WH/State Dept. Begging Iran for Deal

Posted on February 5, 2015February 5, 2015 by Denise Simon

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.

Obama Gives Legitimacy to Iran After This?

Posted on February 4, 2015February 4, 2015 by Denise Simon

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.

Cold War Turning Hot, 90 Miles from our Shore.

Posted on February 2, 2015February 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

Old news is new again when it comes to the relationship between Cuba and Russia. The Cold War is turning hot at the hands of the generosity of Barack Obama normalizing the relationship between the United States and Cuba. How can it be?

Back in 1964, Cuba had an agreement with Russia which allows Moscow to maintain a signals intelligence facility near Havana at Torrens [23°00’01″N 82°28’56″W], also known as Lourdes, which is the largest Russian SIGINT site abroad. The strategic location of Lourdes makes it ideal for gathering intelligence on the United States. It has been reported that the Lourdes facility is the largest such complex operated by the Russian Federation and its intelligence service outside the region of the former Soviet Union. The Lourdes facility is reported to cover a 28 square-mile area with 1,000-1,500 Russian engineers, technicians, and military personnel working at the base. Experts familiar with the Lourdes facility have reportedly confirmed that the base has multiple groups of tracking dishes and its own satellite system, with some groups used to intercept telephone calls, faxes, and computer communications, in general, and with other groups used to cover targeted telephones and devices.

According to American intelligence, an unusually large number of Soviet ships delivered military cargoes to Cuba beginning in late July 1962, to support the construction of a variety of military activities, including setting up facilities for electronic and communications intelligence. In the area just south of Havana city, a number of farms were evacuated and the boys’ reformatory at Torrens, two and one half miles on the road to San Pedro from Havana, was converted for living quarters for numbers of foreign personnel. The numerous Soviet personnel who moved in early in August 1962 wore casual, dirty, civilian clothes.

The SIGINT facility at Lourdes is among the most significant intelligence collection capabilities targeting the United States. This facility, less than 100 miles from Key West, is one of the largest and most sophisticated SIGINT collection facilities in the world. It is jointly operated by Russian military intelligence (GRU), FAPSI, and Cuba’s intelligence services. The Federal Agency for Governent Conununications (FAPSI) evolved in the early 1990’s from the former KGB’s SIGINT service. According to Russian press sources, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) also has a communications center at the facility for its agent network in North and South America.

The complex is capable of monitoring a wide array of commercial and government communications throughout the southeastern United States, and between the United States and Europe. Lourdes intercepts transmissions from microwave towers in the United States, communication satellite downlinks, and a wide range of shortwave and high-frequency radio transmissions. It also serves as a mission ground station and analytical facility supporting Russian SIGINT satellites.

The facility at Lourdes, together with a sister facility in Russia, allows the Russians to monitor all U. S. military and civilian geosynchronous communications satellites. It has been alleged that the Lourdes facility monitors all White House communications activities, launch control communications and telemetry from NASA and Air Force facilities at Cape Canaveral, financial and commodity wire services, and military communications links. According to one source, Lourdes has a special collection and analysis facility that is responsible for targeting financial and political information. This activity is manned by specially selected personnel and appears to be highly successful in providing Russian leaders with political and economic intelligence.

*** Then in 2014, and while Putin was in Cuba, he agreed to forgive 90 percent or $32 billion of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt. This move is now being interpreted as a quid pro quo for reopening the spy base at Lourdes.

It is likely that Russia was motivated to reopen the surveillance station in part because of the Edward Snowden leaks about the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive spying operations. In addition, Ivan Konovalov, head of the Moscow-based Center for Strategic Trends Studies, told Reuters: “One needs to remember that Russia’s technical intelligence abilities are very weak. This will help.” In addition, U.S.-Russian relations have deteriorated sharply since Putin returned to the presidency for a third term in 2012. In fact, U.S. sanctions over the conflict in the Ukraine have led some senior legislators in Russia’s State Duma to advocate withdrawing from the New START nuclear reduction treaty.

During his Latin America trip, Putin also signed agreements with Argentina, Brazil and Cuba to open more positioning stations for Russia’s GLONASS satellite navigation system. *** Then still old news is current news. Nothing has changed in Cuba and why should it when it has worked and fills the pockets of the Castro clan.

