions Evasion in the Iranian Aviation Sector

Related reading: Banking & Money Laundering Risk

Iranian financial institutions remain locked out of the U.S. financial system, and therefore cut off from much of the global financial system. International banks have been hit with $14 billion in fines since 2009 for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. The U.S. continues to designate the entire Iranian financial sector as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

****

Iran urged to avoid further ballistic missile launches, to preserve deal July 18, 2016

Iran has been urged not to carry out further ballistic missile tests, which might be deemed inconsistent with the “constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal struck with world powers a year ago.

The call came from UN Under Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman, briefing the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution which endorsed the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

AP Exclusive: Confidential text eases Iran nuke constraints

VIENNA (AP) — Key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program imposed under an internationally negotiated deal will start to ease years before the 15-year accord expires, advancing Tehran’s ability to build a bomb even before the end the pact, according to a document obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The document is the only text linked to last year’s deal between Iran and six foreign powers that hasn’t been made public, although U.S. officials say members of Congress have been able to see it. It was given to the AP by a diplomat whose work has focused on Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, and its authenticity was confirmed by another diplomat who possesses the same document.

The diplomat who shared the document with the AP described it as an add-on agreement to the nuclear deal. But while formally separate from that accord, he said that it was in effect an integral part of the deal and had been approved both by Iran and the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the six powers that negotiated the deal with Tehran.

Details published earlier outline most restraints on Iran’s nuclear program meant to reduce the threat that Tehran will turn nuclear activities it says are peaceful to making weapons.

But while some of the constraints extend for 15 years, documents in the public domain are short on details of what happens with Iran’s most proliferation-prone nuclear activity – its uranium enrichment – beyond the first 10 years of the agreement.

The document obtained by the AP fills in the gap. It says that as of January 2027 – 11 years after the deal was implemented – Iran can start replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines.

Centrifuges churn out uranium to levels that can range from use as reactor fuel and for medical and research purposes to much higher levels for the core of a nuclear warhead. From year 11 to 13, says the document, Iran can install centrifuges up to five times as efficient as the 5,060 machines it is now restricted to using.

Those new models will number less than those being used now, ranging between 2,500 and 3,500, depending on their efficiency, according to the document. But because they are more effective, they will allow Iran to enrich at more than twice the rate it is doing now.

The U.S. says the Iran nuclear agreement is tailored to ensure that Iran would need at least 12 months to “break out” and make enough weapons grade uranium for at least one weapon.

But based on a comparison of outputs between the old and newer machines, if the enrichment rate doubles, that breakout time would be reduced to six months, or even less if the efficiency is more than double, a possibility the document allows for.

The document also allows Iran to greatly expand its work with centrifuges that are even more advanced, including large-scale testing in preparation for the deal’s expiry 15 years after its implementation on Jan. 18.

A U.S. official noted, however, that the limit on the amount of enriched uranium Iran will be allowed to store will remain at 300 kilograms (660 pounds) for the full 15 years, significantly below the amount needed for a bomb. As well, it will remain restricted to a level used for reactor fuel that is well below weapons grade. Like the diplomats, the official demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the document.

“We have ensured that Iran’s breakout time comes down gradually after year 10 in large part because of restrictions on its uranium stockpile until year 15,” the official said. “As for breakout times after the initial 10 years of the deal, the breakout time does not go off a cliff nor do we believe that it would be immediately cut in half, to six months.”

Still the easing of restrictions on the number and kind of centrifuges means that once the deal expires, Tehran will be positioned to quickly make enough highly enriched uranium to bring up its stockpile to a level that would allow it to make a bomb in half a year, should it choose to do so.

The document doesn’t say what happens with enrichment past year 13. That indicates a possible end to all restrictions on the number and kind of centrifuges even while constraints on other, less-proliferation prone nuclear activities remain until year 15.

Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA says Tehran has essentially kept to its commitments since the agreement was implemented, a little more than six months after Iran and the six powers finalized it on July 14, 2015.

