How to Stop Obama/Kerry from Giving More Money to Iran

Rubio letter on Iran transaction by Daniel on Scribd

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), among other lawmakers, has petitioned the Obama administration to disclose the names of the U.S. and Iranian officials who played a role in the cash handoff.

“What U.S. official(s) escorted the pallets of cash to Iranian officials and what entity of the Iranian government received the funds and controlled the flight(s) that transported the cash to Iran?” Rubio asked in a Sept. 10 letter to the administration.

“Please provide a list of the Iranian officials present at the exchange of cash and include the Iranian government entities that employed them, including any past or current connections to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence,” Rubio wrote.

Lawmakers working to unearth further details about the exchange told the Free Beacon that it appears increasingly likely that the IRGC played a role in the cash exchange.

“For the Obama administration to argue that the IRGC was somehow not involved in the U.S. transfer of $1.7 billion—or more—in cash to Iran is totally unconvincing,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Free Beacon. “Given the IRGC’s extensive control of the Iranian economy, and its vast influence with Iran’s regime, it was most likely influential in the set-up and execution of the payment. Like other malicious actors, the IRGC is eager to get its hands on cash to fund its terrorist activities.”

*****

Congressional questions to Treasury begins. Treasury admits to what? Nothing….

treasury-response-to-rep-duffy-september-9-2016

Rubio said his new bill “would stop the Obama administration from making any further payments to Iran from the [Treasury Department’s] Judgment Fund until Iran returns the ransom money it received and pays the American victims of Iranian terrorism what they are owed.”

“President Obama may have attempted to appease our enemy with pallets of cash secretly delivered on an unmarked cargo plane, but Iran continues to cheat on the nuclear deal, harass our military, hold Americans hostage, and fund terrorism around the world,” Rubio added. “Iran should be held accountable, and the Obama administration’s misguided policies must be stopped.”

Rubio’s bill, called the No Ransom Payments Act, is co-sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R., Texas), Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), and Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.).

“Congress is taking a clear stand—demanding Iran return the more than $1 billion the Obama Administration wrongly gave them and putting a stop to any and all future money this administration, or any administration might want to give to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran,” Pompeo, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Free Beacon. “The American people know this is an unacceptable use of their taxpayer dollars and we wholeheartedly agree. It is unprecedented and dangerous for President Obama to be doling out millions to the Islamic Republic of Iran—in the dead of night, under wraps, and in cash. Kansans expect and demand better from their government.” More from FreeBeacon.

UN: 2016 (17) Global Goals

13 September 2016 – The United Nations General Assembly today opened its 71st session, with an emphasis on ensuring that implementation of the new global development goals, adopted by its 193 Member States last year, is well underway.

“The 70th Session launched the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], and for integrity’s sake the 71st must be the year we witness the wheels turning on the implementation of all 17 SDGs,” the President of the General Assembly, Peter Thomson, said as he took an oath of office before proceeding to open the new session.

Mr. Thomson, who had had been serving as the Permanent Representative of Fiji to the United Nations until his appointment, said that the theme of the 71st session is ‘The Sustainable Development Goals: A Universal Push to Transform our World.’

On 1 January 2016, the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — adopted by world leaders in September last year – officially came into force. Over the next fifteen years, with the aim of achieving the SDGs, countries will mobilize efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change, while ensuring that no one is left behind.

The new Assembly President noted that it had been heartening to observe the sincerity with which governments and national planning agencies around the world have begun integrating the 2030 Agenda into national processes.

“But make no mistake, the great majority of humankind has yet to learn of the Agenda; it has yet to embrace the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, that if successfully implemented will bring an end to poverty and secure a sustainable place for humanity on this planet,” he said.

To fulfill his commitment to achieving meaningful progress in all 17 Goals during the session, Mr. Thomson said he had appointed a team specifically dedicated to the implementation of the SDGs.

Working with two Secretaries-General

This session will be also special, he flagged, in that his office will have the experience of working with two Secretaries-General. The search for the best possible candidate to fill the post is approaching its final stages.

“As President of the Assembly I will dedicate myself to facilitation of the transition process, and will be available at all times to assist the incoming Secretary-General settle into her or his responsibilities of office,” he said.

Mr. Thomson also pledged to work to strengthen the relations between the UN’s organs, continuing the practice of holding regular meetings with the Secretary-General, the Presidents of the Security Council, and the President of the UN Economic and Social Council, and inform the membership as to the scope of these meetings.