When foreign tourists bask in the sun at a Sol Melia or Club Med beach resort in Cuba, get away to one of the island’s remote pristine keys on commuter airline Aerogaviota, visit Havana’s famed Morro Castle, enjoy typical Cuban cuisine at a restaurant, or indulge in a Cohiba cigar after dinner (1), they are also unwittingly contributing to the bottom line of the Cuban military’s diverse business ventures that bring in an estimated US$1 billion a year. (2)

The armed forces are involved not only in the international tourist industry but in the lucrative domestic economy as well. The military-owned retail chain TRD Caribe S.A. operates more than 400 locations throughout the island and caters to Cubans with U.S. dollars. “TRD” is an acronym for “Tiendas de Recuperacion de Divisas,” or foreign currency recovery stores. Employing a Wal-Mart-like strategy, TRD Caribe distinguishes itself from other state-owned competitors by “continuously offering discounts” on Chinese-sourced consumer goods that it reportedly “buys cheap and makes a resale kill” on. (3)

GAESA, or Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (Enterprise Management Group Inc.), is the holding company for the Cuban Defense Ministry’s vast economic interests. Among its more visible subsidiaries are Gaviota S.A., which directly controls 20-25 percent of Cuba’s hotel rooms in partnership with foreign hoteliers, and Aerogaviota, a domestic airline that carries tourists on refurbished Soviet military aircraft flown by Cuban air force pilots. Under GAESA’s management team, Cuba’s military-industrial complex — the Union de la Industria Militar (Defense Industry Group) — provides outsourcing services, such as rental car maintenance and tour bus repairs, to foreign companies and joint ventures on the island.

The man behind the transformation of Cuba’s Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (FAR) into a major economic force is Gen. Raul Castro, Cuba’s defense minister and designated successor to elder brother Fidel. Beginning in the late 1980s, as materiel and subsidies from Moscow progressively dwindled, Raul Castro introduced the “Sistema de perfeccionamiento empresarial (SPE),” or enterprise management improvement system, that streamlined the Cuban military’s operations. With the disappearance of the Soviet bloc by 1991 and the ensuing severe economic crisis that threatened the regime’s survival, the younger Castro went further and established state corporations like the Gaviota tourism group for joint ventures with foreign capital. Today, the military is not only a largely self-financing institution but a major player in the overall Cuban economy.

Raul Castro entrusts a military managerial elite for the day-to-day oversight of the FAR’s business empire. Vice minister of defense, General Julio Casas Regueiro, and Maj. Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas, son-in-law to Raul Castro, serve as GAESA’s chairman and CEO, respectively. Key money-making enterprises are also headed by high-ranking officers, as in the case of Gaviota whose CEO is Brig. Gen. Luis Perez Rospide.

The military managerial elite surrounding Raul Castro extends its reach far beyond GAESA’s direct holdings. An increasing number of senior military leaders have taken over civilian-run ministries and industries. Former Interior Ministry (state security) head and newly-appointed member of Fidel Castro’s ruling Council of State, Comandante Ramiro Valdes Menendez, has been at the helm of the electronics industry since becoming president of the Grupo de la Electronica in 1996. General Ulises Rosales del Toro was assigned to the strategic Sugar Ministry (MINAZ) in 1997. A second civilian ministry with close ties to the military is Basic Industries (MINBAS). Led by engineer Marcos Portal Leon, another of Raul Castro’s confidants, MINBAS oversees state energy, mining, and pharmaceutical sectors that are second only to tourism in foreign exchange earnings.

Given Fidel Castro’s rapprochement with Beijing since the demise of Soviet communism, several Cuba analysts see parallels between Cuba’s FAR and China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), particularly with the PLA’s “bingshang,” or military officers turned businessmen, and their pivotal role in the Chinese authoritarian transition to a limited market-oriented economy. “China offers an interesting case,” argues professor Frank Mora, “because it is comparable to Cuba in terms of revolutionary experience and government and as a model of party/civil-military relations, economic reform…and institutional involvement in the civilian economy.” (4)

