Past and a Present Secret of the Waldorf Astoria

Posted on by

More than once I personally was an overnight guest at the Waldorf Astoria and it is a tradition to visit the famous hotel when visiting New York. The hotel holds many secrets and some fascinating facts.

It’s Called the Presidential Suite for a Reason
It’s not the finest suite in the city or even at the Waldorf Astoria, but unique amenities like multiple adjacent rooms for staff, bulletproof glass windows, and an interior design similar to the White House make this grand accommodation high up on the 35th floor the number one choice of sitting presidents when they visit New York. Every president since Herbert Hoover has stayed here, including President Obama, who sleeps here every time he’s in town. Each president has also left the hotel a gift that is now featured in the suite (JFK left a rocking chair), so check back in a couple years to see what Obama leaves.

Famous Faces Moving In
There have been several notable Americans to call the hotel home over the years including Herbert Hoover (after his presidency), Cole Porter, Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra and three five-star generals (MacArthur, Eisenhower & Bradley). These guests didn’t just book a room or suite for the weekend. They rented one-of-a-kind apartments. There are several residential units in the hotel, located on the 28th to 42nd floors known as the Waldorf Towers. These are some of New York’s most desired homes, the smallest coming it at 1,600 square feet and many with a private terrace. All include 24-hour maid service, a private entrance and sky high price tags—some of these rent for upwards of $100,000 per month.

***But there is more.

A secretive U.S. government agency has cleared the way for a giant Chinese insurance firm to buy New York’s fabled Waldorf Astoria after a national security review that likely imposed conditions on the purchase.

Anbang Insurance Group Co. in Beijing announced the blockbuster deal. Hilton Worldwide, which sold the iconic hotel for $1.95 billion, confirmed its approval but declined to comment. The sale is expected to close on March 31.

“At this point, Anbang Insurance Group’s acquisition of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York has formally completed all the relevant procedures,” the Chinese conglomerate said in a statement.

The deal’s approval represents a precedent-setting action by the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States as it moves to vet major real estate transactions for national security implications.

In the past, the focus of the panel known by its acronym CFIUS has been on protecting foreigners’ access to sensitive data, classified information and high-tech equipment through purchases of American firms, many of which were government contractors.

The panel took up the Waldorf Astoria sale because the hotel serves as the home-away-from-home for presidents visiting New York and provides a residence for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, currently Samantha Power. Foreign dignitaries and celebrities also stay at the Art Deco landmark. Christopher Brewster, a Washington lawyer with Stroock & Stroock and Lavan who represents Chinese and other foreign businesses seeking to buy American companies, said CFIUS all but certainly would have required key mitigation measures in order to sanction the Waldorf Astoria deal.

“There would need to be certain protections put in place to ensure the integrity of the telecommunications systems used by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and to ensure that there is adequate physical security,” Brewster told McClatchy on Tuesday.

“There could very well be restrictions on access to the hotel by the foreign owners, restrictions on the staffing of certain positions and other management controls,” Brewster said.

It is even possible, Brewster said, that CFIUS required day-to-day management of the hotel to be limited to American citizens, perhaps under the oversight of a top boss vetted by the secretive agency.

“The idea that CFIUS would clear this transaction and then just walk away from it seems to me far-fetched,” Brewster said. “I have to believe that they required some kind of protections to be put in place.”

The original sales agreement granted Hilton management rights at the Waldorf Astoria for 100 years.

After controversial purchases of American properties in the 1970s by Japanese and Arab firms, President Gerald Ford established CFIUS in 1976 via executive order, and Congress later codified it into law.

The committee, whose work is classified, does not comment on its cases. It is chaired by the Treasury secretary, who is joined by the secretaries of Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State and Energy, along with the Attorney General. The U.S. trade representative and the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy also belong.

As China in recent years has surged to the front of countries with foreign firms buying American companies, CFIUS has focused increased attention to some of its acquisitions.

After a lengthy review, CFIUS in September 2013 approved the purchase of Smithfield Foods Inc., the world’s largest pork producer, to Hong Kong-based Shuanghui International Holdings.

“A lot of people were laughing at the idea of CFIUS reviewing pig farms,” Brewster said Tuesday. “But the food supply has been recognized as part of the critical infrastructure of the United States. Smithfield plays a major role in the U.S. food sector, feeding our troops and supplying commissaries.”

In a more contentious case, CFIUS in 2012 denied the bid by Chinese-owned Ralls Corp. to buy a group of wind farms in Oregon, saying they were too close to a major U.S. naval base. After President Barack Obama rejected Ralls’ appeal of the decision, the Chinese firm sued him and CFIUS. A federal court last year ruled that Ralls’ constitutional due process rights had been violated and ordered the U.S. government to provide the company hundreds of previously concealed documents supporting its denial of the deal.

The 47-story Waldorf was the world’s biggest hotel when built in 1931 at its current location on New York’s Park Avenue between East 49th and East 50th Streets, about 10 blocks from the Grand Central train station.

An underground train transports presidents and other dignitaries from Grand Central to the Waldorf, carrying Secret Service limousines and other security vehicles.

Every White House occupant since Herbert Hoover has stayed in the hotel’s Presidential Suite on the 35th floor, with each U.S. leader leaving a gift.

Frank Sinatra, Cole Porter, Grace Kelly and Gen. Douglas MacArthur are among the many celebrities who’ve lived in the Waldorf’s palatial rooms and apartments, which feature around-the-clock food delivery and maid service.

