Saudi Kingdom/White House, Mutual Disdain

Posted on January 26, 2015January 26, 2015 by Denise Simon

NBC News foreign correspondent Richard Engel dropped a rhetorical bomb on the Obama State Department this weekend when he revealed that late Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud was no friend to President Barack Obama.

Engel was responding to the diplomatic statement delivered on behalf of the administration that included a passage reflecting on the “genuine and warm” friendship the president shared with the late king.

“One of the big ironies here is that President Obama, in his statement, said how close he was to King Abdullah… King Abdullah did not like President Obama. In fact, a lot of people I know that are quite close to the late King Abdullah said that the king could not stand President Obama. This close personal bond between the president and the late Saudi leader, I think, is people being polite at a time of a national funeral.”

Engel cited Obama’s unquestioning support of the “Arab Spring” movement as well as his abandonment of long-time US ally Egyptian President Mubarak as reasons why Abdullah was less-than-friendly with Obama. *** So, could this be the reason that the State Department has issues an essay contest for the now deceased King Abdullah? No joke, an essay contest? *** But who exactly is King Abdullah’s successor? King Salman is no moderate.

“In the Middle East, it’s nothing new: You create your own terrorists, then pretend you are fighting them,” said Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi activist who runs the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington. “The Saudis didn’t even invent it, but they’re good at it.”

Ahmed said the Saudi government is “playing both sides” to give “the appearance that they are the good guys.”

“They get a lot of political traction out of it,” Ahmed said. “To the Americans, they are the guardians of safety, and no matter how horrible they are on human rights, the way they treat women and all that, they are the ones who are keeping things under control. Really, they are very clever.” *** What more do you need to know? Plenty. *** Saudi Arabia’s New King Helped Fund Radical Terrorist Groups
Monarch tied to anti-Semitic Muslim clerics, funding of jihad

King Salman, Saudi Arabia’s newly crowned monarch, has a controversial history of helping to fund radical terror groups and has maintained ties with several anti-Semitic Muslim clerics known for advocating radical positions, according to reports and regional experts.

Salman, previously the country’s defense minister and deputy prime minister, was crowned king last week after his half-brother King Abdullah died at the age of 90.

While Abdullah served as a close U.S. ally and was considered a reformer by many, Saudi Arabia has long been criticized by human rights activists for its treatment of women and its enforcement of a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to travel to the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Tuesday to pay respects to Abdullah and meet with Salman, who also has been seen as a moderate friend of the United States.

However, throughout his public career in government, Salman has embraced radical Muslim clerics and has been tied to the funding of radical groups in Afghanistan, as well as an organization found to be plotting attacks against America, according to various reports and information provided by David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In 2001, an international raid of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, which Salman founded in 1993, unearthed evidence of terrorist plots against America, according to separate exposés written by Dore Gold, an Israeli diplomat, and Robert Baer, a former CIA officer.

Salman is further accused by Baer of having “personally approved all important appointments and spending” at the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a controversial Saudi charity that was hit with sanctions following the attacks of September 11, 2001, for purportedly providing material support to al Qaeda.

Salman also has been reported to be responsible for sending millions of dollars to the radical mujahedeen that waged jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project. “In the early years of the war—before the U.S. and the Kingdom ramped up their secret financial support for the anti-Soviet insurgency—this private Saudi funding was critical to the war effort,” according to Riedel. “At its peak, Salman was providing $25 million a month to the mujahedeen. He was also active in raising money for the Bosnian Muslims in the war with Serbia.”

Salman also has embraced radical Saudi clerics known for their hateful rhetoric against Israel and Jews.

Salman has worked closely with Saleh al-Moghamsy, who tweeted in August 2014 that “Allah only gathered Jews in the land of Palestine to destroy them.”

Al-Moghamsy also stated in a 2014 television interview that “the hatred of Jews toward Muslims is an eternal hatred.” He also claimed in 2012 that Osama bin Laden had died with more “sanctity and honor” than any infidel, or non-Muslim.

Despite this rhetoric, Salman has maintained close ties to al-Moghamsy.

Salman chairs the board of an organization run by al-Moghamsy and has sponsored the cleric’s public events, including a 2013 festival. Salman and al-Moghamsy were pictured many times together at that event, according to regional reports.

Al-Moghamsy also has been an adviser to two of Salman’s sons, one of whom posed for a selfie with the cleric in July.

Salman also has reached out to other hardline preachers, including Safar Hawali, a one-time mentor of Osama bin Laden who has called for non-Muslims to be expelled from Saudi Arabia.

In 2005, Salman called Hawali to inquire about his health and in 2010 praised him upon the release of a book.

While crown prince, Salman also made a point of phoning Aidh Abdullah al-Qarni, a Saudi author currently on the U.S. Terrorist Screening Center’s No Fly List who has praised Hamas and called Israelis “the brothers of apes and pigs.”

Additionally, Salman, in his role as crown prince, has recently visited Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, the nation’s highest religious authority, who has asserted that 10 is an appropriate age of marriage for girls and called for the destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula.