In November 1997, Raul Castro went to China “to learn more about China’s experience in economic construction.” (5) According to Domingo Amuchastegui, formerly with Havana’s Higher Institute of International Relations, “when Raul Castro went to China [in 1997], he spent long hours talking to Zhu [Rongji, Chinese premier and architect of economic reforms under Jiang Zemin] and invited [Zhu’s] main adviser to Cuba. This famous adviser went to Cuba, caused a tremendous impact, talked to [military] leaders and executives for many hours and days…” However, adds Amuchastegui, “there was one person who refused to [listen to Zhu’s economic adviser]: Fidel Castro.” (6)

While supporting the militarization of the Cuban economy, Fidel Castro is opposed to any economic liberalization in the island. The elder Castro, on his recent visit to China in February 2003, seemed bewildered by the capitalistic changes in the People’s Republic: “I can’t really be sure just what kind of a China I am visiting,” confessed Castro, “because the first time I visited [in 1995], your country appeared one way and now when I visit it appears another way.” (7)

Libya: Hillary’s Gift to Herself and Qatar

Posted on February 2, 2015February 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

Libya was designed by Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. She manufactured the crisis and worked countless back-channels to remove Qaddafi for the sake of her ties to Qatar. The al Thani clan has years of ingratiating itself within the circles of power in the Obama administration while back scratching was done in covert circles. Hillary is an accessory to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens of three others of the diplomatic security services.

Barack Obama bought into the plot along with those of the National Security Council when the Pentagon fought back hard against the early part of Hillary’s mission but to no avail. Congressman Kucinich worked diligently to get facts from several placeholders in the Middle East as at the time, no Republicans were in power in Congress. There was never any authorization for war in Libya.

Of particular note, the weapons Hillary Clinton in cadence with Qatar were not bound and did not in any quantity end up in Syria. Sadly, they ended up in several other locations, but not Syria as widely chattered and believed.

Part 1 of 3 of the WT Hillary Clinton Libya matter is found here. The recorded tapes can be heard here as part of 2 of 3 of the Washington Times expose on Hillary and Libya. Part 3 of 3 is below. It is an intensive read but cannot be missed.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today, more than three years after Gadhafi fell from power and was killed, Benghazi and much of the rest of Libya remain in chaos, riddled with violence among rival tribes and thriving jihadi groups.

Mrs. Clinton, now considering a run for president, was the moving force inside the Obama administration to encourage U.S. military intervention to unseat Gadhafi in Libya. The latest documents and audio recordings are likely to give her Republican critics on Capitol Hill fresh ammunition to question whether she had an adequate plan and whether her efforts led to the tragedy in Benghazi a year later and the general lawlessness and chaos that have gripped Libya since. The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion: that Gadhafi would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country.

The Times also reported that the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.

In one conversation recorded in summer 2011 between Libyan officials and an intelligence asset dispatched by the Pentagon as a back-door channel, the asset told Mr. Ismael, who served then as Gadhafi’s chief of staff, that U.S. officials were considering taking some of the Libyan dictator’s frozen money assets and sending it to the rebels.

“I’m in contact with some of the people over in Benghazi and they’ve told me point blank that their first use of this money is, is to buy military training, weapons and mercenaries,” the Pentagon intelligence asset told Mr. Ismael on July 24, 2011.

In a separate conversation with Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving in the House, Gadhafi’s eldest son, Seif, told the congressman that Libyan intelligence had observed Qatar, a major U.S. ally in the region, facilitating weapons shipments. Qatar has steadfastly and repeatedly denied arming the rebels.

“The Qataris have spent more than $100 million on this, and they have an agreement with the rebels that the moment you rule Libya you pay us back,” Seif Gadhafi told Mr. Kucinich in a conversation recorded in May 2011.

“So, it’s your position that your government has been trying to defend itself against an insurrection brought about by jihadists who were joined by gangsters, terrorists and that there’s basically about 1,000 people who were joined by NATO?” Mr. Kucinich asked. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

Distrust between Libya and Qatar had simmered for years before the civil war in Libya erupted. Mr. Ismael told The Times in an interview that the Qataris had a grudge against the Gadhafi regime because it did not give them natural gas and oil concessions that were promised in 2007.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

“On 15th of March the ship loaded with arm[s] arrived to the seaport of Tobruk. On 4th April 2011 two Qatari aircraft laden with a number of tanks, [ground-attack] missiles and heavy trucks was arranged. On 11th April 2011 a number of boats departed Benghazi for Misrata, the shipment comprised assistance including SAM-7 [anti-aircraft] missiles. On 22nd April 2011, 800 rifles were sent from Benghazi to Misrata,” the report said.