Aaron Radelet, Hilton’s vice president for corporate communications, told McClatchy in October, when the Anbang purchase was first announced, that the iconic property would “undergo a major renovation” as part of the deal.

As China has quietly increased its investment in the United States, Beijing and Washington have engaged in more public political spats around accusations of spying and computer hacking.

In its most recent annual report to Congress, CFIUS disclosed that in 2012, for the first time, it had done more national security reviews of transactions involving China than of those involving any other country.

 

Defense Intelligence Agency on Global Threats

Posted on by

Worldwide Threat Scope, Complexity on the Rise

Taken in aggregate, recent political, military, social and technological developments have created security challenges more diverse and complex than any the nation has ever experienced, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress Feb. 3.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of worldwide threats, Stewart was joined by Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, Joint Staff director for operations, and Mark S. Chandler, acting director for intelligence for the Joint Staff.

“Our challenges range from highly capable near-peer competitors, to empowered individuals with nefarious intentions. Increasing demands, coupled with today’s challenging fiscal environment, have stressed our defense intelligence establishments and forced us to accept greater risk,” Stewart said.

The existing strategic environment isn’t going away any time soon, he said.

The increasing scope, volatility and complexity of threats are “the new normal,” Stewart said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency is focused on three areas of special concern, the general said.

Military Competitors

“Capable military competitors — Russian military activity, for example — [are] at historically high levels,” he said. “Moscow is pursuing aggressive foreign and defense policies, including conducting destabilizing operations in the Ukraine, conducting a record number of out of area naval operations and increasing its long-range aviation patrols.

“In addition,” Stewart continued, “Beijing is focused on building a modern military capable of achieving success on a 21st century battlefield and advancing its core interests — which include maintaining its sovereignty, protecting its territorial integrity and projecting its regional influence.”

Breakdown of Law and Order

Vulnerable and ungoverned territory is on the rise due to the erosion of moderate and secular Islamic states, Stewart said.

“While coalition strikes have degraded [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s] ability to operate openly in Iraq and Syria, the group retains the ability to conduct limited offensive operations and is seeking to expand its presence and influence beyond these two countries,” he said. “Governments in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon are under stress from a variety of sources, thereby reducing their capability as a region to confront the threat posed by violent extremists.”

And the breakdown of order in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and northern Nigeria has created “fertile spawning grounds” for terrorist organizations with far-reaching influence, the general said.

Space, Cyber Threats

The space and cyber domains are increasingly threatened, he said. Russia and China are recognizing the strategic value of space and are focusing on diminishing the advantages held by the U.S. and its allies.

“Both countries are conducting anti-satellite research and developing anti-satellite weapons, with the intent of denying the U.S. the use of space in the event of conflict,” Stewart said.

For the Defense Department, the cyber threat is particularly alarming because of the interconnected nature of weapons, communications and networks, he said.

“At low cost, with limited technical expertise, our adversaries have the potential to cause severe damage and disruption to U.S. systems, leaving little or no footprint behind,” the general said. And the speed and influence of mobile communications and social media have the potential to magnify international crises and shorten an already compressed decision-making cycle, Stewart added.

Sequestration

The demand for intelligence has never been greater, he said, but sequestration and operational demands have forced the military intelligence community to accept increased risk.

This “will have a direct and lasting impact on our ability to provide high-quality, nuanced intelligence required by policy makers and war fighters. I fear that the true cost of these difficult choices today may be paid on the battlefield of the future,” the general said.

*** Is war between Hezbollah and Israel inevitable?

The delicate status quo, which has ensured peace between Hezbollah and Israel since the 2006 war, is rapidly unravelling. After that war, both Hezbollah and Israel subscribed to a deterrence theory, which stood the test of time. Until two weeks ago.

Now, tensions between the two sides are at their highest since the last ceasefire. Indeed, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Monday that a third Lebanon war is now inevitable.

On Jan. 18, an Israeli helicopter gunship hit a convoy of vehicles in the Syrian province of Quneitra. The attack killed six Hezbollah operatives, one of whom was Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated by Israel in an operation involving the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, as the Washington Post revealed last week.

The hope on the Israeli side must have been that Hezbollah would not seek immediate retaliation for the Jan. 18 attack. It was not to be. On Jan. 28, Hezbollah attacked an Israeli convoy in broad daylight in the Shebaa Farms, an area long occupied by Israel but claimed by Lebanon. Two Israelis were killed, a major and a sergeant of the Israel Defence Forces.

This escalation is happening at a time of important shifts in the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Israel.

One development, of concern to Israel, is the deepening of relations between Hezbollah and Iran in recent weeks. One day before Hezbollah’s attack on Israeli forces, Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, met with the Iranian Major General Qasem Suleimani, the legendary commander of the Iranian al-Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Although the two men had met many times before, this is the first known meeting in Lebanon that has been publicized.

The meeting was all the more remarkable because of the publicity given to it. Suleimani paid respects to Hezbollah fighters killed by Israel and also visited the grave of Jihad Mughniyeh.

Hezbollah has also declared, in a recent statement, that it no longer recognizes the rules of engagement with Israel that were mediated, on an informal basis, by the United Nations in order to prevent clashes. Hezbollah’s declaration is a tacit rejection of the de facto understanding between the two bitter foes that has existed for years and has, up until now, ensured peace.