Marking the agreement’s anniversary Thursday, President Barack Obama said it has succeeded in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, “avoiding further conflict and making us safer.” But opposition from U.S. Republicans could increase with the revelation that Iran’s potential breakout time would be more than halved over the last few years of the pact.

Also opposed is Israel, which in the past has threatened to strike Iran if it deems that Tehran is close to making a nuclear weapon. Alluding to that possibility, David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security is a U.S. government go-to resource on Iran’s nuclear program, said the plan outlined in the document “will create a great deal of instability and possibly even lead to war, if regional tensions have not subsided.”

The deal provides Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for its nuclear constraints. But before going into recess, U.S. Congress last week approved a bill to impose new sanctions for Tehran’s continuing development and testing of ballistic missiles, a program the White House says is meant to carry atomic warheads even if it is not part of the nuclear agreement.

It also approved a measure that calls for prohibiting the Obama administration from buying more of Iran’s heavy water, a key component in certain nuclear reactors.

The White House has said removing the country’s surplus heavy water denies Tehran access to a material that may be stored for potential nuclear weapons production. But critics note that the purchase was made only after Iran exceeded heavy water limits proscribed by the nuclear deal and assert it rewarded Tehran for violating the agreement.

Why is Trump Against Ukraine and Siding with Russia?

Posted on by

Are we to expect the Trump agenda as president is to normalize all relations with the Kremlin? Is this the first official foreign policy disaster? Below are a handful of factual conditions that Trump is already wrong where the RNC Convention policy was right, but Trump objects. Something else smells here.

We have not even addressed how Russia is not cooperating with the West on Islamic State and the Defense Department refuses to collaborate with Russia on war missions or intelligence.

 

Even The Treasury Department has reasons to apply sanctions to Russia.

Directives 1 and 2 Pursuant to EO 13662 (Issued July 16, 2014)

Important Advisories

OFAC issues advisories to the public on important issues related to the sanctions programs it administers.  While these documents may focus on specific industries and activities, they should be reviewed by any party interested in OFAC compliance.

Due to the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine, Russia was eliminated from the G8 making it the G7 and sanctions remain.

****

The Kremlin has a full blown internet troll operation against the United States

So, That Cyber Caliphate is Not ISIS, it is Russian!

General Dunford Tells Congress Russia Poses Greatest Threat to US Security

G7 summit: Obama and Merkel firm on Russia sanctions

BBC: Moscow is the target of European Union and US sanctions over its role in support of Ukrainian rebels.

Russia has been excluded from what was previously known as the G8, since the annexation of Crimea last year.

The West accuses Russia of sending military forces into eastern Ukraine to help the rebels – a charge echoed by analysts. Moscow denies this, saying any Russian soldiers there are volunteers. More from BBC

Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine

Rogin/WashingtonPost: The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle.”

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”

Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

That amendment was voted on and passed. When the Republican Party releases its platform Monday, the official Republican party position on arms for Ukraine will be at odds with almost all the party’s national security leaders.

“This is another example of Trump being out of step with GOP leadership and the mainstream in a way that shows he would be dangerous for America and the world,” said Rachel Hoff, another platform committee member who was in the room.

Of course, Trump is not the only politician to oppose sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. President Obama decided not to authorize it, despite recommendations to do so from his top Europe officials in the State Department and the military. The United States has provided Ukraine with non-lethal equipment and aid.

Trump’s view of Russia has always been friendlier than most Republicans. He’s said he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin and called it a “great honor” when Putin praised him. Trump has done a lot of business in Russia and has been traveling there since 1987. Last August, he said of Ukraine joining NATO, “I wouldn’t care.” He traveled there in September, and he told Ukrainians their war is “really a problem that affects Europe a lot more than it affects us.”

For Trump, the biggest threat to Europe is not Russia, according to people familiar with his thinking. He believes the United States should focus on helping Europe fight Islamist terrorism and open borders, not confronting Putin. He has called for a reduction of the U.S. commitment to NATO. He simply doesn’t see Russia as a dangerous threat.

For Denman, the Trump campaign’s actions betrayed the U.S. commitment to supporting struggling democracies around the world, which she considers a core Republican value.