Weinberg, who has been tracking Salman closely, said that the new monarch is taking up his predecessor’s mantle of moderate reform.

“Just like King Abdullah tried to present himself as a reformer, some are trying to suggest that the new king, Salman, is a moderate who will continue his half-brother’s so-called progressive policies,” Weinberg said. “But just look at where Saudi Arabia is after Abdullah: people are being decapitated and flogged by the state in the streets.” “Women are systematically oppressed by their own government, and the regime continues to propagate incitement and intolerance,” he continued. “Salman’s background funding mujahedeen abroad and embracing hateful clerics suggests that he is at best a political opportunist who will tolerate continued religious extremism, even if he does not hold such views himself.”

The Arms Race, Launched by Putin’s Threat

Posted on January 26, 2015January 26, 2015 by Denise Simon

It is no secret that Putin has allied Russia with Iran. It is further no secret that Iran is near completion of their nuclear weapons program such that many countries are on Iran’s target list. Coordination and cooperation on nuclear warheads is no secret either but questions need to be asked least of which is who are those that are collaborating and to what end. As Putin finds himself at loggerheads with the West, following his invasion of the Ukraine, he has mentioned Russia’s 5,000 nuclear warheads on at least three occasions recently, and by all accounts, he wasn’t joking, for example, last Thursday night, when Putin was en route to a 50 nations summit, the annual Asia-Europe Meeting in Milan.

“He’s again threatened the West with nuclear weapons,” says John Besemeres, a Russia expert at the ANU. *** So why is this a dangerous topic that needs discussion?

US-Russian rift threatens security of nuclear material

More than two decades of cooperation in guarding weapons-grade stockpiles comes to an end, leaving the world ‘a more dangerous place’

One of the greatest boons brought to the world by the end of the Cold War was the agreement been the US and the countries of the former Soviet Union to cooperate in securing the USSR’s vast nuclear arsenal.

Under the 1991 Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement, better known as the Nunn-Lugar programme (after the two senators who persuaded Congress to pay for it) 900 intercontinental ballistic missiles were destroyed, and over 7600 warheads were deactivated. Some 250 tons of bomb-grade fissile material, scattered across the disintegrating superpower, was locked up and put under guard, so it could not be stolen and sold to the highest bidder. Tens of thousands of former Soviet nuclear weapons scientists and technicians were found jobs and salaries to help reduce the incentives to offer their expertise to rogue states and terrorists.

All in all, a pretty big deal, whose benefits will only be fully appreciated in their absence.

The spirit of cooperation that underpinned the programme has crumbled over recent years. Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia has increasingly bristled at the premise that it was unable to ensure the security of its own arsenal and fretted about Americans using the programme to spy on its nuclear secrets. In 2012, Moscow announced it would not extend Nunn-Lugar, but a replacement US-Russian bilateral nuclear security deal was cobbled together in its place a year later.

That deal, under the framework of the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programme in Russia (MNEPR), was more limited. The US would not longer take part in the dismantling of weapons but would continue to assist safeguarding stocks of fissile plutonium and uranium.

Now, even that has fallen apart. In December, Congress voted to cut funding, in part because the Ukraine war, although unspent money in the programme could still have been used. A few days later however, as the Boston Globe reported, Russian officials broke the news to their American counterparts in a hotel overlooking Red Square that they were cutting off almost all cooperation.

As a result, no US-funded security work will be done at any Russian nuclear weapons sites nor will there be any joint security upgrades at any Russian facility where substantial amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material are stored.

Speaking by phone from the US, former Senator Sam Nunn, half of the Nunn-Lugar partnership that started the programme, said “the world is a less safe place because of this”.

There has been a race between cooperation and catastrophe, when you look at the possibility of catastrophic acts of terrorism. Cooperation has been running rapidly over the past twenty years, but this is a real setback…The Russians says they are going to spend resources to secure their materials and we have to hope they will. They have the expertise to do it, but they are under heavy economic pressure.

Matthew Bunn, a Harvard University professor and one of the world’s leading experts on the issue, said: “Nuclear security is dramatically better than it was in the 1990’s. The question now is how much those improvements will be sustained. Will there sufficient protection against insiders? Because all thefts up to now have been by insiders, not 20 guys coming in from the outside with guns blazing.”

Of the new US-Russian rift, Bunn said: It makes the world a more dangerous place. It will make it more likely there will be nuclear security incidents in the world’s biggest nuclear stockpile. ***

Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom’s quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran’s atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, “the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring.”

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, “we will get nuclear weapons”, the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama’s counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:

“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan.”

“What did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity” Senior Pakistani official

The story of Saudi Arabia’s project – including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges – goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers Jane’s reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan’s defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel’s possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.

“The Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue”

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan’s visits to Pakistan’s atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, “Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue.”

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses – to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of “Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation”.

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that “it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical ‘protector’” of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times “it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom”.

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal – probably unwritten – his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically “what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn’t charity.”

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed “the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred.”