In a defiant statement after Hezbollah’s attack, Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s rejection of previous the rules defining Hezbollah’s policy towards Israel. It was this status quo that had, for example, allowed for the group to negotiate a swap of its prisoners in exchange for Israeli war dead in 2008. In a clear departure from the past, where Hezbollah would not take revenge on Israeli attacks, Nasrallah stressed that the group has the right to respond in any way or time it deems fit.

“If Israel is banking that we fear war, then I tell it that we do not fear war and we will not hesitate in waging it if it is imposed on us,” he continued. “We did not hesitate in making the decision that Israel should be punished for its crime in Quneitra even if it meant going to an all-out war,” he revealed, an admission he may regret.

“The Israeli people discovered that their leadership put them on the brink of war, jeopardizing their economy and security,” he added in the wake of the operation. “Israel learned that it should not test us again given the Quneitra strike and Shebaa Farms operation,” he warned.

Not surprisingly these are not the conclusions that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Jerusalem are likely to draw.

There has been a dangerous deterioration in Israel’s strategic position because of the open boast by Nasrallah that it is now fighting Israel not only from the Blue Line with Lebanon, but, also, on Syria’s frontline with Israel in the Golan. In other words, Hezbollah’s front with Israel now extends from the Mediterranean all the way to the disputed Golan on the Syrian border. Israel is unlikely to leave a threat like that unanswered. Moreover, Israel never shrinks from retaliation when its soldiers are killed, and especially when one of them is a middle-ranking officer.

But the strategic options before Netanyahu are limited. A further strike at Hezbollah will lead to a major war that would probably eclipse that of 2006 in its severity. Moreover, the prime minister will be conscious of the fact that elections are to be held in Israel on March 17. He may not want become embroiled in a war right now for that reason.

Despite these difficulties, some new realities would work in Israel’s favor. Netanyahu knows that, unlike during the 2006 war, Hezbollah would not find much support from the Arab world in the eventuality of a conflict with Israel. Deep sectarianism between Sunni and Shi’ites across the region means that few Arab states would be upset today by an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, the stalwart defender of the hated Assad regime.

Hezbollah, in other words, is playing a dangerous game. It may yet find itself wishing to return to the days of stability and peace, which it is abandoning with such troubling rapidity.

 

WH/State Dept. Begging Iran for Deal

Posted on by

A top Iranian military leader claims that U.S. officials have been “begging us” to sign a nuclear deal during closed door negotiations with Tehran over its contested nuclear program, according to recent comments made to the Iranian state-controlled media.

Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the commander of the Basij, a paramilitary group operating under the wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), recently claimed that the “Americans are begging us for a deal on the negotiation table,” according to comments published in Persian and independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.

Naghdi added that American officials routinely “plea” with Iran in talks and that the United States is negotiating from a position of weakness, according to his comments, which follow earlier reports claiming that Iran’s leading negotiator “frequently shouts” at U.S. officials.

The military leader’s remarks appear to jibe with new reports that the United States is conceding ground to Iran in talks and will now allow it to “keep much of its uranium-enriching technology,” according to the Associated Press.

Iran, the AP reported, “refuses to meet U.S.-led demands for deep cuts in the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium, a process that can create material for anything from chemotherapy to the core of an atomic bomb.”

Regional experts say that the Iranians feel that they are in a position of power in the talks and believe that the Obama administration is desperate to ink a deal.

“Iran feels the administration needs the deal, and this belief is supported by the way the administration is acting,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

America’s “hostility toward its traditional allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, is at its historical peak and the Obama administration either supports Iran to expand its influence in the region or at least does not oppose it at all,” Ghasseminejad explained. “Iran feels as long as the negotiation is going on, it has a green light to do whatever it wants in the region, so why should they bother to sign a deal?”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said a bad nuclear deal would endanger the security of America and its allies.

“The Iranian terror state continues to show its true nature as it sidesteps the international sanctions regime during negotiations, and expands its threat into Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Worse, the administration’s reported nuclear concessions to Ayatollah Khamenei will only keep Iran at the threshold of getting nuclear bombs.  A bad nuclear deal will further empower Iran and endanger the security of America, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East.”

As the nuclear talks continue, Iranian leaders have stepped up their rhetoric against the United States, with top officials declaring that “Iran prepares itself for war with global powers.”

Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the IRGC, celebrated a recent attack on Israel by the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah and promised that Tehran is readying itself to go to war with America.

“Iran prepares itself for war with global powers, and the Israeli’s are much smaller than them,” Salami was quoted as saying by the state-controlled Fars New Agency (FNA).

“The response of Hezbollah to the Zionist regime shows a quick reaction, clear will, and their iron-like strength, resistance, and power,” he added. Salami also reiterated Iran’s commitment to fund and arm Palestinian terror groups. “Opening up a new front across the West Bank, which is a major section of our dear Palestine, will be certainly on the agenda, and this is part of a new reality that will gradually emerge,” Salami said in a recent television interview. Similar remarks were made by Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s commander, who celebrated Hezbollah’s “martyrdom” and vowed that the “fight against Zionists would not be brought to a halt.” While U.S. officials have claimed multiple times in recent months that progress is being made in the talks, Iranian officials deny that this is the case. Abbas Araqchi, a top Iranian negotiator, said in recent days that it is too early to say that progress has been made. “We still are not in a position where we can say we have had progress,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by the FNA. “It is still too early to judge.” “If the counterpart shows realism, political resolve, and good will, we believe we are not so far from reaching an agreement,” he said.

