Category Archives: Iran Israel

Iran Deal: Thomas Pickering Got Big Bucks

Posted on by

Thomas Pickering is PRO IRAN, let that sink in…

Ex-Clinton official got Boeing bucks while pushing Iran nuke pact – before $25B jet deal

FNC: A former top Clinton administration diplomat who used his political sway to garner support for the Iran nuclear deal apparently was being bankrolled the entire time by Boeing — which is set to make billions off a jet deal with Tehran now that sanctions have been lifted.

 

Thomas Pickering, who also served as co-chairman of the board examining the Benghazi attack response, publicly pushed for the nuclear deal before its approval last year. He did so by penning op-eds, writing to high-level officials and even testifying before Congress.

With the deal in place, Boeing has since moved forward on a $25 billion deal with Iran Air made possible by the nuclear agreement.

While Pickering never denied being on Boeing’s payroll during the talks, he didn’t regularly disclose it either, according to a new report in The Daily Beast. And that’s the problem, transparency advocates say.

“In Pickering’s case, he has a direct connection to Boeing, which I think should be disclosed,” Neil Gordon, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, told The Daily Beast. “I think it’s necessary for the public debate. It’s necessary for the public to fully realize the participants’ financial interests. Some of them might have a direct financial stake in a particular outcome.”

Pickering was a former top State Department official in the Bill Clinton administration, and before that ambassador to Russia. He also served as ambassador to the United Nations, Israel and elsewhere in prior administrations.

When Pickering testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 16, 2014, the biography provided to committee members touted his military and government services but did not list his business ties.

Pickering also sent a July 7, 2015 letter to lawmakers urging them to back the nuclear deal but reportedly did not make his association with Boeing known. The letter was cited by the media, lawmakers and the White House in the push to sell the nuclear deal to the public.

In op-eds for The Washington Post and Tablet, he also made the case for the deal but again did not disclose his ties.

He confirmed to The Daily Beast that he was a Boeing employee from 2001 to 2006 (which was more widely known) and later worked as a “direct consultant” from 2006 to 2015.

Earlier this month, Boeing reached a tentative agreement to sell passenger planes to Iran’s state-run carrier, Iran Air. The deal is the first major business venture after sanctions were eased against Tehran last year and is seen by many as a groundbreaking test for other American companies looking to profit from Iran’s untapped economy.

The deal is still in its early stage and will likely face scrutiny from U.S. trade regulators and lawmakers.

“It’s tragic to watch such an iconic American company make such a terribly short-sighted decision,” Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., told FoxNews.com in a statement. “If Boeing goes through with this deal, the company will forever be associated with Iran’s chief export: radical Islamic terrorism. The U.S. Congress will have much to say about this agreement in the coming days.”

Roskam and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, sent a letter to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg last week raising concerns about Tehran’s history of using commercial planes to support “hostile actors.”

“We strongly oppose the potential sale of military-fungible products to terrorism’s central supplier. American companies should not be complicit in weaponizing the Iranian Regime,” the lawmakers wrote.

Boeing wrote back saying it would follow the lead of the U.S. government with regards to working with Iran Air and that “any and all contracts with them will be contingent upon continued approval.”

“And as we have stated repeatedly, should the U.S. Government reinstate sanctions against the sale of commercial passenger airplanes to Iranian airlines, we will cease all sales and delivery activities as required by U.S. law,” Tim Keating, Boeing senior vice president, wrote.

Five years ago, the Obama administration slapped sanctions on Iran Air, claiming the company used passenger and cargo planes to transport rockets and missiles to places such as Syria, sometimes disguised as medicine or spare parts. In other cases, members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps took control of flights carrying sensitive cargo.

Although U.S. officials never said such conduct ended, the administration used a technicality to drop those sanctions as part of last year’s seven-nation nuclear deal. The agreement also allowed the Treasury Department to license American firms to do business in Iran’s civilian aviation sector. The changes enable Boeing to sell up to 100 aircraft to Iran Air, by far the most lucrative business transaction between the U.S. and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and U.S. Embassy hostage crisis.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the sale and any possible future deals depend on Iran’s good behavior.

The U.S. could revoke the license for the deal if planes, parts or services are “used for purposes other than exclusively civil aviation end-use” or if aircraft are transferred to individuals or companies on a U.S. terrorism blacklist, Kirby said.

Any suggestion “that we would or will turn a blind eye to Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism or their terrorist-supporting activities is completely without merit,” Kirby said.

The details of the arrangement between Boeing and Iran Air aren’t entirely clear. Iran’s Transportation Minister Abbas Akhoundi said it could match the $25 billion package between the Islamic Republic and Boeing’s European rival, Airbus. Iran Air has stated its interest in purchasing new Boeing 737s — single aisle jets that typically fly up to five hours. It also wants 777s — larger planes that can carry passengers for 12 hours or more.

But if Iran Air continues supporting Iranian military or Revolutionary Guard operations, it would put the Obama administration or any successor in a bind.

Revoking the license and suspending future plane transfers risks angering the Iranians, who’ve already complained about not receiving sufficient benefit for their nuclear concessions. It also could mean billions in lost revenue for a large American company with more than 130,000 employees in the United States.