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight “the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don’t bluff on this issue.”

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, “the Nato model”, is more likely.

However ,”I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action”, says Gary Samore.

He adds: “I’ve always thought it was much more likely – the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia”.

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for ‘Saudi Arabian’ “nukes” to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic ‘ummah’ or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.

And it is Israeli information – that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles – that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia’s motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that “unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent.”

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic’s nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi’s government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as “speculative, mischievous and baseless”.

It adds: “Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls.”

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN’s “failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council”.

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action “has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it”.

Cuba: Historical Global Terrorism Network

Posted on January 23, 2015January 23, 2015 by Denise Simon

U.S. and Cuban officials held a first round of talks in Havana on re-establishing diplomatic relations, calling the discussions productive but saying further conversations are needed before the two sides can formally re-establish embassies, an important first step.

In the midst of the historic session, some potential obstacles to an eventual agreement began to emerge. The leader of the Cuban delegation, Josefina Vidal, said re-establishing diplomatic relations would be challenging so long as Cuba remains “unjustly” designated by Washington as a state sponsor of terror. *** Question becomes why has the White House set a new mission to normalize relations with Cuba yet keeps Cuba on the existing status of a terrorism state?

Congressman Diaz-Balart in 1998 rose on the House floor to summarize an operation performed by the FBI in Cuba. Yesterday, the arrests that were made, ten in all, were of spies for the Cuban dictatorship, agents of the Cuban dictatorship engaged in
activities, in espionage activities, to infiltrate U.S. centers of
military, political, economic and academic power, as well as means of
communication. That is the mission of the state security intelligence
services of the Cuban dictatorship.
So when we see an action such as the one carried out yesterday by the
FBI, all of the American people have to feel pleased, supported and
protected, and in exchange I think it is the duty of all Americans to
support the FBI, to commend the FBI and our other law enforcement
agencies. I think yesterday’s arrests of Cuban spies in the United States
underlines the true nature of the terrorist state in Havana. These
arrests by U.S. authorities of numerous Cuban intelligence agents, I am
sure, will serve to remind the American people of the genuine nature
and continued threat posed by the Cuban totalitarian regime, just 90
miles from the shores of the United States.
Despite what is evident on behalf of the majority of the media and
the means of communication is a total ignoring of the reality of Cuba.

*** What did and does Congress know along with the FBI about Cuba’s terrorism history that the current White House and State Department ignores? Obama’s State of the Union address confirmed his aggressive objective to normalize relations with Cuba sending a delegation to Havana for the first round of talks that did not go well. The Castro’s have a globally history of terrorism with all the very familiar names and groups current today.

“Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this weakness from close up.”

Fidel Castro, during his tour of Iran, Syria and Libya. Agence France Press, May 10, 2001

Castro and Terrorism A Chronology By Eugene Pons*

1959-1967

Raúl Castro and Che Guevara visited Cairo and established contacts with African liberation movements stationed in and supported by Cairo. Both Cuban leaders visited Gaza and expressed support for the Palestinian cause.

Members of the Dominican Republic “Agrupación Política Catorce de Junio” received military training in Cuba.

Major emphasis was placed on instructing several hundred pro-Castro Latin Americans in violence and guerrilla warfare. Dominicans, Guatemalans, Venezuelans and Chileans were trained in special camps in Cuba and infiltrated back to their countries.

Castro established relations with the Algerian FLN; official and public support was extended, weapons were shipped to the FLN through Morocco (1960-1961). Cuba provided shelter, medical and educational services and cooperation in the fields of counter-intelligence and intelligence.

African leaders from Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, Spanish Guinea, Tanganyika and Zanzibar arrived in Cuba for military training.

Che Guevara engaged in guerrilla operations in Congo-Kinshasa (former Zaire) in 1965.

A revolutionary trained in Cuba, John Okello, overthrew the pro-Western government in Zanzibar in 1964 and proclaimed the “People’s Republic of Zanzibar” which was promptly recognized by Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Conference of Latin American Communist Parties held in Havana agreed to “help actively the guerrilla forces in Venezuela, Guatemala, Paraguay, Colombia, Honduras and Haiti”.

Group of Venezuelans, members of the Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), trained in Cuba and landed in the Venezuela coast in the State of Miranda.

Cuban trained Guatemalans Cesar Montes and Luis Turcios Lima led a violent terrorist/guerrilla campaign against the government in Guatemala. Montes organized the Ejercito Guerrillero de los Pobres (EGP) in Guatemala. In the 1980’s he joined the FMLN in El Salvador and participated actively in the bloody civil war in that country.

Cuba welcomed the founding of the PLO. First contacts with Palestinian FATAH in 1965 in Algiers and Damascus.

The Tricontinental Conference was held in Havana in January, 1966 to adopt a common political strategy against colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism. Cuba provided the organizational structure to support terrorist, anti-American groups in the Middle East and Latin America. The Organization for the Solidarity with the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (OSPAAL) was created.

