$500 Million State Dept Climate Change Collusion

Senators accuse State Dept. of defying Congress with $500M UN climate payment

FNC: Two Republican senators are accusing the State Department of misusing taxpayer dollars by green-lighting $500 million for a United Nations climate change program without first obtaining congressional approval.

The senators now are demanding the department justify the “cloak-and-dagger” contribution to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) – even threatening legal action.

“Lawyers cannot replace the constitutional requirement that only Congress can appropriate money,” Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said, adding that he’s demanding a “full legal analysis.”

Gardner, in a statement to FoxNews.com, alleged the department was trying to “wave a magic wand and write a half-billion dollar check to a Green Climate Fund that they admit was never authorized by Congress.”

He also vowed to “pursue legislative action that prevents cloak-and-dagger re-programming of money outside of congressional approval.”

At the center of the dispute is whether the State Department abused its authority in shifting funds between an existing program and the climate fund.

The Obama administration – despite resistance from congressional Republicans — has committed the U.S. to contributing $3 billion to the fund, a program established by the United Nations to help poor countries adopt clean energy technologies to address climate change. Nearly 200 other nations have agreed to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, from private and public sources.

Along with Gardner, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., maintains Congress has not allocated any funding for what he calls the “international climate change slush fund” and has in fact “prohibited the transfer of funds to create new programs.”

The State Department acknowledges the funding was never explicitly approved by Congress – but argues the department was within its authority to shift funding to the Green Climate Fund, because Congress did not explicitly prohibit funding the GCF.  

Under questioning by Barrasso at a March 8 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom told the committee the funds were diverted from the department’s Economic Support Fund — which provides economic funding to foreign countries — to the GCF after a full review by department lawyers.

State Department spokeswoman Katherine Pfaff also confirmed to FoxNews.com the source of the funding was the economic fund, but could not say from which exact program the money came.

And she bluntly addressed the GOP senators’ accusation. “Did Congress authorize the Green Climate Fund? No,” she said, adding that department lawyers “reviewed the authority and the process under which we can do it.”

The administration, meanwhile, has requested another $750 million for the GCF in its fiscal 2017 budget.

Higginbottom also insisted they were not required to notify Congress about the transfer from the Economic Support Fund.

At the hearing, though, Barrasso said the first installment of the $3 billion pledge was “a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

Barrasso said because the GCF technically is a new program and not authorized by Congress, the department may have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act, a law that prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation.

According to Politico, Barrasso is prepared to go to court over the issue and to seek prosecution of individuals if they are found to have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The Wyoming senator’s communications director, Bronwyn Lance Chester, confirmed to FoxNews.com that “all options are being considered.”

The department may have been able to effectively use a loophole to contribute the money – namely, because Congress did not include specific language barring spending to the GCF. Analysts say this dispute could have been avoided if Congress had simply included a specific prohibition on spending for the climate fund.

“The problem is that the horse has already left the barn. There was not a specific line item in the budget prohibiting spending on the GCF. I am sure [State Department lawyers] have come up with some creative way to fund it, but it would not be an issue if Congress had explicitly prohibited it,” said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the Heartland Institute.

Senate Republicans backed away from including a specific rider in last year’s omnibus bill after President Obama threatened to veto if such a rider were included.

“They were gutless,” said Burnett, who noted the first installment is a “drop in the bucket” when compared with the $3 billion.

Because the omnibus spending bill was silent on the GCF, the White House argued this left the door open for the administration to fund the U.N. program. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in December “there are no restrictions in our ability to make good on the president’s promise to contribute to the Green Climate Fund.”

Gardner and Barrasso also were signatories to a letter sent last year to Obama asserting the deal reached at a United Nations climate change conference in Paris, including the $100 billion-a-year Green Climate Fund, must be submitted to Congress for approval before any funding could be made.

Germany: Anti-Immigrant Party Growing

This has been building since 2014 and gained real traction in 2015.

USAToday: Far-right protests were held in more than a dozen other nations in Europe on Saturday including the Czech Republic, France, Poland and the Netherlands. The marches and demonstrations were part of a coordinated attempt by PEGIDA and like-minded groups to hold a so-called European Action Day. Riot police clashed with protesters at several of the rallies including in Calais, France, where police used tear gas to disperse crowds. Ten people were arrested.