**** Hold on, it gets worse, much worse.

Lawmakers Seek to Re-Open ‘Flawed’ Iran Nuclear Weapons Investigation

Revelations Obama admin knew of possible weapons work, stayed silent

FreeBeacon: U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy insiders are calling on the international community to re-open its “flawed” investigation into Iran’s past nuclear weapons research, according to conversations with multiple sources who say the extent of Iran’s past nuclear work is likely much larger than previously believed.

The calls to reinvestigate Iran’s nuclear work come on the heels of revelations by anonymous U.S. officials who said the Obama administration held onto evidence showing the Islamic Republic performed extensive nuclear weapons research—a finding that contradicts findings by international monitors and longstanding claims by Iranian officials.

Administration officials made no mention of the finding when International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors first discovered it in December, but now say the evidence is proof Iran worked to build nuclear weapons as recently as 2003.

The discovery has prompted lawmakers to demand that the IAEA re-open its currently closed investigation into Iran’s past nuclear weapons work.

“The Obama administration’s contradiction of both Iran and the IAEA on this uranium issue calls for a re-examination of the flawed potential military dimensions report,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas), a member of the House’s intelligence committee, told the Washington Free Beacon. “The IAEA cannot claim to have an accurate accounting of the situation while nuclear particles are unaccounted for.”

U.S. officials promised Congress during negotiations with Iran that no deal would be implemented until the issue of Iran’s past nuclear weapons work was settled.

“Even Obama administration officials disagree with the report’s conclusions, now six months later,” Pompeo said. “It is common sense that when you uncover a problem, you investigate until you find a solution. Now all agree we have a new fact—and a problem. Failing to investigate what happened with Iran’s nuclear weapons program sets a dangerous precedent.”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), another vocal critic of the administration’s diplomacy with Iran, told the Free Beacon that international inspectors with the IAEA were not thorough enough in their investigations due to “political pressure” from pro-Iran forces.

“It’s deeply troubling that the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, appears to have lost its independence due to the Iran nuclear deal,” Kirk said. “Nuclear inspectors should have intensified their investigation into Iran’s nuclear weapons program after uranium particles were found at Iran’s military base at Parchin, but instead they stood down due to political pressure.”

Senior congressional officials apprised of the situation told the Free Beacon that the administration ignored these new nuclear findings at a critical point in its diplomacy with Iran.

“The IAEA’s PMD [Possible Military Dimensions] report came out in December, and Obama administration officials are only just now speaking—anonymously—on why they disagree with the report and why these nuclear materials are a huge problem,” the source said. “They cannot so easily assuage their consciences and undo the damage they caused by closing the PMD case. The Obama administration’s decision to ignore Iran’s covert nuclear weapons development, and attempt to sweep it under the rug, will no doubt haunt us for decades.”

Pompeo and other House lawmakers introduced a bill in January that would require the Obama administration to provide a full accounting of Iran’s past nuclear weapons work before any sanctions on the Islamic Republic were lifted.

Another source who works closely with Congress on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the new nuclear disclosures cast doubt on past international reports claiming that Iran has stopped all nuclear work.

“It’s time to reopen the so-called PMD file, to figure out what weapons work Iran was doing,” the source said. “The IAEA is supposed to make sure that Iran has stopped all of the nuclear weapons work it was doing, but here is a place where there is broad confusion over what nuclear weapons work was happening. So there’s no way for the IAEA to confirm it stopped. The first step to fixing that is to have the IAEA go back into Parchin and figure out exactly what was happening.”

One last item:

UANI Sparks Debate in India on Risks and Propriety of Doing Business in Iran

UANI Leadership Pens Op-ed and Conducts Interview in Indian Media

New York, NY – United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), the non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to heightening awareness of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the world, has sparked a national debate in India on the risks and propriety of doing business in Iran. UANI is in the midst of a global education and awareness campaign focused on the corporate risks of doing business with Iran.

In a June 19 op-ed in The New Indian Express, UANI Chairman Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman warned that doing business with “Iran can create more problems for India than it can solve“:

In Iran, business is routinely intertwined with terrorism. Therefore, if Indian companies sign deals with Tehran, they will be lending support to its belligerent behaviour… Pursuing business in Iran can also lead to losing out on more lucrative opportunities in countries that oppose its hegemonic policies. For instance, India has the choice to invest in the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, other GCC countries, and allied countries with a combined GDP of over $32 trillion, or take a gamble on Iran’s economy with a GDP of under $400 billion. There is a real risk that Indian companies investing in Iran will lose market share in some of these other countries. So, while Iran could help alleviate India’s energy problems, there are better ways to solve those. Doing business with the regime can create even more problems for New Delhi-economically, diplomatically, and in terms of security.

