Greece, Nazis, Germany, Russia and the Euro

Posted on April 7, 2015April 7, 2015 by Denise Simon

Greece has a new government and on tap is a huge payment of debt to the International Monetary Fund. Greece is in no position to meet this payment of $450 million. So Greece is looking to other countries for help and could be prepared to give up several pieces of key infrastructure. Iran, Greece and China are eager to come to the rescue, which could add to the power balance in Europe.

The Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras is himself has a communist background.

Greece Nazi occupation: Athens asks Germany for €279bn

The Greek government says Germany owes Greece nearly €279bn (£204bn; $303bn) in war reparations for the Nazi occupation during World War Two.

It is the first time Greece has officially calculated what Germany allegedly owes it for Nazi atrocities and looting during the 1940s.

However, the German government says the issue was resolved legally years ago.

Greece’s radical left Syriza government is making the claim while struggling to meet massive debt repayment deadlines.

Reacting to the Greek claim, German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was “dumb” to link Greece’s bailout by the eurozone with the question of war reparations.

“To be honest I think it’s dumb. I think that it doesn’t move us forward one millimetre on the question of stabilising Greece,” he said.

He said ordinary Greek citizens however deserved “huge respect” for their economic sacrifices under the bailout programme. The Greek elite had “plundered” the country, he complained.

‘Legally closed’

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras raised the reparations issue when he met German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin last month.

The new figure given by Greek Deputy Finance Minister Dimitris Mardas includes €10.3bn for an occupation loan that the Nazis forced the Bank of Greece to pay.

“According to our calculations, the debt linked to German reparations is 278.7bn euros,” Mr Mardas told a parliamentary committee investigating responsibility for Greece’s debt crisis.

Mr Mardas said the reparations calculation had been made by Greece’s state general accounting office.

German soldiers raising the German war flag over the Acropolis — Greece was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1941 – here German soldiers raise their flag over the Acropolis

Berlin paid 115m Deutschmarks to Athens in 1960 in compensation – a fraction of the Greek demand. Greece says it did not cover payments for damaged infrastructure, war crimes and the return of the forced loan.

Germany insists the reparations issue was settled in 1990, before Germany reunified.

The budget spokesman for Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, Eckhardt Rehberg, reiterated on Tuesday that “the reparations issue is for us closed, politically and legally – the same applies to the so-called forced loan”.

Syriza politicians have frequently blamed Germany for Greek citizens’ hardship under the austerity imposed by international lenders.

Mr Tsipras is trying to renegotiate the €240bn EU-IMF bailout that saved Greece from bankruptcy. Greece has not received bailout funds since August last year, as the lenders are dissatisfied with the pace of Greek reforms.

A Greek repayment of €448m to the International Monetary Fund is due this Thursday.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has said that Greece “intends to meet all obligations to all its creditors, ad infinitum”.

In the Artic, NATO vs. Putin

Posted on April 3, 2015April 3, 2015 by Denise Simon

4/3/2015 – OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. — Two B-52 Stratofortresses from the 5th Bomb Wing, Minot Air Force Base, N.D., and a pair from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., completed today simultaneous, roundtrip sorties from their U.S. bases to the Arctic and North Sea regions, respectively.

The training mission, coined POLAR GROWL, allowed the aircrews to hone their navigation skills and enhanced their ability to work with Allied partners, while demonstrating U.S. Strategic Command capacity.

“These flights, demonstrating the credible and flexible ability of our strategic bomber force in internationally-recognized flight information regions, are the culmination of months of planning and coordination,” said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, U.S. Strategic Command commander. “They are one of many ways we demonstrate interoperability, compliance with national and international protocols and due regard for the safety of all aircraft sharing the air space.”

Each of the two legs of POLAR GROWL provided unique training opportunities, all while testing the bomber force’s command and control apparatus’ ability to support two synchronized flight paths. The bomber crews flying the North Sea route participated in dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with fighter aircraft flown by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the U.K.’s Royal Air Force and the Royal Netherlands Air Force. In addition to conducting dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with Royal Canadian Air Force fighters, bomber crews on the Arctic leg of the mission transited around the North Pole, providing the crews invaluable training in polar navigation.