The synchronized demonstrations came as the number of Syrian refugees assembled on Turkey’s border jumped to 35,000, according to Reuters.

The latest exodus is a result of a renewed offensive by Syria’s President Bashar Assad to retake ground controlled by opposition groups near the city of Aleppo, previously a valued commercial center.

Turkey refuses to open the border. It already hosts over 2.5 million Syrian refugees.

German anti-immigration party makes gains in local elections amid refugee crisis

FNC: A nationalist, anti-migration party powered into three German state legislatures in elections Sunday held amid divisions over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal approach to the refugee crisis. Merkel’s conservatives lost to center-left rivals in two states they had hoped to win.

The elections in the prosperous southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, neighboring Rhineland-Palatinate and relatively poor Saxony-Anhalt in the ex-communist east were the first major political test since Germany registered nearly 1.1 million people as asylum-seekers last year.

The three-year-old Alternative for Germany, or AfD — which has campaigned against Merkel’s open-borders approach — easily entered all three legislatures.

AfD won 15.1 percent of the vote in Baden-Wuerttemberg and 12.6 percent in Rhineland-Palatinate, official results showed. It finished second in Saxony-Anhalt with some 24 percent, according to projections by ARD and ZDF television with most districts counted.

“We are seeing above all in these elections that voters are turning away in large numbers from the big established parties and voting for our party,” AfD leader Frauke Petry said.

They “expect us finally to be the opposition that there hasn’t been in the German parliament and some state parliaments,” she added.

There were uncomfortable results both for Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union and their partners in the national government, the center-left Social Democrats. The traditional rivals are Germany’s two biggest parties.

“The democratic center in our country has not become stronger, but smaller, and I think we must all take that seriously,” said Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democrats’ leader.

Merkel’s party kept its status as strongest party in Saxony-Anhalt. It had hoped to beat left-leaning Green governor Winfried Kretschmann in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a traditional stronghold that the CDU ran for decades until 2011. It also hoped to oust Social Democrat governor Malu Dreyer from the governor’s office in Rhineland-Palatinate.

However, the CDU finished several percentage points behind the popular incumbents’ parties in both states and dropped 12 percentage points to a record-low result in Baden-Wuerttemberg, with 27 percent support. Its performance in Rhineland-Palatinate, with 31.8 percent, was also a record low.

The Social Democrats suffered large losses in both Baden-Wuerttemberg and Saxony-Anhalt, where they were the junior partners in the outgoing governments, finishing behind AfD.

Other parties won’t share power with AfD, but its presence will complicate their coalition-building efforts.

In all three states, the results were set to leave the outgoing coalition governments without a majority — forcing regional leaders into what could be time-consuming negotiations with new, unusual partners. Merkel’s CDU still has a long-shot chance of forming an untried three-way alliance to win the Baden-Wuerttemberg governor’s office.

Germany’s next national election is due in late 2017. While Sunday’s results will likely generate new tensions, Merkel herself should be secure: she has put many state-level setbacks behind her in the past, and there’s no long-term successor or figurehead for any rebellion in sight.

A top official with Merkel’s party called for it to stay on its course in the refugee crisis. CDU general secretary Peter Tauber pointed to recent polls indicating that her popularity is rebounding and added: “this shows that it is good if the CDU sticks to this course, saying that we need time to master this big challenge.”

Merkel insisted last year that “we will manage” the challenge of integrating refugees. While her government has moved to tighten asylum rules, she still insists on a pan-European solution to the refugee crisis, ignoring demands from some conservative allies for a national cap on the number of refugees.

AfD’s strong performance will boost its hopes of entering the national parliament next year. It entered five state legislatures and the European Parliament in its initial guise as a primarily anti-euro party before splitting and then rebounding in the refugee crisis.

The CDU may have been hurt by an attempt by its candidates in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate to put cautious distance between themselves and Merkel’s refugee policies, which may simply have created the impression of disunity. The party slipped in polls there over recent weeks.