“The Ukrainian people are trying to come out of the past and stay free. We owe to those who are fighting for freedom still to give them a helping hand,” she said.

“I’m very passionate and supportive of the Reagan foreign policy of peace through strength.”

Trump too often invokes Ronald Reagan when talking about America’s role in the world. But although Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, he also stood up to Russian aggression in Europe and defended democratic principles abroad.

When the platform comes out, Republicans will see how far from the Reagan doctrine their party has drifted, thanks to Trump.

Hillary’s Newest Legal Machinery at Work on Depositions

Posted on by

Lawyers from several government agencies have rallied to Hillary’s defense, including those from the State Department and from the Justice Department. Likely, lawyers from the White House have also been consulted while Hillary herself has a team of lawyers. So, if she does prevail in the general election, does that mean she will provide a very late deposition and even pardon herself?

 

Clinton preserves option to stall deposition

Politico: Hillary Clinton’s lawyers are expected to appear before a federal judge Monday morning in a bid to keep her from being forced into videotaped, sworn testimony about her email system, but they’re keeping their options open if things don’t go their way.

In a little-noticed passage in a court filing last week, Clinton’s legal team laid the groundwork for a potential appeal that could allow the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to delay any deposition for weeks or months, perhaps even until after the November election.

“For the sake of preserving any and all rights, counsel to Secretary Clinton respectfully submit that discovery is unwarranted in this case as a general matter,” longtime Clinton lawyer David Kendall and colleagues wrote in a filing submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan.

Legal experts say the language is aimed at keeping the door open for Clinton to try to block a deposition at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit if Sullivan decides to order one.

Kendall “is preserving that position for ultimately raising it on appeal, if necessary….It’s safe lawyering,” said Dan Metcalfe, former co-director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, now with American University’s law school. “It’s a wise thing to do, but one could infer from that that he’s not 100 percent confident that the argument….would prevail.”

It’s difficult to predict whether Sullivan will grant the request he’s set to take up Monday from the conservative group Judicial Watch, which is demanding to put Clinton under oath in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit exploring aspects of her private email set-up.

The judge—an appointee of President Bill Clinton—has been sharply critical of the former secretary of state for her handling of her emails. At a hearing last August, Sullivan said Clinton’s “violation of government policy” was responsible for the email imbroglio. And in May, the judge approved depositions for several of Clinton’s aides and issued an order explicitly leaving open the possibility Clinton herself might be required to testify.

But Sullivan has also seemed concerned about the litigation becoming a football in the presidential campaign. In May, he not only acceded to a request from a close Clinton aide to put videos of the depositions off limits to the public, he expanded the court-ordered restriction to the videos of all depositions conducted in the case.

If Sullivan approves a deposition for Clinton and the Clinton camp goes to the D.C. Circuit to try to block such testimony, Clinton appears to have a decent chance of succeeding at least in winning a delay, in part because that court has been very deferential to cabinet members in similar circumstances.

In 2014, the D.C. Circuit blocked a court-ordered deposition of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a defamation lawsuit former Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod brought against late conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart over a video he published. The appeals court said it was “well-established” that c members should not be deposed in civil suits absent “extraordinary circumstances.”

Clinton is a former cabinet official, not a sitting one. However, her court filings last week mention that her status as a former cabinet official more than half a dozen times.

The D.C. Circuit may be more politically fertile territory for Clinton than it was a few years ago. The court is now split between Democratic and Republican appointees, 7-4. Four of the court’s Democratic appointees have joined the court since 2013.

Another reason Clinton’s legal team got directly involved in the case for the first time last week: while State is opposing a deposition for Clinton, the agency and its lawyers at the Justice Department might not try to appeal to block Clinton’s deposition if it is ordered.

In May, when Sullivan ordered depositions of about half a dozen former State officials—including a couple of close aides to Clinton—State did not try to seek relief from the D.C. Circuit, even though State argued against allowing the depositions in the first place.