*** But there is more to understand.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Tehran and P5+1 mediators will make all possible efforts to establish a general political framework for Iran’s nuclear deal in March, the head of Iran’s expert team at talks on Iran’s nuclear program said Wednesday.
Iran and the P5+1 group of international mediators, comprising Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, are in talks to clinch a comprehensive agreement to end more than a decade of impasse over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program.

“All efforts will be made to develop the political framework of the agreement in March,” Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Director General for Political and International Security Affairs Hamid Baeidinejad told reporters in Moscow after meetings with Russian officials to coordinate Iran-Russia cooperation in talks.
Baedinejad added that the date for the next round of Iran nuclear talks had not been determined yet. *** Yet Iran has other attitudes towards to United States.

A senior Iranian commander has dismissed as “meddlesome” the recent US claims that Tehran’s defense might would be part of the nuclear talks with six world powers, saying Iran’s missile capability is non-negotiable.

“Iran’s missile programs and defense capability, irrespective of their purpose, are not negotiable in any foreign circle,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said on Wednesday.

“We don’t allow the US and others to interfere in the country’s defense affairs,” he added.

The commander underlined that Iran will use its defense might against bullying powers whenever it deems necessary.

He said Iran’s military might serves to defend the nations, adding that if the US oversteps the red lines, then it will have to be worried about Iran’s missiles.

“Gone are the days when the US was a superpower, but some still haven’t realized it,” he said.

Jazayeri’s comments came in reaction to the Monday remarks by US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who claimed that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities are part of the ongoing talks between Tehran and the P5+1 group of world powers over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

In relevant remarks on Tuesday, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi rejected Psaki’s claims, saying that Tehran’s “missile program has a completely defensive nature and the Islamic Republic of Iran does not regard the country’s defense issues as negotiable and will not hold such negotiations with any foreign side.”

Araqchi, who is also Iran’s deputy foreign minister for Legal and International Affairs, said that in line with Tehran’s nuclear talks with the P5+1 countries, no permission has been or will be issued in the future to hold negotiations on Iran’s defense and missile capabilities.

Iran and the P5+1 group – Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany – are in talks to secure a final comprehensive deal over Tehran’s nuclear work.

Since an interim deal was agreed in the Swiss city of Geneva in November 2013, the negotiating sides have missed two self-imposed deadlines to ink a final agreement.

Iran and the P5+1 countries now seek to reach a high-level political agreement by March 1 and to confirm the full technical details of the accord by July 1.

Inside ‘No-Go’ Zones

Posted on by

  Video: Russian reporter pays a visit to Paris’s Muslim no-go zones    Paris video is here. The police force in Sweden has identified no go zones with the video here.

Russian TV made a program about Paris’s ever expanding Muslim no-go zones to show Russia where it is heading by letting in Muslim migrants. No one is safe from these vile, savaged, violent and horrid Muslim immigrants who contribute nothing but human degradation on society. The Muslims attack non-Muslims, threaten children in schools forcing them to eat only halal food whether they are Muslim or not, burn cars, buildings and surroundings to generate the fire brigade and police so they can attack them. Like in Britain these savages have filled France with rapes, murder, harassment, violence, threats, genital mutilation, honor murders – all typical for the followers of prophet Mohammed.
And like everywhere else these immigrants settle, they immediately exploit the welfare system and are dragging the French economy into a black endless abyss. In addition, as if that is not enough, Muslims are so criminalized that 70% of the entire prison population in the whole country is – Muslim.
France is the founding father of Eurabia and responsible for the enforced Muslim immigration on the Western world in a Euro-Arab pact signed in the 1970’s created by Charles de Gaulle.  The French should perhaps think to celebrate de Gaulle’s anniversary by urinating on his miserable grave for the treason and damage he did to his country, which has completely destroyed the structure of the French culture and the safety of the people.

*** Going deeper into what is behind no go zones:

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of “ethnic cleansing” by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of “hate crimes” for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: “How dare you come to a Muslim area.”

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

Obama Gives Legitimacy to Iran After This?

Posted on by

The background on Iran and then today as the White House and State Department force Iran to be accepted on the world stage. It all defies logic and it creates a real question about overlooking an act of war by Iran then negotiating with Iran.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES IRAN BEHIND 9/11 ATTACKS

December 23, 2011

 

A federal district court in Manhattan yesterday entered a historic ruling that reveals new facts about Iran’s support of al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.

 

Judge Daniels had announced his ruling in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., in open court on Thursday, December 15, 2011, following a three-hour courtroom presentation by the families’ attorneys. Judge Daniels entered a written Order of Judgment yesterday backed by 53 pages of detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

 

Fiona Havlish, whose husband Donald perished in the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11 said, “This is a historic day. For ten years we’ve wanted the truth to be known about who was responsible for our losses. Now we have that answer.”

 

Ellen Saracini, the wife of United Airlines 175 pilot Victor Saracini, which the hijackers crashed into the WTC South Tower, said after the hearing last Thursday, “We just came from Judge Daniels’ court where he ruled in favor of holding accountable those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11… I just smiled up to Victor and I said we’re still thinking about you … we’re there for you … we’ll always be there for you. But today’s very special.”

 

In Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Judge Daniels held that the Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Iran’s agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (“MOIS”), and Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11.