Whether such shipments were supposed to stay with NATO or go to the rebels remains in dispute. But academic analysts say the Libyan concerns that arming the rebels would benefit terrorists were shared widely.

NATO allies knew of the dangerous jihadi elements operating in Benghazi before the 2011 intervention began, according to Noman Benotman, president of the British-based Quilliam Foundation, a think tank dedicated to combating Islamic extremism.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“You’re saying that this relates to internal matters, matters internal to the region relating of a power struggle in which they then turned their attention to Libya to try to engulf Libya in their own desire for increasing their power?” Mr. Kucinich asked.

“For the Qataris, they are doing this with every country, with every country,” Mr. Gadhafi said. “This is their plan, I mean in public. This is their own agenda. I mean, it’s not something hidden, or something, you know, private. But now, we have, and plus the French and British have also have their own agenda, you know, commercial interests, political interests, they have their own interests. They told us, especially the French, and the Qataris and the British: We want those people to share the power with you, our own people, the heads of rebels.”

The recorded conversations also included concerns that the U.S. might try to arm the rebels despite a U.N. arms embargo on Libya.

On March 27, 2011, days after the intervention began, Mrs. Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians, but defense officials in the United Kingdom disagreed with her interpretation of international law.

“We’re not arming the rebels. We’re not planning to arm the rebels,” British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the day Mrs. Clinton hinted otherwise.

Likewise, Qatari officials sent a letter Feb. 2, 2012, to the United Nations about the Libyan uprising, “categorically” denying that they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunitions” as some had reported. Attempts to contact the Qatari Embassy in Washington for comment Sunday were unsuccessful, but the classified Libyan intelligence report indicates that Qatar sent tanks, missiles, trucks and military advisers to the rebels.

The Libyan intelligence reports provided to the Pentagon’s emissary detailed specific weapons shipments they said came from Qatar.

Mr. Benotman also was a leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group but left the organization prior to the 2011 revolution.

“A lot of jihadists that had been locked up by the regime were released after the revolution started. They picked up many of the guns that were coming into the country and fought, but they were not fighting for democracy — they were fighting their own revolution, trying to build a state based on a vicious, violent, radical, Islamic ideology. They took advantage of the situation,” he said. “There were pro-democracy demonstrators participating in the revolution, of course, but there was also crystal-clear evidence of jihadists and jihadist tactics in Benghazi before the NATO intervention started, so no one can say there were no jihadists there,” he said. *** Thank you Washington Times.

Arm Ukraine Against Russia? Yes, No, Maybe

Posted on February 2, 2015February 2, 2015 by Denise Simon

If you think executing the war against militant Islam is in flux in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen and North Africa you are quite right. Yet when it comes to forward and offensive measures against Soviet loyalists in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland and beyond, there is as much confusion and a strategy is still undecided. Imagine the policy and war gaming desks at the Pentagon and at NATO when it comes to action plans and they continue to be in full opposition to the NSC chief, Susan Rice. Some action was taken last year placing some hard military assets in key locations as well as troops, but as of this writing they are static. Read on to see the United States is nowhere on the matter of Russian aggression, leading to the real question as to why.

The Ukraine is an ally and has not been able to rely on the West. An official decision was to call up 1000,000 troops, perhaps coming from within and elsewhere. Question is where do the weapons come from?

U.S. Taking a Fresh Look at Arming Ukraine’s Forces, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO’s military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev’s beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, American officials said Sunday.

President Obama has made no decisions on providing such lethal assistance. But after a series of striking reversals that Ukraine’s forces have suffered in recent weeks, the Obama administration is taking a fresh look at the question of military assistance.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal aid, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.

In recent months, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official said that she was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

Fearing that the provision of defensive weapons might tempt President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to raise the stakes, the White House has limited American aid to “non-lethal” items, including body armor, night-vision goggles, first aid kits and engineering equipment.

But the failure of economic sanctions to dissuade Russia from sending heavy weapons and military personnel to eastern Ukraine is pushing the issue of defensive weapons back into discussion.