“Today’s dynamic global security environment is an interdependent world where international partnerships are foundational,” Haney continued. “Exercises and operations such as these bomber flights enable and enhance relationships with our Allies and partners, and allow others to understand what capabilities U.S. Strategic Command brings to the equation.”

The U.S. regularly conducts combined training and theater security cooperation engagements with Allies and partners. The combined training provided in POLAR GROWL follows the participation of B-52s in NATO Exercise NOBLE JUSTIFICATION in October 2014 and the deployment of B-52s and B-2s to RAF Fairford, U.K., in June 2014, both of which provided occasions to train alongside U.S. Allies and partners.

“The long-range nature of the mission, coupled with the opportunity to interact, in real-time, with Allied aircraft was an invaluable experience that simply can’t be replicated out of the cockpit,” said Maj. Nathan Barnhart, 343rd Bomb Squadron instructor radar navigator. “Training like this ensures we are ready to respond to any and all mission directives across the globe.”

Flown in support of both U.S. European Command and U.S. Northern Command, POLAR GROWL was specifically designed to demonstrate U.S. commitment to Allies and enhancement of regional security, and not directed at any country.

Additionally, U.S. forces conduct all flights in accordance with the procedures outlined in the International Civil Aviation Organization international standards and recommended practices. By conducting flights that follow the ICAOs fundamental objectives, regional safety is enhanced to prevent any chance of misunderstanding.

The B-52 Stratofortress is capable of delivering large payload of precision nuclear or conventional ordnance over long ranges, while also providing decision makers the ability to rapidly project military power and generate decisive effects.

*** The United States and NATO is performing these operations because of Putin.

Russia’s Arctic Push

For the interactive map go here.

Russia has been ramping up its military presence in the Arctic, reopening abandoned Soviet-era bases, boosting its troop presence, building new facilities, and refurbishing infrastructure and air fields across a region that stretches from Russia’s borders with Norway and Finland to the seas off Alaska. The push reflects a new emphasis under President Vladimir Putin on the Arctic as a region of strategic importance that is also rich in oil and gas reserves.

The push comes as melting sea ice opens up those Arctic energy resources, prompting a scramble by Russia and other Arctic nations — Denmark, Canada, the United States, and Norway – to stake competing territorial claims. Mouse over and click each dot to see details of Russia’s Arctic expansion.

***

Putin is being quite shrewd while Jens Stoltenberg, the newly assigned Secretary General of NATO was real stupid.

Oslo (AFP) – Russian ships docked at what was once a secret Norwegian naval base in the Arctic have prompted concern from the NATO country’s former top military leaders, anxious about its resurgent eastern neighbour roaming nearby.

Norway’s jagged Arctic coastline has regained its strategic importance since tensions between Russia and NATO members have spiked to levels not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The rocky relations have led some to criticise the shutting down of Olavsvern Naval Base, a massive complex burrowed into a mountain near the northern town of Tromsoe, that has been closed since 2009.

Shuttering it was driven by the then seemingly reduced threat from Moscow and its massive Northern Fleet based on Russia’s nearby Kola Peninsula.

“We sold the only base worthy of the name that we had up there. It’s pure madness,” former vice admiral Einar Skorgen, who commanded Norway’s northern forces, told AFP.

Skorgen and other critics say Norway has robbed itself of a crucial foothold in the far north, forcing its submarines to travel hundreds of extra miles from their bases to defend the region.

On top of that, three Russian ships have spent the winter docked deep within the mountain hideaway, once a closely guarded military facility.

“We are the only country along with Russia to have a permanent presence in the Barents Sea, where we share a common border. Obviously our navy should be stationed there, including our submarines,” Skorgen said.