The two last month called for Germany to impose daily refugee quotas — something Merkel opposes but which neighboring Austria has since put in place. Separately, Merkel’s conservative allies in Bavaria have attacked her approach for months, demanding an annual refugee cap.

Center-left incumbents Kretschmann and Dreyer often sounded more enthusiastic about Merkel’s refugee policy than their conservative challengers.

“The result hopefully will be that the CDU and (their Bavarian allies) will realize that this permanent quarreling doesn’t help them,” Vice Chancellor Gabriel said.

Yikes, the IMF is Sounding the Alarm

Deja Vu? Imagine what a new president of the United States is about to inherit? Terrifying…

The IMF Is Sounding the Alarm. Is Anyone Listening?

WSJ: The International Monetary Fund is sounding louder and louder alarms about the state of the global economy. The problem is, few major economies seem to be hearing them.

“The IMF’s latest reading of the global economy shows once again a weakening baseline,” the fund’s No. 2 official, David Lipton, warned Tuesday in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics.

While the world economy is still expanding, he said, “we are clearly at a delicate juncture, where risk of economic derailment has grown.”

The IMF alerted finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 largest economies gathered in Shanghai late last month, signaling it would likely downgrade its outlook for the global economy in April.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said a coordinated effort was needed, urging governments with room in their budgets to ramp up spending and all countries to accelerate delivery of long-promised economic overhauls.

Unlike the G-20’s massive joint-stimulus effort in 2009 to combat the financial meltdown wreaking havoc across the globe, IMF members are at odds about the severity of the problem and how to fix it.

“We are strictly against announcing publicly that the G-20 is preparing a stimulus program,” German officials privately told other countries as the group drafted its joint communiqué.

The IMF fears such an attitude risks jeopardizing the global economic expansion.

Mr. Lipton, at his speech Tuesday, cited a World War II-era quote by Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Part of the problem is a growing concern that policy makers are running out of ammunition or have lost the resolve to deploy growth-reviving measures.

“For the sake of the global economy, it is imperative that advanced and developing countries dispel this dangerous notion by reviving the bold spirit of action and cooperation that characterized the early years of the recovery effort,” Mr. Lipton said.

The IMF calls come as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said leading indicators already suggest global growth will slow in the coming months. And the Bank for International Settlements cautioned against diminishing returns for central banks as they keep pushing easy-money policies to boost growth, including “great uncertainty” about navigating deeper into uncharted waters of negative interest rates.

There are few signs policy makers are shifting into higher gear. “There’s a great deal of economic uncertainty in the world, but there’s not a crisis and it would not be reasonable to expect a crisis response,” a senior U.S. Treasury official said during the recent meeting.

While the IMF is pushing the G-20 to boost spending, it is not a call to do so at the expense of monetary policy. The fund has long pushed the Federal Reserve to delay its planned rate increases and asked the European Central Bank to rev up its stimulus efforts.

Mr. Lipton worries premature withdrawal of central bank support could pitch the global economy into a deflationary death trap.

Then, “vicious and self-reinforcing dynamics” would plague the world in the form of higher real interest rates, falling output, building debt and higher unemployment, he said.  Such effects are “notoriously difficult to combat once they become entrenched.”

If recent history is any guide, the IMF may once again have to turn its downside scenario for the global economy into its baseline.

 
****
This was also the major topic at DAVOS in January.
Fear, Uncertainty Causing Market Chaos and Davos Isn’t Helping

The trouble with the World Economic Forum is that it has a propensity to become something of an echo chamber. Rather than promoting a plurality of different views, ideas and sentiments, the mood tends to get focused on a single, self-reinforcing consensus which is endlessly repeated and passed around, as if trending on social media. So it is with financial panics, which have an unnerving tendency to coincide with the annual conference in Davos. I’ve seen it happen on a number of occasions, most memorably in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when the sense of fear for the future among financiers and policymakers was palpable.

It happened again in early 2009, in the depths of the banking crisis, when an end-of-days mentality hung over the conference. Somehow or the other, Davos amplifies these panics rather than calming them. This year threatens to be little different. Nobody here knows quite what to make of the latest stock market sell-off, and that, indeed, is part of the problem, for uncertainty breeds fear of loss and can easily degenerate into a collective dash for the exit. The danger is that we talk ourselves into something a good deal more serious than it should be.