Fidel Castro created The National Liberation Directorate (DLN) in Cuba to support revolutionary groups throughout the world. DLN was responsible for planning and coordinating Cuba’s terrorist training camps in the island, covert movement of personnel and military supplies from Cuba and a propaganda apparatus.

A Cuban controlled Latin American Solidarity Organization (LASO), with its permanent seat in Havana was created to “coordinate and foment the fight against North American imperialism”.

In Venezuela, Castro made a relentless and determined effort to create another Cuba by supporting the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN) and promoting violence and terrorism against the democratically elected regime of Rómulo Betancourt.

Castro sent weapons via Cairo, to the NLF in Southern Yemen. Cuban agents were sent on fact-finding missions to North and South Yemen (1967- 1968).

Cuba published a small book by French Marxist journalist Regis Debray Revolution in the Revolution, promoting guerrilla warfare in Latin America. The book was translated into various languages and distributed widely.

Cuban supported guerrillas led by Che Guevara moved into Bolivia in an attempt to create “many Vietnams ” in South America.

Cuba and Syria developed a close alliance and supported FATAH and the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF).

1968-1975

Cuba continued its military and political support for FATAH after the Syrians broke with the latter, and Cuban military, political and intelligence support was granted to other Palestinian organizations.

Castro sent military instructors and advisors into Palestinian bases in Jordan to train Palestinian Fedayeen (1968); first high-level delegation from FATAH-PLO visited Cuba (1970).

Several missions sent to Southern Yemen to support NLF/FATAH Ismail both politically and militarily.

Castro began supporting and training of M19, a Colombian guerrilla group that captured the Dominican Embassy and the Justice building in Bogota and assassinated several prominent Colombian judges.

In 1970 a “Mini Manual for Revolutionaries” was published in the official LASO publication Tricontinental, written by Brazilian urban terrorist leader Carlos Marighella. The mini manual gives precise instruction in terror tactics, kidnappings, etc. The short book was translated into numerous languages and distributed worldwide by Cuba.

Cuba commenced political and military cooperation with Somalia’s Siad Barre (1969).

Economic and political cooperation began with Libya in 1974.

In 1974 the National Liberation Directorate (DLN) was reorganized into the America Department (DA) under the Communist Party of Cuba Central Committee. The DA centralized control over Cuban activities for supporting national liberation movements. The DA was responsible for planning and coordinating Cuba’s secret guerrilla and terrorist training camps, networks for the covert movement of personnel and material from Cuba, and a propaganda apparatus. DA agents also operated in Europe and other regions. Trusted Castro ally Manuel Piñeiro, ” Barbaroja” was placed in charge.

Cuba provided training and support to the Tupamaros, a terrorist group operating in Uruguay.

Cuba’s America Department (DA) set up a network for the funneling of weapons and supplies to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

In 1979 second in command in Cuba’s America Department (DA) Armando Ulises Estrada, helped unify Sandinista factions fighting Somoza.

Closer connections with FATAH-PLO and other Palestinian organizations were reinforced, including training of Latin American guerrillas in Lebanon; Cuba’s military support included counter-intelligence and intelligence training.

Arafat visited Cuba in 1974.

Cuba provided military support and personnel to Syria during the Yom Kippur War (1973-1975).

Black Panther Party members from the U.S. were trained in Canada by Cuban personnel. Black Panther leaders and other U.S. blacks also received weapons and explosives training in Havana.

Cuba joined with Algeria and Libya on a diplomatic/political offensive in support of Frente POLISARIO (People’s Front for the Liberation of Western Sahara and Río del Oro); later on provided military cooperation, and medical services.

1976-1982

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that there were 300 Palestinians training in Cuban camps.

Cuba supported the so-called “Steadfastness Front” against the U.S. backed Camp David accord.

Illich Rámirez Sánchez, known as “Carlos, the Jackal”, responsible for numerous terrorist acts in Europe, trained in Cuba. He attended the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana and later trained in urban guerrilla tactics, automatic weapons, explosives and sabotage in Cuba.

Abu Iyad, a close aid to Yasser Arafat, stated in 1978 that hundreds of Palestinian had been sent to Cuban terrorist camps.

Additional military and political support provided to the Palestinian cause; Arafat attended the Sixth Non-Aligned Conference in Havana (1979).

During Havana visit, Arafat signed agreement for military cooperation and arms supply.

Significant hard currency loans (tens of million) were facilitated by Arafat-PLO to the Cuban government under very soft terms; Cuba granted diplomatic and political support to Arafat during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The Aden (South Yemen) regime supported the Ethiopian radical officers commanded by Mengistu Haile Mariam, sending Yemeni military units in support of the latter against Somali aggression, and asking the Cubans to do the same. Cuba joined in, first with a group of officers headed by General Arnaldo Ochoa, a move that was followed later on by the deployment of large Cuban forces against the Somali invasion. Also as part of the alliance with the Aden regime, Cuba granted some small-scale support to the Dhofaris in their armed struggle against the monarchy in Oman.

The Cuban trained Congolese National Liberation Front invaded Shala, Zaire.