“If the ships aren’t there where they are needed, they might as well be scrapped altogether.”

The way the base changed hands and ended up being rented to Russian research vessels — some of them seismic survey ships reportedly linked to state-owned energy giant Gazprom — has added further fuel to their anger.

When no buyers answered the armed forces’ initial advert on Norway’s version of eBay, a Norwegian businessman clinched the deal in 2013 for a mere 40 million kroner ($5 million, 4.6 million euros) — a steal given that NATO ploughed nearly 4 billion kroner into its construction.

“There are no longer any secrets surrounding this base,” said its new landlord Gunnar Wilhelmsen.

“Not since the military and NATO agreed to put it on sale over the Internet, along with photographs of every nook and cranny.”

– Historic ‘blunder’ –

Nonetheless, the potential for Russian military activity aboard research vessels has many military experts worried, particularly former top-ranking officers who are more prone to speaking their mind.

“Russia is a country where the state has a say over all commercial or semi-state business. It’s clear, very few people know what happens on these vessels,” said retired vice admiral Jan Reksten, formerly second in command of the Norwegian military.

He said the sale of Olavsvern was “a double loss” as “Norway’s armed forces lost an important base and now there are Russian vessels docked there.”

In an ironic twist to the tale, the decision to close the base was taken by the leftist government of Jens Stoltenberg, who has gone on to become NATO’s current secretary general and who has warned countries not to lower their guard when it comes to Russia.

Kjell-Ola Kleiven, a blogger writing on security issues in Norway, calls the affair the “biggest blunder in recent history” in an oil-rich country which boasts the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.

“With 7,000 billion kroner in the bank,” he wrote, “you would have thought that the Norwegian nation had the means and savvy to retain ownership of Olavsvern base.”

Despite the protests, Norway’s current right-wing government has shown no signs of reversing the decision made by its predecessors.

“There are no plans to re-establish military installations in Olavsvern,” Audun Halvorsen, political advisor to the defence minister, told AFP in an email.

“The owner of the site can use it as he sees fit and the armed forces do not have the authority to impose restrictions, nor any mandate to monitor civilian ships that dock there,” he added.

“Any suspected irregular activity is a matter for the police and legal authorities.”

Iran Nuclear Framework (MOU) Achieved

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

This is NOT a final deal, it is only a Memorandum of Understanding that has a date of June 30 attached to it. That of course is an organic date also. There are ‘snap-back’ sanctions threats in place IF the IAEA determines that Iran has violated conditions. What major question that remains is what are the real cures to Iran violating the conditions by the IAEA.

Iran still will have 5000-6000 centrifuges spinning and those provide Iran less than a year for a break-out condition, meaning a weapon can still be gained.

• The basis for an agreement for a peaceful Iranian nuclear program and a lifting of sanctions against that nation has been reached, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announced Thursday in Switzerland. “We have reached solutions on key parameters of a joint comprehensive plan of action,” she said.

• Iran’s enrichment capacity and stockpile would be limited, and Iran’s sole enrichment facility would be at the Natanz nuclear facility, Mogherini said. Other nuclear facilities would be converted for other uses, she said.

• Under the agreement, the nuclear facility at Fordow would be converted to a nuclear physics and technology center and the facility at Arak would be redesigned as a heavy-water research reactor that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium.

• The European Union would terminate all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions against Iran, and the United States would do the same once Iran’s implementation of the agreement is confirmed, according to announcements of the deal.

• The United Nations would terminate all previous resolutions sanctioning Iran, and would incorporate other restrictions for an agreed-upon period, according to Thursday’s announcements.

Lausanne, Switzerland (CNN)The United States and other world powers have agreed on the general terms of a deal meant to keep Iran’s nuclear program peaceful, a major breakthrough after months of high-stakes negotiations.

The deal, announced Thursday evening in Switzerland, calls for Iran to limits its enrichment capacity and stockpile in exchange for the European Union lifting economic sanctions that have hobbled Iran’s economy.