There is no particular trigger for the latest panic. Most of, if not all, the concerns that underlie it have been with us for some time now — the apparent incompetence of once omnipotent Chinese policymakers in the face of a slowing economy, the collapsing oil price and the growing sense of geo-political instability that accompanies it. As for the rise in American interest rates, that happened a month ago, and had been widely signalled by the Federal Reserve for more than a year beforehand. Yet it is only now that this slight tweak to monetary policy has transmogrified in the eyes of investors from a benign and well-flagged response to an accelerating US economy into a grievous policy mistake that threatens to destabilise the world economy.

So what are we dealing with here; a long-overdue adjustment to asset prices unduly inflated by years of central bank money-printing, or a signal of tough times ahead for the real economy? It’s not hard to make the case for financial Armageddon; certainly, there are plenty of people here only too willing to imagine the worst. Start with the plunging oil price, which ought to be positive for the big consumer economies of the West — given that it puts more money in people’s pockets for spending on other things.

One worry, though, is that it is already causing such a hiatus in oil industry investment that today’s glut will in short order turn to famine, causing the price to surge anew. Back in the late Nineties, the Economist ran a cover on why the oil price would remain at $5 a barrel “for ever”. But as everyone knows, nothing is for ever and little more than 10 years later, it had risen to nearly $150.

The same cycle is being repeated today, with investment cut to a level that, in the long term, will leave supply more than a third lower than present demand. Markets are now anticipating the cooling effect of these higher prices to come. Another worry is that the low oil price will end up bankrupting Saudi Arabia, causing further chaos in an unstable region. Isil taking control of some of the world’s biggest oil reserves scarcely bears thinking about.

Meanwhile, a strong dollar in combination with collapsing commodity prices is threatening a wave of corporate bankruptcies in a world awash with dollar debt. To this list of woes must be added continued worries over China’s transition from to a consumer-led economy. Since the financial crisis, China has been the key source of growth in an otherwise stagnant global economy, but now this progress seems to have stalled. Stories abound of extreme unhappiness within the notoriously secretive Chinese high command. There is even talk of attempted coups. These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but what is undeniable is that all these concerns play into a world of extreme flux. Investors may crave stability and predictability. But for now, these are in lamentably short supply.

Europe Calls on NATO to Clean up the Mess

So, the damage is done, destruction to Europe is throughout the region. European leaders refuse to fully live up to their respective NATO membership and fight the good cause, rather they need NATO to clean up a mess they caused……immigration, migration, crime and broken borders.

It begins in Turkey, a NATO country quite tired of hosting millions of refugees and demanding Assad be removed from power. The next step in Greece, just a few hours boat ride from Turkey where people pay smuggling boat people to take them to the shores of Greece.

Greece itself is broken financially and is happy to stick it to the European Central Bank for not fully bailing out Greece’s socialism.

Please NATO help us out. Stop the migrant insurgency.

Schengen is suspended and likely dead….

NATO Secretary General welcomes expansion of NATO deployment in the Aegean Sea

NATO took swift decisions to deploy ships to the Aegean Sea to support our Allies Greece and Turkey, as well as the EU’s border agency FRONTEX, in their efforts to tackle the migrant and refugee crisis. NATO ships are already collecting information and conducting monitoring in the Aegean Sea. Their activity will now be expanded to take place also in territorial waters.

Our commanders have defined our area of activity in close consultation and coordination with both Greece and Turkey. Our activities in territorial waters will be carried out in consultation and coordination with both Allies. The purpose of NATO’s deployment is not to stop or push back migrant boats, but to help our Allies Greece and Turkey, as well as the European Union, in their efforts to tackle human trafficking and the criminal networks that are fueling this crisis.

NATO’s Maritime Command has also agreed with FRONTEX on arrangements at the operational and tactical level. NATO and FRONTEX will be able to exchange liaison officers and share information in real time, to enable FRONTEX, as well as Greece and Turkey, to take action in real time.