“Although our focus remains on pursuing a solution through diplomatic means, we are always evaluating other options that will help create space for a negotiated solution to the crisis,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Fueling the broader debate over policy is an independent report to be issued Monday by eight former senior American officials, who urge the United States to send $3 billion in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

Michèle A. Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon official who was among those considered to replace Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, joined in preparing the report. Others include James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as the top NATO military commander, and Ivo Daalder, the United States ambassador to NATO during Mr. Obama’s first term.

“The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive,” the report says. “That requires providing direct military assistance — in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms.”

In his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama noted that the economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies had hurt the Russian economy.

But American officials acknowledge that Russia has repeatedly violated an agreement, reached in Minsk in September. The agreement called for an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine, the removal of foreign forces and the establishment of monitoring arrangements to ensure that the border between Ukraine and Russia would be respected.

In recent weeks, Russia has shipped a large number of heavy weapons to support the separatists’ offensive in eastern Ukraine, including T-80 and T-72 tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems, artillery and armored personnel carriers, Western officials say.

Some of the weapons are too sophisticated to be used by hastily trained separatists, said a Western official who, like others discussing the issue, declined to be identified because he was discussing intelligence reports and internal policy debates. NATO officials estimate that about 1,000 Russian military and intelligence personnel are supporting the separatist offensive while Ukrainian officials insist that the number is much higher.

Supported by the Russians, the separatists have captured the airport at Donetsk and are pressing to take Debaltseve, a town that sits aside a critical rail junction.

All told, the separatists have captured 500 square kilometers — about 193 square miles — of additional territory in the past four months, NATO says. The assessment of some senior Western officials is that the Kremlin’s goal is to replace the Minsk agreement with an accord that leaves the separatists with a more economically viable enclave and would be more favorable to the Kremlin’s interests.

A spokesman for General Breedlove declined to comment on his view on providing defensive weapons, which was disclosed by United States officials privy to confidential discussions.

“General Breedlove has repeatedly stated that he supports the pursuit of a diplomatic solution as well as considering practical means of support to the government of Ukraine in its struggle against Russian-backed separatists,” the spokesman, Capt. Gregory L. Hicks of the Navy, said.

But a Pentagon official who is familiar with the views of General Dempsey and Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they believed the issue of defensive weapons should be reconsidered.

“A comprehensive approach is warranted, and we agree that defensive equipment and weapons should be part of that discussion.” the Pentagon official said.

Russian casualties remain a delicate political issue for Mr. Putin, who has denied that Russian troops have been ordered to fight in Ukraine.

The report by Ms. Flournoy and the other former officials argues that the United States and its allies should capitalize on this fact to dissuade the Russians and the separatists from expanding their offensive.

“One of the best ways to deter Russia from supporting the rebels in taking more territory and stepping up the conflict is to increase the cost that the Russians or their surrogates would incur,” Ms. Flournoy said.

The current stock of Ukrainian anti-armor missiles, the report notes, is at least two decades old, and most of them are out of commission.

So the report recommends that the United States provide the Ukrainian military with light anti-armor missiles, which might include Javelin antitank missiles.

“Providing the Ukrainians with something that can stop an armored assault and that puts at risk Russia or Russian-backed forces that are in armored vehicles, I think, is the most important aspect of this,” she added.

The Obama administration has provided radars that can locate the source of mortars. But the report urges the United States to also provide radars that can pinpoint the location of rocket and artillery fire. Enemy rocket and artillery attacks account for 70 percent of the Ukrainian military’s casualties, the report says, citing statistics provided by a Ukrainian officer.

Ukraine, the report notes, also needs reconnaissance drones, especially since the Ukrainian military has stopped all flights over eastern Ukraine because of the separatists’ use of antiaircraft missiles supplied by Russia.

The report also urged the United States to provide military communications equipment that cannot be intercepted by Russian intelligence and recommended the transfer of armored Humvees and field hospitals.

Poland, the Baltic States, Canada and Britain, the report says, might also provide defensive weapons if the United States takes the lead.

The report was issued jointly by the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The other officials who prepared it are Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy secretary of State in the Clinton administration; Charles F. Wald, a retired Air Force general who served as deputy commander of the United States European Command; Jan M. Lodal, a former Pentagon official; and two former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine, John Herbst and Steven Pifer.

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

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

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

The Havlish plaintiffs initiated this action in February, 2002.

Ukraine Crisis in Maps