 

“The families have waited a very long time for this day and they have been through a lot. So I was greatly relieved that the families received an answer to the question that they asked me ten years ago: they asked who was the responsible party? How did this happen? Today a federal court judge has said that a principal responsible party is the Islamic Republic of Iran,” said Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly, the lead attorney for the Havlish plaintiffs.

 

The evidence was developed over a seven-year international investigation by the Havlish attorneys who pursued the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers, following the Commission’s own eleventh-hour discovery of significant National Security Agency (“NSA”) intercepts: “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.” 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, p. 241. The Havlish evidence included sworn testimony and affidavits from the following:

 

  • Ten expert witnesses including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, two former CIA case officers, two investigative journalists, and an Iran analyst who has testified in 25 cases involving Iranian terrorism.

 

  • Three Iranian defectors who were operatives of MOIS and the IRGC. Witness X, whose dramatic testimony was previously filed under seal, was revealed to be Abolghasem Mesbahi, a former MOIS operative in charge of Iran’s espionage operations in Western Europe. Judge Daniels found that Mesbahi has testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists, including the Mykonos case in Germany and the AMIA case in Argentina, and found to be highly reliable and credible.

 

Judge Daniels also credited Mesbahi’s testimony that he received messages during the summer of 2001 from inside the Iranian government that an Iranian contingency plan for unconventional warfare against the U.S. called “Shaitan dar Atash” had been activated. “This is compelling proof that Iran was deeply involved in the 9/11 conspiracy,” said Tim Fleming, lead investigative attorney for the Havlish group. Included among Judge Daniels’ findings in Havlish are the following:

 

  • Members of the 9/11 Commission staff testified that Iran aided the hijackers by concealing their travel through Iran to access al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Iranian border inspectors refrained from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report addressed these facts and called for further investigation. 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT at pp. 240-41.

 

  • Expert and U.S. government evidence also confirmed that Iran facilitated the escape of al Qaeda leaders and members from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan into Iran and provided safe haven inside Iran after 9/11.

 

  • Abolghasem Mesbahi testified he was part of an IRGC-MOIS task force that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the U.S., code-named “Shaitan dar Atash” (“Satan in Flames”) which included crashing hijacked passenger airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. During the weeks before 9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside Iran’s government indicating that the Shaitan dar Atash plan had been activated.

 

  • Mesbahi also testified that in 2000 Iran used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757- 767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists. Due to U.S. trade sanctions, Iran has never had any Boeing 757-767-777 aircraft, but all the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft.

 

  • A May 14, 2001 memorandum from inside the Iranian government demonstrating that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was aware of the impending attacks and instructing intelligence operatives to restrict communications to existing contacts with al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri and Hizballah’s Imad Mughniyah. – Documents obtained from German federal prosecutors showing that 9/11 coordinator Ramzi Binalshihb traveled to Iran in January 2001 on his way to Afghanistan to brief Osama bin Laden on the plot’s progress. – Evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report that a “senior Hezbollah operative,” which the Havlish evidence identifies as Hezbollah terrorist chief Imad Mughniyah, coordinated activities in Saudi Arabia and was present (or his associate) on flights the hijackers took to and from Beirut and Iran. 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT at pp. 240-41. Mughniyah, a longtime agent of Iran, orchestrated a string of terror operations against the U.S. and Israel during the 1980s and 1990s. He was assassinated in Syria in February of 2008.

Attorneys emphasized that it is important to understand that Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. The attorneys cited their national security and intelligence experts, including Dr. Patrick Clawson, Dr. Bruce Tefft, Clare Lopez, Kenneth Timmerman, Dr. Ronen Bergman, Edgar Adamson, and 9/11 Commission staff members Dietrich Snell, Dr. Daniel Byman, and Janice Kephart, as well as the published writings of Robert Baer, to explain how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”). Iran and Hezbollah then provided training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings. The Iran-Hezbollah-al Qaeda alliance led to terror strikes against the U.S. at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia (1996), the simultaneous U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole (2000). Shortly after the Cole attack, Iran was facilitating the international travel of the 9/11 hijackers.
“It was a wonderful day. A great day where the truth was finally revealed in a court of law with strong, strong evidence. The judge allowed us to put on and present all the evidence that we had filed directly or under seal and he accepted it and made a ruling in our favor,” said Dennis Pantazis, one of the Havlish attorneys. “Now we go on to prove damages for each one of the family members,” he added.

 

The case is Fiona Havlish, et al v. Usama Bin Laden, et al, 03-CV-9848 (GBD), and is part of the consolidated proceeding In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD).

 

Click these links to access:

Press Contacts:
Email:  [email protected]
Toll-free telephone:  800-348-7705
215-348-7700

 

 

 

FLIGHT 93 HERO’S FAMILY AND OTHER 9/11 FAMILIES FILE NEW LAWSUIT AGAINST IRAN

September 8, 2011.