This is an excellent example of how NATO and the EU can work together to address common challenges. I welcome the fact that we were able to finalise these arrangements in such a short time. In this crisis, time is of the essence, and cooperation is key.

**** You are by now asking what is FRONTEX….heh…well it is a European commission that has clearing failed in it’s charter.

Mission and Tasks

Frontex promotes, coordinates and develops European border management in line with the EU fundamental rights charter applying the concept of Integrated Border Management.

Frontex helps border authorities from different EU countries work together. Frontex’s full title is the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. The agency was set up in 2004 to reinforce and streamline cooperation between national border authorities. In pursuit of this goal, Frontex has several operational areas which are defined in the founding Frontex Regulation and a subsequent amendment. These areas of activity are:

Joint Operations— Frontex plans, coordinates, implements and evaluates joint operations conducted using Member States’ staff and equipment at the external borders (sea, land and air).

Training— Frontex is responsible for developing common training standards and specialist tools. These include the Common Core Curriculum, which provides a common entry-level training rationale for border guards across the Union, and mid- and high-level training for more senior officers.

Risk Analysis— Frontex collates and analyses intelligence on the ongoing situation at the external borders. These data are compiled from border crossing points and other operational information as well as from the Member States and open sources including mass media and academic research.

Research— Frontex serves as a platform to bring together Europe’s border-control personnel and the world of research and industry to bridge the gap between technological advancement and the needs of border control authorities.

Providing a rapid response capability— Frontex has created a pooled resource in the form of European Border Guard Teams (EBGT) and an extensive database of available equipment which brings together specialist human and technical resources from across the EU. These teams are kept in full readiness in case of a crisis situation at the external border.

Assisting Member States in joint return operations— When Member States make the decision to return foreign nationals staying illegally, who have failed to leave voluntarily, Frontex assists those Member States in coordinating their efforts to maximise efficiency and cost-effectiveness while also ensuring that respect for fundamental rights and the human dignity of returnees is maintained at every stage.

Information systems and information sharing environment— Information regarding emerging risks and the current state of affairs at the external borders form the basis of risk analysis and so-called “situational awareness” for border control authorities in the EU. Frontex develops and operates information systems enabling the exchange of such information, including the Information and Coordination Network established by Decision 2005/267/EC and European border surveillance system.

While fulfilling its mandate, Frontex liaises closely with other EU partners involved in the development of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice such as Europol, EASOEurojustFRA or CEPOL, as well as with customs authorities in order to promote overall cohesion.

Frontex also works closely with the border-control authorities of non-EU/Schengen countries — mainly those countries identified as a source or transit route of irregular migration — in line with general EU external relations policy.

**** So Turkey, get your act together and take these people back. They are not Turks, few are even Syrians…..but a NATO country must accept them?

The Commission has today adopted the second report on progress by Turkey in fulfilling the requirements of its Visa Liberalisation Roadmap, highlighting the steps made by Turkey since the last report in October 2014. At the EU-Turkey Summit of 29 November, Turkey committed to accelerating the fulfilment of the Roadmap, including by anticipating the application of all the provisions of the EU-Turkey Readmission agreement, with the objective of completing the visa liberalisation process by October 2016, provided all the benchmarks have been met by then. Today’s report welcomes the new level of engagement and determination demonstrated by the Turkish authorities.

 

Boeing Secret Deals with Iran, Skirting Sanctions

Why Boeing kept Iran dealings under the radar

Author: Saam Borhani

alMonitor: Barely a week after the Jan. 16 lifting of nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, Tehran hosted its first international business summit in years. The event, sponsored by the Centre for Aviation (CAPA), brought together 400 executives of the global aviation industry to re-establish links with their Iranian counterparts after a decades-long estrangement. What raised eyebrows in Tehran and Washington, however, was the conspicuous absence of Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer. Boeing’s curious decision to skip the CAPA event raised questions about the United States’ commitment to the sanctions relief mandated under the July 14, 2015, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The decision Boeing made to stay home, likely prompted by unease as to the confusing web of remaining US sanctions, is a harbinger of things to come for the delicate dance between Iran and American business.