He also pledged to maintain financial transparency of his presidency by ensuring that all contributions to the running of his office are entered into a UN trust fund where the donors and expenditure will be public knowledge.

He said his team will strive to find new methods to resolve entrenched conflicts, diminish the atrocities of global terrorism, better manage migrant and refugee flows, and end the many humanitarian crises.

But make no mistake, the great majority of humankind has yet to learn of the Agenda; it has yet to embrace the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, that if successfully implemented will bring an end to poverty and secure a sustainable place for humanity on this planet.

The link between sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights has never been more explicit, he noted, drawing attention to next week’s high-level meeting on large movements of refugees and migrants. “I regret the evidence of widespread lack of empathy for people on the move, many of whom are fleeing from conflict, persecution, or climate change […] It is time to turn down the rhetoric of intolerance and ratchet up a collective response based on our common humanity,” he said.

In the area of peace and security, the Assembly President said the 71st session must build on the review of the Global Counter-Terrorism strategy, including the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action on Violent Extremism, and act on improving the UN architecture to face these threats.

The session must also look to take forward implementation of the ambitious ‘sustaining peace’ agenda, agreed by the General Assembly and Security Council earlier this year, he added, noting that this is an opportunity to bring new coherence and coordination to the UN’s work across peace and security, development, and human rights.

In his remarks, the new General Assembly president also highlighted the issue of UN Security Council reform. “The membership is unanimous in agreeing that reform is necessary to align the Security Council with the realities of the 21st Century,” he said.

During his speech, Mr. Thomson invited to the stage his seven- and five-years-old granddaughters, who, he noted, will be young adults ready to fulfill the potential of their lives in 2030, when the remaining 14 years of the new development agenda have expired.

“What kind of world will we have bequeathed them and all their brothers and sisters around the world, your own grandchildren and children, born and yet to be born?” he asked in an appeal to create a better future for them.

“The 71st session will only be fulfilling,” he said, “if at its end we can be assured real progress is underway on each of the Goals, that our faith and hope in progress is not misplaced, and that a better world will be at hand when the year 2030 rolls around.”

UN chief addresses new Assembly

Here Comes 110,000 of Them

Official: US goal to take in 110,000 refugees in coming year

The United States will strive to take in 110,000 refugees from around the world in the coming year, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday, in what would be a nearly 30 percent increase from the 85,000 allowed in over the previous year.

The increase reflects continuing concern about the refugee crisis stemming from Syria’s civil war and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it’s still far short of what advocacy groups say is needed to address an unprecedented crisis that saw some 1 million people pour into Europe alone last year.

The official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the numbers before an official announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Secretary of State John Kerry had previously suggested that the U.S. target would climb to 100,000 in the coming year, but that the figure was a floor, not a ceiling. He briefed lawmakers on the revised figure on Tuesday.

The 110,000 goal covers a 12-month period that starts next month. In the 12 months ending Sept. 30, the U.S. goal was 85,000, and in the three years before that, the target was 70,000 per year.

The White House has tried to emphasize that the refugee program is safe and doesn’t pose a major threat to national security. That concern was heightened last year after terrorist attacks in European cities — including some connected to people who had spent time in Syria. Officials said that potential refugees would continue to be subject a more rigorous screening process than any other foreigners granted entrance to the U.S.

The announcement comes two weeks after the U.S. announced it had met President Barack Obama’s goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees despite early skepticism that it would reach its goal. Millions of Syrians have been displaced by a civil war that has killed roughly half a million people.

Republican governors have pushed back vehemently and tried to refuse to let them into their states, leading to a clash with the administration, which has maintained that states can’t legally bar refugees who otherwise meet the criteria.

The administration did not release a breakdown of how many refugees would be accepted from specific countries in the coming year.

The U.S. has tried to encourage other countries, too, to increase their contribution to alleviating the refugee crisis. The official said increasing the U.S. target this year reflected that strategy and Obama’s belief that all nations need to do more to help the neediest.

As part of that effort, Obama plans to host a summit on refugee issues with world leaders next week during the U.N. General Assembly gathering in New York.

The U.N. refugee agency chief, Filippo Grandi, said Tuesday that Europe needed to boost its efforts to take in people from places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. In an Associated Press interview, he called it “one of the great challenges” of the future.