As part of Cuba’s alliance with Mengistu Haile Mariam’s regime in Ethiopia, the Cuban leadership decided to engage in active political and military support of the Liberation Movement of Southern Sudan headed by John Garang against the Arab-Muslim regime in Khartoum.

Cuba developed closer ties with and sent military advisors to Iraq.

Cuba’s America Department (DA) operated a weapons pipeline to the Farabundo Martí National Front (FMLN) a terrorist group attempting to gain power in El Salvador.

Cuba cooperated with Libya in the political founding of the World MATHABA in Tripoli, to provide political support and coordinate revolutionary violence throughout the world. Cuba supported Libya’s stand on Chad and the FRENTE POLISARIO.

Cuban trained terrorists members of the Guatemalan EGP kidnapped a businessman in Guatemala. Several were arrested in Mexico when attempting to collect ransom.

Despite its close links with Baghdad, Cuba recognized and praised the Iranian Revolution. Once Iraq attacked Iran, Castro withdrew his military advisors from Baghdad and adopted a position of official impartiality, though more sympathetic to Baghdad, due to his past relations.

1983-1990

Argentine born Cuban intelligence agent Jorge Massetti helped funnel Cuban funds to finance Puerto Rican terrorists belonging to the Machetero group. The Macheteros highjacked a Wells Fargo truck in Connecticut in September 1983 and stole $7.2 million.

Cuba’s America Department (DA) provided, thru Jorge Massetti, weapons and several thousand dollars to the Chilean MIR.

Libyan support to Latin American revolutionary movements, especially in Central America and the whole of the World MATHABA project, declined after the U.S.bombing of Tripoli in 1986.

Cuban agents in Mexico engaged in bank robberies to finance several terrorist groups from Latin America operating out of Mexico.

The Palestinian Intifada increased Cuba’s support for Arafat and the PLO, both diplomatic and military.

Several dozen Mexicans received training in terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Sierra del Rosario, Pinar del Rio Province and in Guanabo, in eastern Cuba.

After the negotiations leading to the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority, Cuban-Palestinian military cooperation was enhanced, including the areas of counter-intelligence and intelligence.

In early 1989, Cuban General Patricio de la Guardia directed a plot in Havana and charged Jorge Massetti with blowing up the U.S. transmission balloon of TV Martí located in the Florida Keys.

Cuba condemned Iraq for its invasion and annexation of Kuwait, supporting the latter’s sovereignty; it also condemned U.S. military operations in the Gulf and abstained at the U.N. from supporting the bulk of the sanctions imposed on Baghdad. A Cuban military delegation was sent to Iraq to learn and share what was considered vital information and experiences from U.S. combat operations in Kuwait and Iraq.

Cuba provided advanced weapons and demolition training to the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) in Perú. The Tupac Amaru attacked the U.S. Embassy in 1984; bombed the Texaco offices in 1985 and attacked the residence of the U.S. Ambassador in 1985 all in Lima, Perú.

1991-2001

ETA, a Spanish terrorist organization seeking a separate Basque homeland, established the Cuartel General (General Headquarters) in Havana.

A high-level PLO military delegation including the head of Intelligence paid a visit to Cuba.

On February 24, 1996, Cuban Air Force Migs shot down, in international waters, two small unarmed civilian planes belonging to Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami based group. All occupants were killed, including three American citizens.

The election of Abdelaziz Bouteflika (April 1999) as President of Algeria, opened new opportunities for Cuba, given Bouteflika’s close relationship with the Cuban government for more than three decades.

PLO leaders continue to have close relations with the Cuban leadership, having access to specialized military and intelligence training, either in Cuba or Palestinian territory, and in the sharing of intelligence.

A spokesman for the Basque government in Spain met in Havana with two high level ETA terrorist taking refuge in Cuba, José Angel Urtiaga Martinez and Jesús Lucio Abrisqueta Corte.

Cuba continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists fugitives from the U.S. They include: Black Liberation Army leader Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur, one of New Jersey’s most wanted fugitives for killing a New Jersey State trooper in 1973 and Charlie Hill a member of the Republic of New Afrika Movement wanted for the hijacking of TWA 727 and the murder of a New Mexico State trooper

A number of Basque ETA terrorists who gained sanctuary in Cuba some years ago continued to live on the island, as did several Puerto Ricans members of the Machetero Group.

Castro refused to join the other Ibero-American heads of state in condemning ETA terrorism at the 2000 Ibero-American Summit in Panamá and slammed Mexico for its support of the Summit’s statement against terrorism.

Castro continues to maintain ties to several state sponsors of terrorism in Latin America. Colombia’s two largest terrorist organizations, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), both maintain a permanent presence on the island.

Colombian officials arrested IRA members Niall Connelly, Martin McCauley and James Monaghan and accused then of training the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Connelly had been living in Cuba as the representative of the IRA for Latin America.

Former Defense Department counter-terrorism expert John More told UPI that Cubans, militant Palestinians, Hezbollah and even advisors from the leftist government of Venezuela are all active in Colombia.