Iran also agreed to enrich nuclear materials only at one plant, with other nuclear facilities converted for other uses, said Federica Mogherini, foreign policy chief for the European Union.

The United States would lift many sanctions on Iran after Iran’s implementation of the agreement is confirmed.

Leading negotiators announced the deal in a news conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, where they have been meeting for months.

Negotiators must resolve additional details of a final deal by the end of June. The announcement marks the end of a round of talks that started last week.

They were supposed to reach a framework for a deal by Tuesday but stretched the talks into Thursday.

The world powers involved in the talks were the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

The talks, aimed at reaching a preliminary political deal on Iran’s nuclear program, blew past their initial, self-imposed deadline of late Tuesday as Iranian and U.S. negotiators struggled to find compromises on key issues.

But the negotiators doggedly continued their work in Lausanne, trying to overcome decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington.

The mutual mistrust has been a serious problem in the talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said earlier Thursday.

“I believe respect is something that needs to be exercised in practice and in deeds, and I hope that everyone is engaging in that in mutual respect,” he said.

‘A few meters from the finishing line’

Iran wants swift relief from punishing sanctions that have throttled its economy. And Western countries want to make sure any deal holds Iran back from being able to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon.

The Obama administration needed something solid enough it can sell to a skeptical Congress, which has threatened to impose new sanctions on Iran. The potential deal is also coming under sustained attack from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Government Website Stops you From Knowing

Posted on April 1, 2015April 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

The government spends your money, without your knowledge or approval on things you don’t know about or approve of. There was a website that by law you could use to search for spending by keyword or even by zipcode. Not so much as more, due to redesign likely with malice. Perhaps we need to determine what the administration’s definition of ‘transparency’ is this week. Exactly why does the Pentagon need Viagra for anyway?

Obama Admin’s New Spending Website Rolls Back Transparency

Data previously available at click of a button now a needle in a haystack

A redesign of a transparency website that provides information on federal spending by the Obama administration now makes it much more difficult to see how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Usaspending.gov, a website mandated by law to provide detailed information on every federal contract over $3,000, received a makeover on Tuesday. Users can no longer search federal spending by keywords, sort contracts by date, or easily find detailed information on awards, which are delivered in bulk.

Information, such as how much the Pentagon spends on Viagra, used to be available at the click of a button. Locating those same contracts on the new website is virtually impossible, akin to finding a needle in a haystack.

In its previous form, the website provided easy access to how taxpayer dollars are spent, as it happens. A user now must have the federal grant identification number to see details of a contract.

In another aspect of the overhaul, the online address of each of the website’s individual pages now begins with the word “transparency.”

The new version of Usaspending.gov provides a “spending map” to search by zip code, and “agency profiles,” which only provide totals of funding, sub-awards, and transactions. The results list the highest dollar amounts by company, but provide no links to specific contracts.

The list of agencies does not include smaller government bodies such as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), but does include the “Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation.” Results for the profile of “Other Small Agencies” returns zero grants or contracts, with the reply “no data found.”

The public can search by recipient, though those results are also limited. A user must click on every contract to find a short description of what the spending involves.

The new website also does not allow users to search multiple years simultaneously.

“If you select more than one Fiscal Year, you will only be able to select one Spending Type,” the website says. “You can only select a maximum of three Fiscal Years at a time.”

A user can download federal spending data by agency. However, those results—in either Extensible Markup Language (XML) or spreadsheet form—return vast amounts of convoluted data.

Those files are also separated by prime awards, sub-awards, contracts, grants, loans, and “other financial assistance” categories, making it necessary for users to download multiple large files when searching for all agency spending that used to be available at the click of a button.

An advanced search allows a user to see all of an agency’s spending, separated by contract type, though the results are only available alphabetically. A user cannot sort the data by date, making it impossible to see agency spending day to day. One can download the results to sort by date in a spreadsheet, but they include no description of what the contracts are for.

Downloading data on spending by the State Department nearly crashed this reporter’s computer.