The hearing Monday before Sullivan is likely to focus on whether Clinton’s use of a private email server could bring Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit within an exception to a 1980 Supreme Court case involving the papers of another former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. The high court ruled that Kissinger’s papers were not obtainable under FOIA because they were not in the State Department’s control at the time of the request, but in a footnote the court suggested its ruling might be different if an employee intentionally placed outside an agency’s possession.

“We need not decide whether this standard might be displaced in the event that it was shown that an agency official purposefully routed a document out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request. No such issue is presented here. We also express no opinion as to whether an agency withholds documents which have been wrongfully removed by an individual after a request is filed,” Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court’s majority.

In filings last week, Clinton’s lawyers argued that because the Judicial Watch request involved in the suit came after Clinton left office in February 2013, the Kissinger case controls and State has no obligation to provide records that Clinton possessed at that time.

“Kissinger squarely covers this case,” Kendall wrote, noting that Judicial Watch’s request for records about Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s employment arrangement came several months after Clinton left State.

Clinton’s lawyers went even further, arguing that “a general intent to ‘thwart’ FOIA” isn’t enough to upend the general rule that records outside an agency’s possession are lost to FOIA requesters.

In a statement last week, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called it “both significant and disturbing” that Clinton was asserting her private email account was her private property, just as Kissinger asserted about the records he took and deposited in a restricted collection at the Library of Congress.

Sullivan might choose to shut down or delay the request for Clinton testimony given that it’s unclear what the court could do at this point to recover more of Clinton’s emails. She already turned over about 30,000 messages her lawyers deemed work-related. Those records have been searched by State, processed under FOIA, and released with the exception of a few messages deemed to contain “Top Secret” information.

The FBI currently has possession of several servers used by Clinton, as well as some messages recovered from other sources. After FBI Director James Comey announced he wasn’t recommending criminal charges against Clinton or others over the emails, the law enforcement agency said it plans to provide emails that might qualify as official records to the State Department.

Clinton has said she has no emails from that period in her possession at this point, beyond the equipment transferred to the FBI. However, it remains unclear how long it will take for State to obtain those records and just who will decide which of Clinton’s emails might qualify as official State records.

In addition, some of the records and equipment in the FBI’s possession might still be Clinton’s property, leaving open some prospect of Judicial Watch winning some court-supervised process to examine that material for government records.

On the other hand, it’s also possible Sullivan might decide the lawsuit under discussion Monday isn’t the right vehicle to pursue questions about Clinton’s handling of her email. There are dozens of other FOIA suits pending against State, including some relating to requests filed before Clinton stepped down as secretary.

Those other cases might be stronger ones to press the issue, but it’s unclear whether judges in those case would demand Clinton submit to deposition, how quickly they would do so, and whether a higher court would intervene over an order for such testimony issued in the months or weeks before Clinton is expected to face presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in the November election.

 

 

Russia Makes Olympic Athletes with Proven Doping Program

Posted on by

Wada Report is here.  

WADA Calls For Russian Ban From Rio Olympics After Report Confirms ‘Unprecedented’ Doping Scheme

***   

Russia ‘Directed’ Athlete Doping For Years

A report says that Russia’s government and secret service directed systematic cheating in sports since 2011.

SkyNews: Russia has systematically covered up doping in “all sporting disciplines” since 2011, an official report has found.

The sports ministry and secret service “directed and oversaw” the manipulation of urine samples, the World Anti-Doping Agency said.

It resulted in at least 312 falsified results up until at least last year’s world swimming championships, WADA said.

The state-sponsored cheating happened after an “abysmal” medal count at the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, according to the report.

The cheating involved clean urine being frozen and switched for doped urine, often passed through secret holes in laboratories.

As well as the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014, Russia’s cheating also included the 2013 track world championships in Moscow.

The doping continued in the 2015 swimming world championships in Kazan, chief investigator Richard McLaren said.

Russia’s track and field athletes are already banned from the Olympic Games in Rio, beginning this summer.

The independent findings will increase pressure for all Russians – not just those in track and field events – to be banned from the games.

The report was commissioned following claims made by a Russian whistleblower, former director of anti-doping Dr Grigory Rodchenkov.