“There’s a time now to have this rational discussion,” he said.

****

Hillary Clinton will hold “a number of bilateral meetings” at next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York City, the campaign said Wednesday.

The former secretary of state anticipates meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, according to a campaign aide’s guidance. More from Politico.

****

TEHRAN, Sept. 11 (Xinhua) — Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will attend the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting on Tuesday in New York, the first Vice President Es’haq Jahangiri said Sunday, state IRIB TV reported.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and a number of Iran’s diplomats and officials will accompany Rouhani to attend the meeting.

There is no report about a meeting plan between Rouhani and the U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to New York.

 

 

Social Justice: National Sovereignty and the Right of Intervention

Where is this social justice movement coming from? Do you ever go keyboarding on the internet looking for one specific thing and uncover something related and much bigger? When it comes to this festering growth movement of ‘social justice’ as we are witnessing throughout the country, one must ask what is the genesis. We saw some demands surface after Ferguson and Baltimore. Between those two protests and legal investigations, the White House launched a 21st Century Policing Mandate. But how was this mandate conceived? Ah, seems we need to hop over to New York and that interesting building called the United Nations.

So, it is reasonable to consider the BLM movement is well funded and not only has made it’s way onto Elm Street, it is also taking a place onto network television, where we are forced to see it where the largest TV audiences merge, NFL football.

Are there some connections or collaboration going on here? It cant be proven, however this is a time you can be the judge as this appears to have history and will be with us for years to come.

There is a training program. There are countless issues that do need to be addressed and this movement does have valid reasons that deserve attention. The question is are all components being addressed including the true root causes?

Related reading and timeline: Black Lives Matter: The Growth of a New Social Justice Movement

This is a long United Nations document, almost 160 pages, but to help out the reader, begin at document page 11.

Circa 2006:

The application of social justice requires a geographical, sociological, political

and cultural framework within which relations between individuals and groups can

be understood, assessed, and characterized as just or unjust. In modern times, this

framework has been the nation-State. The country typically represents the context

in which various aspects of social justice, such as the distribution of income in a

population, are observed and measured; this benchmark is used not only by national

Governments but also by international organizations and supranational entities such

as the European Union. At the same time, there is clearly a universal dimension

to social justice, with humanity as the common factor. Slaves, exploited workers

and oppressed women are above all victimized human beings whose location matters

less than their circumstances. This universality has taken on added depth and

relevance as the physical and cultural distance between the world’s peoples has

effectively shrunk. In their discussions regarding the situation of migrant workers,

for example, Forum participants readily acknowledged the national and global dimensions

of social justice.

Social justice is treated as synonymous with distributive justice, which again is often

identified with unqualified references to justice, in the specific context of the activities

of the United Nations, the precise reasons for which may only be conjectured.

In its work, for reasons that will be examined in chapter 5, the United Nations has essentially

from the beginning separated the human rights domain from the economic

and social domains, with activities in the latter two having been almost exclusively

focused on development. Issues relating to the distributive and redistributive effects

of social and economic policies—issues of justice—have therefore been addressed

separately from issues of rights, including those inscribed in the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The unfortunate consequences of

this dissociation must be acknowledged. To support the concept of social justice is

to argue for a reconciliation of these priorities within the context of a broader social

perspective in which individuals endowed with rights and freedoms operate within

the framework of the duties and responsibilities attached to living in society. Notwithstanding

the implied associations between social justice, redistributive justice,

and justice as a more general concept, the fact is that the explicit commitment to

social justice has seriously deteriorated; over the past decade, the expression has

practically disappeared from the international lexicon and likely from the official language

of most countries. The position will be taken here that the United Nations

must work to try to restore the integrity and appeal of social justice, interpreted in

the contemporary context as distributive justice.

****

This part is chilling just considering the concept:

2.1 National sovereignty and the right of intervention

The Forum noted that on two recent occasions, force had been used against States

Members of the United Nations without the formal approval of the Security Council

and outside the provisions of chapter VII of the Charter.10 Even prior to these events,

the “right of intervention”, legitimized by the overriding need to protect human

rights and in particular to prevent genocide, had been openly and vigorously debated

in international circles. Today, it is generally agreed that the principles of respect for

national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of a State can be

legitimately suspended to address unchecked and unpunished violations of basic

human rights and fundamental freedoms. Intolerance for such violations represents

a heightening of the human consciousness and real progress, and is a necessary

step in the building of a true world community. Vexing questions arise, however,

with regard to the type of legal regime needed to govern this right of intervention.