During the trial of several Cuban spies in Miami, one of the accused Alejandro Alonso revealed on December 30, 2000 that he was instructed from Havana to locate areas in South Florida “where we can move persons as well as things, including arms and explosives.”

Speaking at Tehran University in Iran on May 10, 2001 Fidel Castro vowed that “the imperialist king will finally fall”.

Iran, the Enemy: Ignored by the White House

Posted on January 22, 2015January 22, 2015 by Denise Simon

There are at least 3 Executive Orders blocking assets of Iranian entities due in part to the category placed on Iran by the U.S. State Department that Iran is a known and proven state sponsor of terror. Barack Obama has lifted sanctions on Iran for the misguided mission and talks to neutralize their nuclear weapons program in violation of the Executive Orders.

The United States began imposing sanctions on Iran in 1983 for the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. The U.S. placed Iran on the terror list which automatically triggers sanctions. It must be noted however, that there are certain conditions where sanctions do not apply and this includes humanitarian aid.

Iran has also been at the core of the instability in Iraq mostly by financially supporting and providing arms to Iraqi militias going back to as early as 2006. This coordination between Iran and the Iraqi militias were under the Qods force at the command of Qasem Soleimani. Today, this commander is leading the hostilities again in Iraq as the U.S. is battling Islamic State. Why is this all important? The Obama White House and the U.S. Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have been in long talks with Iranian leadership over their nuclear weapons program. To date this has included lifting sanctions, un-freezing of billions of dollars to keep Iran at the negotiations table. Why are we legitimizing Iran at all when they continue to be a state sponsor of terror?

State Department officials as recently as this week admitted they are not working to eliminate the nuclear program but simply to manage it by trusting Iran’s position and pledges. Iran lies and has lied and continues to lie, but the Obama administration dismisses that fact completely. In short Israel being allied with America has been replaced with allying with Iran.

Barack Obama emphasized in this week’s State of the Union address that he will veto any Congressional action to re-apply sanctions to Iran while the talks continue. Speaker Boehner drew first blood the following day by inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session on Congress on February 17. The White House responded immediately calling the invitation a violation of diplomatic processes. The White House went further to state that during Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, the President will NOT meet with the Prime Minister.

The matter gets worse when it comes to the fact that the White House and the State Department continue to run to Iran for the sake of saving nuclear talks which for the last year have failed. No one can explain exactly just why these talks are so tantamount to complete with a win, rather than preventing Iran’s nuclear program completely. If you are still in question as to why the talks must be terminated, it is simply due to lies and never-ending terrorism at the hands of Iran against not only Israel but includes Europe and the United States of America.

Only this week were Israeli tourists attacked while on vacation in Argentina by Iranian attackers. But the most chilling aspect of Iran is their history of terrorism especially when it comes to the bombing of a Jewish Center in 1994 killing 85. A prosecutor all of these subsequent years has been investigating this bombing and submitted a 500 page indictment two years ago. The prosecutor, Alberto Nisman was set to testify a few days ago, but was found dead in his home over the weekend. Nisman had built a case file on Iran’s globally deadly proven evidence and shared all documents with Interpol. Argentina worked diligently to cover up and protect Iran….it became yet another bloody and deadly end.

Nisman’s 500-page-long indictment, handed on Wednesday to an Argentine federal judge, says that several intelligence stations were established to sponsor, foster and execute terrorist attacks in order to export the Islamic revolution. Identical intelligence bases and centers were discovered in Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname.

“I legally accuse Iran of infiltrating several South American countries to instal intelligence stations – in other words espionage bases – destined to commit, encourage and sponsor terror attacks like the one that took place against the AMIA,” Nisman was quoted as saying.

According to the dossier, the terrorist network that struck the AMIA center was nearly successful in an attempt in 2007 to blow up the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. The bid was thwarted, however, and the plotters were arrested and later sentenced to life terms in prison. The prosecutor said in his report that these two attacks were part of a wider plan to strike against other targets in Latin America. The report also mentioned the potential development in parts of Latin America by Iran of sleeper cells.

In his report, Nisman also offered new and corroborating evidence implicating the highest authorities of Iran in the AMIA bombing. The indictment says that Mohsen Rabbani, a former Iranian cultural attaché in Buenos Aires, had not only orchestrated the AMIA center bombing in which 85 people died and hundreds were wounded, but also acted as a coordinator of the Iranian infiltration in South America.

According to Nisman, Rabbani spread his activities to Guyana through a disciple, Abdul Kadir, who is a former Guyanese lawmaker and imprisoned for the attempted attack on Kennedy Airport. Kadir was trained and supported by Tehran, the indictment said, and was arrested while boarding a plane for Iran.

Nisman’s office said that the prosecutor had sent copies of his indictment to the judicial authorities of the respective countries. He also requested the International Police Organization (Interpol) to increase precautions and take further measures in order to detain all the suspects in the AMIA case.