He claimed that dozens of athletes, including at least 15 medalists in Sochi, were part of an extensive state-run doping programme.

 

Reuters:

An independent commission report, led by Canadian law professor and sports lawyer Richard McLaren, published on Monday revealed evidence of widespread state-sponsored doping by Russian athletes at the 2014 Sochi Olympics.

McLaren, who was a member of WADA’s independent commission which last year exposed widespread doping and corruption in Russian athletics, said the Russian Ministry of Sport oversaw the manipulation of athletes’ analytical results and sample swapping.

Here are some reactions from the world of sport:

TRAVIS TYGART (CEO of USADA)

“The McLaren Report has concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, a mind-blowing level of corruption within both Russian sport and government that goes right to the field of play… and most importantly, our hearts go out to athletes from all over the world who were robbed of their Olympic dreams.

“Looking forward, we must come together as an international community — comprised of those who truly believe in the spirit of Olympism — to ensure this unprecedented level of criminality never again threatens the sports we cherish.”

IOC PRESIDENT THOMAS BACH

“The findings of the report show a shocking and unprecedented attack on the integrity of sport and on the Olympic Games. Therefore, the IOC will not hesitate to take the toughest sanctions available against any individual or organization implicated.”

PHILIP CRAVEN, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE (IPC)

“We are truly shocked, appalled and deeply saddened at the extent of the state sponsored doping program implemented in Russia ahead of Sochi 2014. The findings of the McLaren report mark a very dark day for sport.

“Once we have the further details we have requested from both parties, the IPC Governing Board will convene for a telephone conference. The Board will discuss the findings of the report and decide what relevant action needs to be taken to protect clean athletes competing in Paralympic sport.

“This may include provisional measures and sanctions with regards to the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games.”

SCOTT BLACKMAN, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE CEO

“The McClaren Report confirms what we have stated previously: the current anti-doping system is broken and urgently requires the attention of everyone interested in protecting clean athletes.

“We look forward to working with the IOC, WADA and the entire Olympic family to address the flaws in the current system so that a uniform approach to anti-doping can be implemented and enforced around the world.

“In the meantime, we are focused on preparing Team USA to compete at the upcoming Rio Games and will rely on the IOC, WADA and the international federations to impose sanctions that are appropriate in relation to the magnitude of these offenses, and that give clean athletes some measure of comfort that they will be competing on a level playing field in Rio.”

NICOLE SAPSTEAD, CEO OF UK ANTI-DOPING

“Now is the time for the entire sporting community to come together to find a way forward and ensure that the right processes, legislation and safeguards are in place to protect the rights of all athletes to clean, fair and honest competition.”

Prediction for the Brazil Olympics, Terror?

Posted on by

Published by this website on June 22, 2016: Brazil/Olympics Under Islamic State Threat

Pro-ISIS “Ansar al-Khilafah Brazil”: If French police couldn’t stop France attacks, then their training Brazil’s police will serve no use.

Pro ISIS “Granddaughters of ‘Aisha” later published its infographic on France attacks in Dutch, French, Portuguese
Reacting to Baton Rouge shootings, a jihadi Telegram channel urged supporters invite “black community” to Islam and help it fight U.S. govt

A Telegram channel called “Ansar al-Khilafah ” posted a pledge of allegiance to leader Baghdadi

Pro “Granddaughters of ‘Aisha” later published its infographic on attacks in Dutch, French, Portuguese

Four terror suspects ‘tried to travel to Brazil for Olympics’

Telegraph: Four suspects with known links to terrorism attempted to travel to Brazil for the Rio 2016 Olympics, it has emerged.

The four, whose identities have not been revealed, applied for accreditation for the Games and were among the 11,000 to be denied on security grounds, according to Brazilian security services.

They featured on a list of 40 who are subject to international alerts and are being monitored by intelligence agencies.

Brazilian authorities have formed an Integrated Anti-Terrorism Centre (Ciant) for the Olympics and are working with security agencies from the US, UK, France, Spain, Belgium, Paraguay and Argentina.