 

The Obama Admin Has Officially Forgiven Iran

  Getty Image

Iran, a known and proven state sponsor of terror has a history of stealing worldwide peace.

Below is the Congressional hearing of the money transfer transaction(s) to Iran, and the testimony reveals there are more coming and others not previously known.

The timeline of that day as noted by those with President GW Bush.

The Falling Man:

After 15 years, why aren’t we asking about Iran’s role in 9/11?

There is an extensive al-Qaeda network feeding global branches based in the Islamic Republic.

Fifteen years on from the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the US, al-Qaeda is better-positioned than ever before. Its leadership held, and it has rebuilt a presence in Afghanistan. More importantly, al-Qaeda has built powerful regional branches in India, North Africa, Somalia, Yemen and Syria.

Rebranding itself away from the savagery of Iraq, al-Qaeda has sought to embed itself in local populations by gaining popular legitimacy to shield itself from retribution if, or when, it launches terrorist strikes in the West. This is proceeding apace, above all because of a failure to assist the mainstream opposition in Syria, sections of which were forced into interdependency with al-Qaeda to resist the strategy of massacre and expulsion conducted by the Assad regime.

The 9/11 massacre had not come from nowhere. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden, then-leader of al-Qaeda, plus Ayman al-Zawahiri and three others signed a document that said “kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim”.

Al-Qaeda attempted to blow up US troops in Yemen in December 1992. Three months later, al-Qaeda attacked New York’s World Trade Center, murdering six people. In November 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh targeted the American training mission for the Saudi National Guard, killing six people. In June 1996, Iran blew up the US military living quarters at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, murdering 19 people.

Al-Qaeda played “some role, as yet unknown” in the attack, according to the 9/11 Commission. The US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were levelled in August 1998, slaughtering 224 people and wounding 5,000, mostly Africans. And in October 2000, a skiff containing two suicide bombers struck an American Naval vessel, the USS Cole, in the port of Aden, killing seventeen sailors.

The conspiracy theories about 9/11 are now a feature of life today. Often proponents will hide behind the façade of “asking questions”. Instead of queries about jet fuel melting steel beams and nano-thermite, however, this inquisitiveness would be much better directed at the actual unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, which centre on the role of Iran.

In 1992, in Sudan, al-Qaeda and Iran came to an agreement to collaborate against the West “even if only training”, the 9/11 Commission records. Al-Qaeda members went to the Bekaa valley to be trained by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy. Hezbollah’s military leader at that time, Imad Mughniyeh, personally met Bin Laden in Sudan to work out the details of this arrangement.

There is no doubt that training provided by Iran made the 1998 East African Embassy bombings possible, and after the bombing numerous al-Qaeda operatives fled unhindered through Iran to Afghanistan. The 9/11 Commission documented that over-half of the death pilots “travelled into or out of Iran” and many were tracked into Lebanon.

Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda

Senior Hezbollah operatives were certainly tracking some of the hijackers, in at least one case travelling on the same plane. The operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, lived in Iran for long stretches of the 1990s. To this day there is an extensive al-Qaeda network that feeds the global branches based in Iran, sheltered from US counter-terrorism efforts.

“Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda,” the 9/11 Commission noted. But the connections were there, and “this topic requires further investigation”. Sadly, such investigation has never occurred. Instead, the Islamic Republic has been brought into the fold, with billions of dollars released to it through the nuclear deal and a curious belief that Tehran can, or will, help stabilise the Middle East has taken hold.

Bin Laden had intended to drive the US out of the region with the 9/11 attack. “Hit them and they will run,” he told his followers. This was a theme of his 1996 fatwa first declaring war on America. In this, he miscalculated.

The Taliban regime had sheltered Jihadi-Salafists from all over the Arab world. Some left over from the fight against the Soviet occupation; others on the run from the security services of their native lands or just wanting to live in a land of “pure Islam”. Though the training and planning for global terrorism occurred in Afghanistan, most of al-Qaeda’s resources were directed more locally, toward irregular wars, notably in Algeria, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Al-Qaeda trained up to 20,000 jihadist insurgents before 9/11. This sanctuary was lost in the aftermath of 9/11, something lamented by jihadi strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri).