Reaction

The head of the Argentine Jewish umbrella group DAIA, Julio Schlosser, who is also a vice-president of the World Jewish Congress, said that Nisman’s filing “reinforces the sentiment that Iran is an unreliable interlocutor that finances and promotes terrorism.” The report provded that the Jewish community had been right in rejecting the memorandum of understanding signed between the governments of Argentina and Iran earlier this year which calls for the establishment of an international ‘truth commission’ tasked with investigation the AMIA bombing. Schlosser said Iran was “not a valid interlocutor because it finances and promotes terrorism.”

Argentine courts have charged eight current and former senior Iranian officials in the bombing, including the current Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi and ex-Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezai. Both are among the candidates in the 14 June presidential election in Iran.

In closing, shame on Barack Obama and John Kerry and those European leaders that are in lock step with the continued quest on the nuclear talks and placing Iran on equal footing globally. There is no case in history where this objective by the White House is aiding and abetting the enemy.

Sharpton, Sharpton, Sharpton

Posted on January 16, 2015January 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

Keep pulling back the layers and you willd find Reverend Al Sharpton. Just this week, because the new movie Selma was only nominated as a Hollywood Best Picture, Sharpton has called for a full investigation as to why no black actors were nominated for an award. Then there was Ferguson, then there was New York, then even the top people at Sony called for Sharpton’s advise.

Just how is it that Al Sharpton has become the ‘go-to’ guy for everyone? Well Valerie Jarrett crafted and elevated Sharpton’s persona and opened the doors to the White House for him. But there is yet something even more disturbing about Sharpton outside of the usual National Action Network, being and FBI snitch and an IRS deadbeat. Sharpton is the Muslim conduit of Islamic organizations in America to the White House. Now things begin to fall into place.

Back in 2014, it seems that Sharpton was the CAIR man of the year. Next thing you know we will find out that George Soros dumped all kinds of money behind the protests that began in Ferguson…oh wait.

Al Sharpton to Headline Annual CAIR Banquet

MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton has been scheduled to keynote the 20th annual Council on American-Islamic Relations fundraising banquet, scheduled for September 27th in the Washington, D.C., area.

Sharpton has been in the news lately due to his involvement with the continuing protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the death of Michael Brown, a black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer. The motives surrounding Brown’s death remain unclear, but some have already attributed it to racism.

Sharpton’s critics have described him as a “race-hustler,” while his supporters have profiled him as a civil rights leader. Rev. Sharpton is President Barack Obama’s “go-to black leader,” according to a 60 Minutes report. Their relationship is so close that “not only does Sharpton travel to see the president, the president travels to see him,” the report said.

CAIR says its mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”

CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history–the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Federal prosecutors said of CAIR in an official court filing, “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorist. … The conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

CAIR is seen by many as an arm of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement–an organization that seeks a global Caliphate governed by the barbaric Shariah Koranic laws system. Some point to the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to highlight the nature of its radicalism: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” ***

So how did this meteoric rise of Sharpton begin? Well there are key powerbrokers that mentor and build personalities and send them off with a mission, an objective that is cunning arm of progressive and social politics. Enter Valerie Jarrett.

How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began

Obama dispatched Valerie Jarrett in 2008 to woo the reverend.

By Jillian Kay MelchiorNear the end of 2007, Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett met with Al Sharpton in New York City and began to cement a relationship that would eventually make the inflammatory activist the president’s “go-to man” on race, according to multiple sources.

The backdrop to the incipient Obama-Sharpton alliance was the then-senator’s 2008 presidential campaign, which still hadn’t locked away the black vote, and the political cross-currents created by two other controversial reverends, Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright.

That tentative relationship has now grown into a full-blown partnership that has vastly increased the once-shunned Sharpton’s influence and prestige and elevated him into a key White House ally at a time of heightened tension over policing and race.