“We did a scan on all national databases and also, in the spirit of international cooperation, a trace of information with these global partners,” Andrei Augusto Passos Rodrigues, national security coordinator for Rio 2016, told magazine show Fantastico on Sunday night.

“Approximately 460,000 inspections were done and of these, around 11,000 were not recommended for accreditation.”

There were also more than 60 Brazilians with active warrants who applied for accreditation for the Olympics, Mr Rodrigues added.

Accreditation for the Games is required for all media, VIPs, officials, athletes and other staff who require access to restricted areas and also acts as a visa for entry to Brazil. Authorities did not say in what capacity the four suspects had applied nor from which country.

Officers at the Ciant centre, which is headquartered in the capital, Brasília, are monitoring Rio 24 hours a day.

Among the areas covered are hotels where Olympic officials and VIPs will stay, Games venues and training sites.

On Friday, Brazilian authorities deported a French-Algerian particle physicist who had been convicted of terror-related crimes and was working as a visiting professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).

Security forces also carried out an anti-terror training exercise on Saturday at one of the stations near the Deodoro Olympic venue cluster.

Cristiano Sampaio, general coordinator for public security at the Games, said there was no identified threat of a terror attack against Brazil but said the level of alert had been raised since the Bastille Day attack in Nice.

“Today, in the absence of a concrete threat to Brazil, we are on yellow alert, which is characterised by increased attention and the level of response in relation to everyday life,” he said.

“This can develop into an orange or red alert according to any specific threat that is identified in relation to Brazil.”

Brazil to Boost Rio Olympics Security After Nice Attack

Brazil had already planned to deploy 85,000 police and soldiers to provide security for the Rio Olympics to be held from August 5 to 21.

Brasilia: Brazil said Friday it will bolster security for next month’s Olympics in Rio following the truck attack in the French city of Nice.

Brazil’s interim president Michel Temer held an emergency meeting with his intelligence chief and members of his cabinet late Friday to weigh the next steps after the Nice attack, which killed at least 84 people.

As he left the meeting, intelligence chief Sergio Etchegoyen said new security measures would include extra checkpoints, barricades and traffic restrictions.

Brazil had already planned to deploy 85,000 police and soldiers to provide security for the Olympics — running August 5-21 — double the number used in the 2012 London Games.

Heightened fears, heightened security

Etchegoyen said fears over security at the Rio Games had “gone up a notch” after the attack in Nice, where a Tunisian-born man drove a 19-tonne white truck into a huge crowd gathered to watch the annual Bastille Day fireworks display on Thursday, leaving a gruesome trail of bodies in his wake.

“We’re trading a little comfort for a lot more security,” he told a press conference at the presidential offices.

Brazilian intelligence officials met with French counterparts for a briefing on the Nice attack, he said.

Defense Minister Raul Jungmann expressed “worries” over the Nice attack.

“This worry will translate to more checkpoints, security, staff and procedures being put in place,” he told reporters at an air force base near the Rio international airport.

Jungmann said Brazil is corresponding with all 106 countries sending representatives to the event’s international intelligence center.

“As of now, none of these countries have informed us of a potential or concrete threat of a terrorist attack in Brazil,” Jungmann said.

Brazil is already on alert after the French military intelligence chief said France had been informed of a planned terror attack on its team at the Rio Olympics.

In June, Brazil’s intelligence service said it had detected Portuguese-language messages linked to the Islamic State group on an online forum.

An even more explicit warning came after bloody attacks in Paris in November, when a French jihadist tweeted that Brazil was the “next target.”

Jungmann said officials will supervise the Olympic delegations based on the security threat they face, with countries including the United States and France labeled as high-risk.

“The dozen or so countries in that group will have special accompaniment,” Jungmann said.

Simulation exercises

Security services staged simulation exercises in Rio to test counterterrorism response plans.

Another exercise on “confronting external threats” is planned for Saturday at the railway station in Deodoro, one of four Olympic zones in Rio along with Maracana, Copacabana and Barra da Tijuca.

Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes and Olympic organizing committee president Carlos Nuzman met with federal and regional government officials to assess plans, notably discussing a potential increase in street blockades.