 

Attorneys representing families of 9/11 victims today are filing their second lawsuit against Iran asserting evidence that Iran played a key role in planning and facilitating the 9/11 attacks.  The new case, Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., is being filed in federal court by the same attorneys who have been litigating Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., now pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

 

Alice Hoagland, lead plaintiff in the new Bingham case, is the mother of 9/11 hero Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on United Flight 93 who stormed the cockpit to try to re-take control of the aircraft from the terrorist hijackers.  In the ensuing struggle for the cockpit, the hijackers were forced to crash the plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania before it could reach its intended target, which is believed to be the White House or the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.  Their heroic actions saved the lives of countless people.
“Mark Bingham and other passengers on Flight 93 gave their lives for their country, without any knowledge on that morning they would have to do it, yet they proceeded without hesitation.  We, their survivors, deserve to know why they had to give their lives and who was supporting, aiding and abetting al Qaeda.  Our whole country deserves to know,” said Mark Bingham’s mother.
On May 19, 2011, the lawyers filed papers in federal court in Manhattan disclosing for the first time that Iran’s and Hizballah’s terrorist leader, Imad Mughniyah, was an active participant in escorting 9/11 hijackers through Iran and into Afghanistan for terrorist training, and in assisting  the hijackers to obtain “clean” passports and visas enabling entry into the United States.  Also, the attorneys for the families have filed evidence establishing that top Iranian officials assisted al Qaeda leadership and operatives to escape to Iran from Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in the wake of 9/11.  Iran then provided safe haven and support for these al Qaeda members inside Iran.
In July, the Havlish attorneys filed under seal the sworn testimony of three defectors from Iran’s intelligence agency, the Ministry of Information and Security.  The 25 hours of sworn testimony of the three defectors, recorded on videotape, shows Iran’s key role, involving top Iranian government officials, in the planning and preparation for the 9/11 attacks.  Lead attorney Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania of the law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly stated that “our ten experts, including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, have stated the evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ that the Islamic Republic of Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that Iran’s agent Hizballah was a direct participant.”
One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Havlish and Bingham, Timothy Fleming of the Washington, D.C. office of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, in Birmingham, Alabama, said, “Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Iran has been shown to be a key al Qaeda supporter.  It is well known that Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism throughout the world for the last thirty years.  The Havlish and Bingham cases will hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of al Qaeda and 9/11.”
On July 28, 2011, the Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Treasury said that Iran has been supporting al Qaeda by permitting terrorist operatives, recruits, and cash to be transported across Iran’s territory to al Qaeda camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  In a Treasury Department press release, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence said, “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today.  By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al-Qa‘ida allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism.”
Former CIA case officers and nationally recognized terrorism analysts also support the Havlish and Bingham cases’ proof.  Their sworn affidavits disclosing and analyzing Iran’s involvement can be found on the internet at www.iran911case.com.
Janice Kephart, a former staff counsel to the 9/11 Commission, was specifically involved in the 9/11 Commission’s investigation regarding how the 9/11 hijackers attained entry into the United States.  Havlish attorneys submitted Kephart’s sworn affidavit to federal judge George B. Daniels in which Kephart noted that “the 9/11 terrorists had engaged in a specific terrorist travel operation.  In other words, not only did the four nearly simultaneous hijackings of four commercial airplanes constitute a coordinated operation, but so did the hijackers’ travel.”  Kephart also states that, because Iran assisted al Qaeda to acquire “clean” passports and visas, “there is clear and convincing evidence that Iran and Hizbollah provided material support to al Qaeda by actively facilitating the travel of eight to ten of the 9/11 hijackers to Iran or Beirut immediately after their acquisition of the U.S. visas, into and out of Afghanistan, and that these U.S. visas were garnered specifically for the purpose of terrorist travel into the United States to carry out the 9/11 attacks.”  As the Kephart affidavit states, “for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.”
A Senior Counsel on the staff of the 9/11 Commission, Dietrich L. Snell was the leader of the Commission staff team investigating the 9/11 plot.  Snell’s affidavit, also submitted to Judge Daniels in May, states that “there is clear and convincing evidence pointing to the involvement on the part of Hizbollah and Iran in the 9/11 attack, especially as it pertains to travel facilitation and safe haven.”
“We need to have the entire truth revealed regarding who was involved in 9/11, that’s the only way for there to be closure for the families of the victims of 9/11,” said Ellen Saracini, wife of Victor Saracini, Captain of United Flight 175, which was the aircraft that hit the World Trade Center South Tower.
Fiona Havlish, whose husband Donald Havlish died in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, added, “We welcome the addition of more people to the legal cases against Iran.  It’s important that people stand up against the world’s principal state sponsor of terror because, unless we do, 9/11 could happen again.”

 

Attorneys in the case, as well as Alice Hoagland, Fiona Havlish, Ellen Saracini, and others, are available for interviews. 

For further story information, see the Havlish & Bingham website at www.iran911case.com.
Or contact:

Email:  [email protected]
Toll-free telephone:  800-348-7705
215-348-7700

 

 

9/11 LAWSUIT REVEALS IRAN’S DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 PLOT

May 19, 2011.  Attorneys representing families of 9/11 victims today are informing a federal court in Manhattan that they are filing comprehensive evidence that Iran played a key role in planning and facilitating the 9/11 attacks and called on the U.S. Government to declassify documents detailing what the U.S. intelligence community knew about Iran’s relationship to al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.  “Today, nearly a decade after the attacks that took so many of our loved ones away, we believe

 

the 9/11 families and the American people deserve to know the full truth about Iran’s complicity,” said Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly, the lead attorney in Havlish, et al. v. bi Laden, et al., now pending in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

“We simply want to make sure that those who are responsible for assisting the September 11 terrorists in their attack on the United States are found accountable for the harm they caused,” said Fiona Havlish whose husband, Donald, perished on the 101st floor of the North Tower.