Search results are also not indexed on Google, making the website’s search engine the only avenue for citizens and reporters to find information within the site. Microsoft Sharepoint operates the new website’s search, and the results are limited.

For example, a search of “contracts” returned zero results.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 required the creation of a website that provided “full disclosure to the public of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007.” The website became Usaspending.gov.

“The purpose of the act is to provide the public with information about how their tax dollars are spent in greater detail in order to build public trust in government and credibility in the professionals who use these dollars,” according to an explanation of the website from the Department of Education.

The website is also designed to “encourage openness and communication about effectiveness,” to “make more data and information available to the public,” and to “increase the transparency of the grant application and award process.”

The Bush administration law mandated a “single searchable website, accessible by the public for free.”

The website must also include the following information on each award of federal spending: “The name of the entity receiving the award; the amount of the award; information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc.; the location of the entity receiving the award; and a unique identifier of the entity receiving the award.”

The redesign of the website makes this information much more difficult to locate.

Users reacted negatively to the website’s change on Twitter.

“Wow, the USAspending.gov redesign is not good,” wrote one user. “Basic search is broken, advanced search forces you to use multiple variables…”

“Feds really screwed up USASpending.gov with redesign,” said another. “Less functionality, more constraints, less data (FY2008 now earliest).”

Another user noted that there is now less access to information.

“[In case you missed it] ICYMI USAspending.gov has been redesigned to show far less detailed procurement data,” they said. “‘Improvements’ brought to [you] by the FedGov.”

The website was not perfect prior to its reboot. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Usaspending.gov was missing billions of dollars in federal awards, and the vast majority of federal contracts included errors.

The federal government had purchased the website back from the contractor running Usaspending.gov, Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. last October. GCE, which had operated the website since 2003, declared bankruptcy last year.

The website was previously overseen by the Office of Management and Budget, before the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service took it over in January.

The bureau was tasked with “making improvements to the site’s usability, presentation, and search functionalities” for its re-launch, which went live on Tuesday.

Requests for comment from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s office of public affairs were not returned.

“This is the most transparent administration in history,” President Barack Obama declared in February 2013, arguing that information on laws and regulations were “put online for everyone to see.”

Obama Advisor Pro Iran Lobby, Not Valerie

Posted on March 31, 2015March 31, 2015 by Denise Simon

Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

The White House released a list of its high-ranking officials who took part in a video conference with President Obama late Tuesday. Among them appears Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who has formerly worked for the National Iranian-American Council.

The White House brief, which was disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National Iranian-American Council).

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 8.48.17 PM.png

Breitbart News has found that a person with the same name has previously written several publications on behalf of NIAC. According to what appears to be her LinkedIn account, Nowrouzzadeh became an analyst for the Department of Defense in 2005 before moving her way up to the National Security Council in 2014.

A NIAC profile from 2007 reveals that Sahar Nowrouzzadeh appears to be the same person as the one who is currently the NSC Director for Iran. The profiles indicate that she had the same double major and attended the same university (George Washington).

Critics have alleged that NIAC is a lobby for the current Iranian dictatorship under Ayatollah Khamenei. A dissident journalist revealed recently that NIAC’s president and founder, Trita Parsi, has maintained a years-long relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.

NIAC was established in 1999, when founder Trita Parsi attended a conference in Cyprus that was held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi reportedly laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to allegedly counteract the influence of America’s pro-Israel and anti-Tehran regime advocacy groups.

NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s brother.

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 2.22.52 PM.png

The possible revelations about the NSC Director’s apparent past with the alleged pro-regime group come as the U.S. has reportedly struck an agreement with Iran and the rest of the P5+1 world powers on Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

***

So what else is not being addressed in the negotiations?