In 2007, media outlets no less prestigious than the New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, and Time questioned whether Obama, with his multiracial and perhaps post-racial narrative, could truly count on securing the black vote. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton was pressuring African-American leaders to support her, especially before the primary in heavily black South Carolina. So it was with great annoyance that the Obama campaign read in September that Jesse Jackson had criticized Obama for not speaking out enough about the controversial Jena Six case in Louisiana. (If you’ll recall, racial tensions rose at Jena High School after three nooses appeared swinging from campus branches in August 2006, an apparent threat to a black student who wanted to sit under the tree in an area white students often occupied. Several fights had broken out between white and black students that fall, but when six black students beat up a white student in December, they were charged with attempted second-degree murder, though the victim’s injuries were only superficial. Outrage about the severity of the charges ensued.) Jackson said Obama had not adequately weighed in and was “acting like he’s white,” adding that “if I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena.” And as it turned out, from her days in Chicago, Jarrett already “hated Jesse Jackson,” a source close to Sharpton tells me. “Obama needed a legitimate black voice from the civil-rights community,” the source adds. “Jesse had made disparaging comments about Obama, [so] Jesse got sidelined. Sharpton is the next person in line.” Brian Mathis, a media-shy New York financier who had attended law school with Obama and raised money for his campaign, helped open communications between Jarrett and the reverend, sources close to Sharpton say. Around December 2007, they say, Jarrett met with Sharpton to talk politics in New York; some place the meeting at the exclusive Grand Havana Room cigar club on the 39th floor of a Fifth Avenue skyscraper. Sharpton disputes their account, telling NRO it is “unequivocally untrue” that Jarrett courted him for the Obama campaign. “I had already had a developing dialogue with [Obama], and he even spoke at [National Action Network’s] 2007 convention in April,” Sharpton tells me. He adds: “I’ve known Ms. Jarrett as introduced to me by the president. . . . I don’t remember ever meeting her in the Grand Havana Room. Does she smoke cigars?” Regardless of the venue, sources close to Sharpton say that in late 2007 or early 2008, Jarrett negotiated a simple deal with the reverend: Sharpton would discreetly support Obama for president, working mostly behind the scenes; he wouldn’t publicly criticize Obama, but he also wouldn’t back him in a way that aroused attention. Jarrett sought this careful balance after watching how Sharpton had become a political liability for John Kerry in his 2004 campaign. Several attack ads aired in critical states highlighted the close relationship between Kerry and Sharpton, to devastating effect. Then again, such tacit-support agreements are Sharpton’s “standard M.O.,” says Wayne Barrett, a veteran New York political investigative reporter who has written extensively on the reverend. “Sharpton is the only guy who prospers for not making an endorsement. . . . I don’t think Obama ever wanted Sharpton to endorse him — Obama wanted some distance. . . . [The campaign] didn’t want Sharpton to hurt Obama, but they didn’t want him to be too helpful, either.” Though Sharpton remained publicly neutral, his quiet support for Obama “eventually added to the narrative that a lot of African-American leaders were leaving [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign to go to support Obama,” says Basil Smikle, a former Clinton Senate aide. Sharpton told NRO he could not remember when he decided to support Obama over Clinton, but that he made the decision based on Obama’s “consistent record against the war in Iraq — that was vital to me,” as well as his education policy. The real test of Sharpton’s loyalty came in March 2008, when the content of sermons made by Obama’s longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, drew national attention.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, Wright had preached that “violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. . . . America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” In another sermon, he said: “No, no, no. Not God Bless America. God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human.”

Wright’s comments created a big dilemma for Obama. On one hand, a Pew poll found that more than one in three voters thought less of him after hearing about Wright’s sermons, and the campaign knew the controversy could especially harm his standing with white voters. On the other hand, Wright was beloved and respected in many black congregations nationwide, so denouncing him could alienate one of Obama’s crucial constituencies.

Gradually and reluctantly, Obama distanced himself from Wright, finally ending his family’s membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in May. Behind the scenes, the Obama campaign relied on Sharpton to reach out to influential black pastors across the U.S., persuading them not to revolt against Obama for his treatment of Wright, several sources close to Sharpton say.

Sharpton confirms his support of Obama throughout the Wright controversy: “That was at a time where we didn’t know whether we were going to win or lose,” the reverend says. “I encouraged everybody, not just black pastors, that I was going to continue to support [Obama].”

Sharpton’s damage control of the Wright controversy won him trust with Obama, laying the groundwork for a relationship that continues today, sources say. As Brendan Bordelon noted last month, Sharpton has visited the White House at least 61 times since Obama took office.

The logs also show that often these meetings have been with either Valerie Jarrett or her staff, who have continued to help manage the Sharpton-Obama relationship. But in an interview with NRO, Sharpton downplayed both the number of meetings and the importance of his relationship with Jarrett.

The relationship with the president “is not an individual relationship,” Sharpton says, though he adds he’s “had a good working relationship with the Obama administration.” He continues: “I’ve never had a one-on-one with [President Obama] on civil rights. I’ve always had it as part of three or four of us.”

Of the 61 visits in the White House logs, Sharpton says: “If you’re looking at the fact that I’ve gone to receptions, I’ve gone to immigration meetings, I’ve gone to meetings on education, I’ve gone to meetings on civil rights — that’s not exceptional at all over six years. Are you serious? You’re talking less than a meeting a month, and that includes meetings in the Eisenhower Office Building on immigration, education,” he says. Later, he adds: “It’s not just one relationship. You’re taking about an administration. You’re not talking about a personal relationship.”

As for Jarrett, Sharpton says that while she’s a participant in many meetings, “I would not consider her a conduit any more than I would consider Arne Duncan a conduit on education or anyone else with immigration.”

But Jamal Watson, author of a forthcoming biography of Sharpton, tells me, “Valerie Jarrett has become an important ally to Al Sharpton and has become the conduit between the Obama administration and Sharpton and the civil-rights community.”

Long after Obama’s election and reelection, both the president and Sharpton continue to benefit from the relationship, Watson says.

“I think Sharpton helps to legitimize Obama and protect him against critics who claim he’s not black enough,” he explains, “while at the same time, Obama provides credibility to Al Sharpton against the critics who say he is racist and doesn’t have a track record in civil rights.”