Representing eight law firms from across the United States, the attorneys and their team of investigators have turned up convincing evidence that Imad Mughniyah was the main liaison between Iran’s leadership and al Qaeda and that Mughniyah played an active role in planning the 9/11 attacks.  Mughniyah, a Lebanese Shiite, was a top commander in Hezbollah, the terrorist organization created and supported by Iran since the early 1980s.  Mughniyah was assassinated on February 14, 2008, in Damascus, Syria.

“Our experts, including three former 9/11 Commission staff members, have stated that the evidence is ‘clear and convincing’ that the Islamic Republic of Iran was involved in the 9/11 attacks,” said Timothy B. Fleming, the lead investigative attorney in the case, of the D.C. office of the firm Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.

“The 9/11 Commission called for further investigation by the U.S. Government into the al Qaeda-Iran-Hezbollah relationship, but until now there’s been no indication that any government agency has taken any action to pursue this matter,” said Mellon.  “Through interviews with former U.S. Government and intelligence officials, members of the 9/11 Commission staff, former Iranian intelligence officers, and a wide variety of non-governmental experts and fact witnesses, we have undertaken this ‘further investigation,’” Mellon added. Before 9/11, the FBI considered Mughniyah to be the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The United States Government has accused Mughniyah of masterminding the April 1983 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, that killed 63 people; the October 1983 simultaneous attacks on the U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers; and the kidnapping and murder of numerous U.S. hostages in Lebanon, including the CIA’s Beirut station chief William Buckley and U.S. Marine Lt. Colonel Richard Higgins.

Mughniyah was also wanted by the FBI for his involvement in the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847 and the murder of U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, and by Interpol for his role in the 1992 attack on the Israeli Embassy, and the July 1994 attack on the AMIA Jewish community center, both in Buenos Aires.

Today, the Havlish attorneys disclosed that they have taken sworn testimony, which will be filed under seal, from former Iranian intelligence operatives describing the direct participation of Imad Mughniyah and top government officials of Iran in the planning of, and preparation for, the 9/11 attacks.

These witnesses also describe the roles of Mughniyah and top Iranian officials in assisting al Qaeda leadership and operatives to escape from Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in the wake of 9/11.  Iran then provided safe haven and support for these al Qaeda members inside Iran.

“The 9/11 Commission discovered, just days before publication of its report, important U.S. intelligence documents that detailed Iran’s involvement in aiding and abetting the 9/11 plot,” Mellon pointed out.

On page 240 of its final report, the 9/11 Commission stated that “a senior Hezbollah operative visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there,” and that this “senior Hezbollah operative” and his associate were on the same air flights as several of the future hijackers who were traveling to and from Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

“We have compelling evidence that the ‘senior Hezbollah operative’ was Imad Mughniyah,” added Dennis G. Pantazis, of the Birmingham, Alabama law firm of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis.

“Imad Mughniyah was known to be an agent of Iran, running terrorist operations for Iran and Hezbollah.  Mughniyah’s participation in the hijackers’ preparations for the 9/11 attacks leaves no doubt that Iran was directly involved in, and had foreknowledge of, a planned terrorist attack on the U.S.,” Mellon said.  “Discoveries about Mughniyah’s role are very important because, as found by the 9/11 Commission, ‘after 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda,’” Fleming added.

The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has already entered a default against the Iranian government defendants, and the Havlish Plaintiffs now ask the Court, based on all the evidence, to enter judgment against Iran.

The case appears as In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD): Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-9848 (GBD).  Over the past nine years, the eight law firms of the Havlish consortium have invested thousands of hours of time to investigate Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

“When Tim Fleming and I joined this coalition of attorneys representing the 9/11 families, our immediate and ultimate goal was to provide the families with a full accounting of what happened, how it happened, and who was responsible for that terrible day in September 2001,” said Pantazis.

“Developing evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda regarding the events of 9/11 is like putting together a large jigsaw puzzle where many of the pieces are missing and will never be found.  Still, the picture is clear that Iran’s and Hezbollah’s complicity cannot be seriously challenged,” said Mellon.  “Over the last nine years, after interviewing dozens of people, reviewing hundreds of documents, and consulting with many experts in the field, we have developed a strong evidentiary case of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks,” Mellon added.

“These families have waited nearly ten years to hear the truth.  Under the scrutiny of a federal Judge, hopefully this will be accomplished in the next few months,” Pantazis said.

Ellen Saracini, the widow of Victor Saracini, Captain of United Flight 175, which was the second aircraft to hit the World Trade Center, stated, “The September 11 attacks were an attack on the American way of life and on the American belief in a civil society where we respect others and resolve our differences in an orderly and peaceful way.  It is only appropriate that those who are attacking our way of life are found accountable in our American system.”

Attorneys in the case, as well as leading Plaintiff Ellen Saracini, and others, are available for interviews.

 

 

 

 

The Havlish plaintiffs initiated this action in February, 2002.

The lead plaintiff, Fiona Havlish is the surviving spouse of Donald Havlish who was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 on the 101st floor of the South Tower while working for AON, Inc.  Additionally, the action was brought by six other individuals representing their loved ones.

Russa Steiner is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of William R. Steiner.  Bill Steiner was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Bill was employed by Marsh, Inc. on the 97th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

 

Clara Chirchirillo is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Peter Chirchirillo.  Peter was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Peter was employed by Marsh, Inc. on the 98th floor of the North Tower in the World Trade Center.