Experts: Iran Housing Nuke Materials in North Korea, Syria

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — A top State Department official on Monday dismissed reports that Iran may be hiding key nuclear-related assets in North Korea and implied that she was unaware of the possibility, despite the publication this weekend of several articles by top analysts expressing alarm at the extent of nuclear cooperation between Tehran and Pyongyang.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the State Department, dismissed as “bizarre” the reports, which described the transfer of enriched uranium and ballistic missile technology back and forth between the two rogue regimes.

The existence of an illicit Iranian nuclear infrastructure outside of the Islamic Republic’s borders would gut a nuclear deal that the administration has vowed to advance by Tuesday, according to these experts and others.

If Iran is not forced to disclose the full extent and nature of its outside nuclear work to the United States, there is virtually no avenue to guarantee that it is living up to its promises made in the negotiating room, according to multiple experts and sources in Europe apprised of the ongoing talks.

Gordon Chang, a North Korea expert who has written in recent days about Iran’s possible “secret program” there, described the State Department’s dismissal of these reports as naïve.

“Let me see if I get this straight: The country with the world’s most highly developed technical intelligence capabilities does not know what has been in open sources for years?” Chang said. “No wonder North Korea transfers nuclear weapons technology to Iran and others with impunity.”

“The North Koreans could go on CNN and say, ‘Hey, Secretary Kerry, we’re selling the bomb to Iran,’ and the State Department would still say they know nothing about it,” Chang said. “No wonder we’re in such trouble.”

Other Iranian experts specializing in the country’s military workings also have raised recent questions about Tehran’s collaboration with North Korea.

Ali Alfoneh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, both senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have revealed that a nuclear reactor destroyed in Syria in 2007 by Israel was likely a North Korean-backed Iranian project.

Gerecht told the Free Beacon in a follow-up interview that key issues regarding Iran’s past military work and outside collaboration are being ignored in the negotiating room as diplomats rush to secure a tentative deal by Tuesday night.

“It certainly appears that the administration has backed away from [previous military dimensions] questions,” Gerecht said. “The plan appears to be to let the [International Atomic Energy Agency] continue its so far fruitless effort to gain access to sensitive sites, personnel, and paperwork, but to keep these questions out of the talks.”

“The administration is doing this because it fears the Iranians would walk out,” he added. “Any military work revealed by the Iranians would prove the Supreme Leader and [President] Rouhani liars.

Despite concerns from countries such a France over the issue, the United States has attempted to accommodate Iran, Gerecht said.

“The White House wants to believe that monitoring of known sites will be sufficient. It’s a bit mystifying given the Iranian track record and the CIA’s longstanding inability to penetrate the nuclear-weapons program (it’s just too hard of a target to do this reliably),” he explained. “But since they fear a breakdown, they bend their credulity in Iran’s favor. This has been the story of the negotiations from the beginning.”

Alfoneh also told the Free Beacon that Iran should be pressed by the United States to disclose the full extent of its nuclear relationship with North Korea.

“I certainly think the Islamic Republic should come clean concerning its past record of nuclear activities: Did the Islamic Republic ever try to build a nuclear weapon? If not, how are we to understand the opaque references to Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation in the 1990s?” Alfoneh said.

“As long as the Islamic Republic does not provide a clear record of its nuclear activities in the 1980s and 1990s, and as long as we do not know the full scope of Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation, there is always the risk of the two states renewing that cooperation, which in turn would jeopardize any agreement the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 Group may reach,” he said.

Another potential complication includes the ability of international inspectors to discern the extent of Iran’s nuclear work in Syria.

“Syria’s current chaos makes it virtually impossible for inspectors to do their job even if the Syrians were compliant,” according to Emanuele Ottolenghi, a onetime advisor to foreign ministries in Europe.

There is no way to determine whether Syria is housing any other nuclear sites on behalf of the Iranian, according to Ottolenghi, another senior fellow at FDD.

“Syria has covered up its nuclear activities after the 2007 [Israeli Air Force] raid on Deir al-Azour,” he said. “After four years of inconclusive efforts, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] ended up deferring the issue to the [United Nations Security Council] after declaring Syria in non-compliance.”