Bin Laden had worked with Ahmad al-Khalayleh (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), the Jordanian founder of what we now know as the Islamic State (Isis), to carve out a jihadi statelet in northern Iraq in the late 1990s led by a group called Ansar al-Islam.

Mustafa Badreddine funeral
Rice is thrown as Hezbollah members carry the coffin of top their commander Mustafa Badreddine on 13 May 2016Reuters/Aziz Taher

After the Taliban’s fall, al-Khalayleh moved into this area and into Baghdad in early 2002. After making preparations through Syria for the influx of foreign fighters, al-Khalayleh moved to the Ansar-held territory and waited for the US.led Coalition.

IS’s predecessor planned – with al-Qaeda’s blessing – to expel the Coalition forces and set up an Islamic state in Iraq that could then spread across the region, restoring the caliphate. But IS’s methods brought it into frequent conflict with al-Qaeda, and by 2008 IS had been strategically defeated after provoking a backlash among Sunnis in Iraq. The distinctions between IS and al-Qaeda hardened thereafter until their formal split in February 2014.

IS, post-2008, changed some tactical aspects so as to bring the tribes back on-board but remained remarkably consistent in its approach, including the celebration of violence, premised on the idea of building an Islamic state as quickly as possible, which would force the population into collaboration with it and ultimately acceptance over time. In contrast, al-Qaeda placed ever-more emphasis on building popular support that would culminate in a caliphate when it had a critical mass.

The discrediting of IS’s predecessor, operating under al-Qaeda’s banner, damaged al-Qaeda so much that Bin Laden considered changing the organization’s name. Events since then, above all allowing the Syria war to protract, allowed al-Qaeda to rebrand as “pragmatic”, using IS as a foil, and recover.

Al-Qaeda, vanguard-style, took on the local concerns, worked to solve them, and in turn claimed the protection of the local population. Al-Qaeda has tangled itself so deeply into local dynamics, in Yemen and Syria most notably, that it would require a substantial local effort to root them out.

Unfortunately, the Western approach is making the problem worse. A good example came on Thursday night (8 September 2016) when the US launched air strikes against some leaders of al-Qaeda in Syria, now calling itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS), which ostensibly disaffiliated from al-Qaeda in July in order to further this process of entanglement.

JFS claims it has no external ambitions and is working to break the siege of 300,000 people in the rebel-held areas of Aleppo city, yet it is attacked. Meanwhile, the US has done nothing about the thousands of Iranian-controlled Shia jihadists, tied into Iran’s global terrorist network, who are the leading element in imposing the siege, and conducted these strikes likely in furtherance of a deal with Russia, which also helped impose the siege. JFS thus claimed that it is serving the Syrian people, while the US opposes the revolution and supports the pro-regime coalition.

“It is a highly unfortunate reality that many Syrians living in opposition areas of Syria perceive JFS as a more determined and effective protector of their lives and interests than the United States and its Western allies,” wrote Charles Lister. The West has been unwilling to do anything to complicate the ability of the Bashar al-Assad regime to commit mass-murder for fear of antagonizing the Iranians and collapsing a “legacy-setting nuclear accord“. While that remains the case, al-Qaeda will continue to gain power and acceptance as a necessary-evil in Syria, and the ramifications of Syria are generational and global.

It is true that there is far too much optimism in current assessments of IS’s impending doom. The group will outlast the loss of its cities, and the misguided way the Coalition has conducted the war will provide conditions for a potential revival. Still, it is al-Qaeda that has the long-term advantage.

IS claimed sole legitimacy to rule, gained visibility and therefore followers. But as strategists like Setmariam understood, this made them visible to their enemies too, a toll that is beginning to tell, especially abroad. In Syria, formal al-Qaeda branches were never the organisation’s only lever and al-Qaeda was much more interested in shaping the environment than ruling it. In essence, al-Qaeda will give up the name and the public credit for the sake of the thing – whether that’s the popular understanding of the religion or the foundations of an Islamic emirate.

“IS wants the world to believe that it is everywhere, and … al-Qaeda wants the world to believe that it is nowhere.” That quip from Daveed Gartenstein-Ross neatly summarizes the trajectory of the two organisations. What can’t be seen is harder to stop – al-Qaeda’s counting on it.


Kyle W. Orton is associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and a Middle East analyst and commentator.