 

Tara Bane is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Michael A. Bane.  Michael Bane was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Michael was employed by Marsh & McLennan Company on the 100th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Grace M. Parkinson-Godshalk is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the mother of William R. Godshalk.  Bill Godshalk was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Bill was employed by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods located on the 89th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

 

Ellen L. Saracini is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Victor J. Saracini.  Vic Saracini was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Vic was employed by United Airlines and was the pilot of United Flight 175 which crashed into the South Tower.

 

Theresann Lostrangio is a resident of Pennsylvania and is the surviving spouse of Joseph Lostrangio.  Joe Lostrangio was killed in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.  Joe was employed by Devonshire Group on the 77th Floor of the North Tower in the World Trade Center.

 

The above named plaintiffs maintain that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 involve the participation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Specifically, proofs filed in the Southern District of New York before The Honorable George B. Daniels maintain there is clear and convincing evidence that Iran provided material support to al Qaeda before, during and after the events of September 11, 2001 especially pertaining to travel facilitation and safe haven.

 

Please see the links to the relevant legal documents regarding the history and background of the Havlish case.

*** Then today:  

Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Perspectives on the Strategic Necessity of Iran Sanctions, on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 27, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

In his January 27, 2015 statement before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a cogent case for Congress dropping the threat of new sanctions on Iran while nuclear talks are ongoing and while the interim Joint Plan of Action (which freezes certain Iranian nuclear activities) remains in effect. At the same time, however, he claimed that the administration would “also continue to hold [Iran] accountable for its actions on other fronts.” After going down an impressive list of Iranian transgressions, Blinken noted, “Similarly, we have called out Iran for its support of the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

“Calling out” someone is a staple of the American schoolyard. Although there is something to be said for publicly condemning the murderous Syria policies of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Russia’s president, and the like, words unaccompanied by action often fail to produce desired policy results. After mentioning the “call out,” Blinken observed, “We hope that Iran soon recognizes that there is much more to be gained through constructive engagement in the region and promotion of inclusivity than through disruptive policies.”

“Disruptive policies” indeed. When Syria’s Bashar al-Assad decided, in March 2011, that peaceful protest should be put down with lethal violence, he signed death warrants for over 200,000 Syrians. He set in motion a process that would stampede 3.5 million people out of the country, drive another 7 million from their homes within Syria, and incarcerate tens of thousands under conditions featuring torture, starvation, and sexual abuse. His over-the-top repression, replete with strong sectarian overtones, helped to resurrect al-Qaeda in Iraq from the dead and brought it to Syria in the forms of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL or ISIS) and the Nusra Front. In all of this, Assad has had the unflinching and regime-saving support of Iran, which views him as an irreplaceable asset fully in the service of Hezbollah: Iran’s Lebanese missile and rocket pressure point on Israel.

Yes, Iran’s support of Assad has been “disruptive.” Tehran has helped to create the signature humanitarian abomination of the twenty-first century. The costs to the people of Syria have been unspeakable. The prices being paid by Syria’s neighbors—all friends of the United States—are dangerously out of control. Iran’s supporting role in this travesty has also burdened a humane and thoughtful US president with the prospect of a legacy tarnished forever with a Levantine Rwanda: in this case a multi-year program of mass murder whose Iranian facet may account in large measure for the failure of that president to stop or at least mitigate the slaughter.

Evidently, the Obama administration believes that “calling out” Iran and counseling it on the merits of “constructive engagement in the region” are all that can reasonably be expected of the United States so long as nuclear discussions are ongoing. Presumably, the throwing of a spanner into the Assad regime’s ability to unload barrel bombs and chlorine canisters onto residential neighborhoods with absolute impunity would upset Iran, perhaps inspiring the Supreme Leader to abandon the nuclear talks and opt instead for a new wave of economic sanctions while oil prices plunge. Seen from this don’t-rock-the-boat-with-Tehran point of view, the suffering of Syrians merits a “call out” and nothing more.

Perhaps there is also a sense inside the administration that a successful nuclear negotiation will persuade Iran that its penetration of the Arab east should be abandoned: that “constructive engagement in the region and promotion of inclusivity” will be the wave of the future. Leave aside estimates of the numbers of Syrian children yet to be sacrificed before this hypothesis is sufficiently tested. Is there any evidence at all that Iran’s “disruptive” policies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen are somehow linked to the absence of a nuclear understanding with the P5+1? Is there any evidence that the activities of General Suleimani and his Quds Force operatives do not represent a carefully calculated conclusion about Iran’s regional interests, one easily (and perhaps best) pursued without the impediment of destabilizing nuclear weapons? Is all of this some kind of cosmic misunderstanding to be cleared up by arriving at a nuclear agreement?

President Obama has credited himself with “strategic patience.” It is indeed a worthy attribute. But it has nothing to do with doing nothing in the face of mass murder, particularly when doing something—causing, for example, regime helicopters loaded with barrel bombs to fall from the sky—need not involve invasion, occupation, or even a slippery slope. Yes, the Supreme Leader will not like it. He would prefer to be called out. He has no trouble being on the receiving end of earnest, Dutch Uncle advice about avoiding disruptive policies. In the end, however, he has no problem negotiating with the P5+1 while facilitating mass murder in Syria. The United States should not have a problem negotiating with Iran while making impunity more difficult for the murderers.

Frederic C. Hof is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.