It turns out that Boeing, while skipping the high-profile CAPA event in Tehran, has actually been unofficially negotiating behind the scenes with Iranian civil aviation officials for a considerable time. Indeed, weeks after European rival Airbus signed a multibillion dollar deal for 118 passenger jets with Iran, Washington finally gave the go-ahead for Boeing to begin official negotiations and to apply for special licenses to sell aircraft to the Iranians.

As the world cashes in on an Iran ready to do business, the United States risks being late to the game because of a mixture of political sensitivities, confusion about the remaining American sanctions and structural impediments that make trading with Iran prohibitively risky for all but the most adept American companies.

American trade with Iran is known to attract seething headlines in both countries. A simple form on McDonald’s website about franchise opportunities in Iran last year prompted warnings of an impending cultural invasion of the country in the Iranian right-wing media. Similarly, US companies risk the wrath of special interest groups devoted to inflicting reputational damage because of trade with Iran. Halliburton and Hewlett-Packard are prominent examples of companies that have been attacked in the American media for previous legal business relations with Iran.

Groups such as United Against a Nuclear Iran have also been successful in convincing around half of the state legislatures to pass measures punishing companies operating in Iran. These local laws have directed state pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divest from targeted companies and sometimes have barred these companies from public contracts. The impact of these state “sanctions” on the JCPOA is not clear and may yet prompt a political and legal battle between the federal government and state officials. Indeed, the harm to the reputations of US companies by such local punitive measures is a strong deterrent to engaging with the Iranian consumer. It is also an issue that is likely to continue, as long as Iran remains listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department.

For American companies large enough to weather bad publicity, the remaining and now largely unilateral US sanctions on Iran represent a potentially costly minefield. The JCPOA allows for licensed sales of American airliners to Iran and the legal importation of Iranian foodstuffs and rugs. Besides these specific carve-outs, US companies may trade with Iran under the general licenses that were available before the JCPOA and under specific licenses granted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Treasury Department’s sanctions administrator. In addition, foreign subsidiaries of US companies that are not under the control and direction of US persons may trade directly with Iran. Maintaining a robust compliance system and routinely checking company interactions with Iran to make sure that they do not run afoul of OFAC regulations is a costly and time-consuming endeavor. Indeed, any American company that trades with Iran under the terms of the JCPOA, and especially under the complicated foreign subsidiary clause, must be large enough to support sufficiently adept legal compliance teams. Small and medium-size US businesses are thus effectively shut out of a presence in Iran for this very reason.

For the large multinational American companies that may be able to gain a foothold in Iran, there remain structural constraints that residual US sanctions place on legal trade with Iran. The United States has made it clear that no payments linked to Iran may be processed through its financial system. This means that profits made by American businesses in Iran will likely not be able to be directly repatriated and probably will remain offshore in segregated foreign accounts. American companies must also contend with strict bars on doing business with any Iranian entities that remain on OFAC’s “specially designated nationals” list, the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Each of these barred entities took over vast parts of the Iranian economy as a result of the international sanctions that have now been lifted.

The JCPOA has opened small opportunities for trade between American and Iranian firms. However, the remaining labyrinth of hard-to-understand restrictions will likely spook most Americans.

Both the Iranian and US governments have a vital interest in seeing that the JCPOA is an enduring agreement — and this partly depends on sanctions relief benefiting Iranian and American private sectors in a way that would effectuate the “buy-in” of JCPOA skeptics. A mutually beneficial trading arrangement that connects the private sectors of the United States and Iran — despite political differences — would strengthen the nuclear deal by attaching a direct economic cost to nonadherence. The limited avenues for legal trade, if quickly institutionalized, can be insulated from the historically volatile political relationship between Iran and the United States.

In this vein, a quiet Iranian commitment to protect American investors in Iran and to tone down the harshest anti-US rhetoric, at least with respect to American business, would give space for Wall Street to influence a change in Washington’s largely monolithic view of a hostile Iran. More importantly, a quiet US commitment to actively support legal trade with Iran — with the same zeal that it uses to enforce sanctions — would give the Iranians space to consider future negotiated compromises.