In a June 10 interview in India’s Hard News, UANI CEO Amb. Mark D. Wallace said:

UANI is aware of the economic and political links between Iran and India. UANI is also aware of similar ties between India, the US and numerous other countries in the region that feel threatened by Iranian aggression. I doubt it is in India’s national interest to side with a state associated with terrorism, corruption and money laundering over a confederation of responsible state actors opposed to Iranian regional hegemony. Moreover, if India wants to oppose corruption and terrorism, it cannot at the same time embolden and reward a regime that is notoriously corrupt and also the world leading state sponsor of terrorism. Indian leaders should back up their rhetoric with action and use its ties and link to Iran to influence the regime to change its terrorist behaviour and corrupt business environment instead of prematurely rewarding Iran with Indian business.

A statement by Sen. Lieberman and Amb. Wallace regarding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Iran on May 22-23 was featured widely in Indian media, including the Business Standard, India Today, DNA India, CNN-News18, and the Deccan Chronicle. UANI reminded Prime Minister Modi of his previous strong statements about fighting terrorism and corruption.

The Business Standard responded to the statement with an editorial addressing the “unsolicited advice” from the “maverick former Senator” Joe Lieberman.

UK’s Dept for International Development Funded Terror

Posted on by

Multi-million pound foreign aid grant spent on encouraging terrorism

Telegraph: A multi-million pound foreign aid project aimed at promoting Palestinian state building and peace has instead encouraged terrorism and led to an  increase in violence, The Telegraph can disclose.

The Department for International Development (DFID)’s £156.4 million grant  providing financial aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) led to civil servants being “more likely” to commit acts of terrorism, an independent evaluation suggested.

An official report found that the five-year project encouraged public sector employees to engage in “active conflict” since their salaries were  paid to their families even if they were convicted and imprisoned for criminal acts, including terrorism.

On completing jail sentences, civil servants were able to return to their  jobs which had been “kept open when they return from detention”, and  continue to draw a salary funded by the UK taxpayer.

It comes as MPs prepare for a parliamentary debate on foreign aid spending,  held on Monday in the House of Commons. 

Sir Eric Pickles MP said: “Sadly, the Palestinian Authority role has deteriorated to, at best, the cheerleader to acts of violence to, at worst,  the operator of a revolving door policy for terrorists.

“British taxpayers will be shocked to learn that we are helping to fund an  equal opportunity employment policy for convicted terrorists.”

Rt Hon Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel called for an  independent inquiry to “ensure that taxpayers’ money assists the process of  building peace and coexistence rather than ending up in the pockets of  convicted terrorists”.

The report, written by the Overseas Development Institute, found that  DFID’s grant failed to “promote peace or peaceful attitudes” and appeared  to lead to an increase in violence among Palestinians.

The DFID funds were enough to cover the salaries of 5,000 civil servants  over five years, the report said, but the more foreign aid money was spent on public sector employment, more “conflict-related” deaths occurred.

“The study suggests that in the West Bank, an increase in the number of  public sector employees is associated with an increase in Palestinian  fatalities due to conflict,” the ODI report said.

“An increase in public sector employment by one per cent is associated with  an increase in fatalities by 0.6% over this time period.”

The report cited the “opportunity cost” hypothesis which states that  “conflict, and therefore fatalities, are more likely when the opportunity  cost of engaging in conflict is lowered”.

It goes on: “For public sector employees, the opportunity cost of conflict is lowered  as their employment will be kept open when they return from detention, and  their family will continue to be paid their salary.”

Ms Ryan said the report “adds to the mounting concerns about the support  which DFID is providing to the Palestinian Authority”, and that she has “no  confidence” in DFID’s internal review into UK spending in the Palestinian  territories.

“This is an issue which has been put to the department repeatedly over  recent years and which is has consistently and repeatedly failed to act  on,” she said.

Lord Polak CBE, a Tory peer, said: “We have been campaigning for many  years to ask DFID to ensure that UK taxpayers’ hard-earned money was  reaching the right places and not the wrong pockets.

“DFID and the FCO will  now need to rewrite their parliamentary answers”.

A DFID spokesman said: “The ODI report clearly states that UK support on  the ground helped prevent economic collapse and an escalation in violence.  In turn this reduces the risks of further displaced people leaving the  region.”

Militant Islam, Obama Admin Forbidden Terms

Posted on by

A distinction needs to be made. Radical extremists are for the force multipliers, those like Anwar al Awlaki. The militants like Mohammed Emwazi are born from the radicals and they are the deadly enforcers of the Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

Don’t blame the FBI for failures, with particular regard to the worst terror attack in American by a gunman, Orlando. Blame the White House. All the Q&A sessions, congressional testimony and press briefings by FBI Director James Comey have had an underlying message, a cry for help, attention and support.

Don’t blame the intelligence community including CENTCOM and the Pentagon for battlefield or rules of engagement failures. That belongs to the entire White House national security team. The Office of National Intelligence has also been affected.

This is not political correctness at all, it is a Barak Obama edict, sensitivity to Islam across our homeland and across the globe. Obama has had a strident mission since he assumed the Oval Office to create a Muslim protective shield. This is beyond dispute.

While not in any chronological order, there are some very key decisions that were made and continue to be made by the Obama administration that affect our national security and this generational war titled the Overseas Contingency Operation.

In April of 2009, Barak Obama delivered ‘The New Beginnings’ speech. In this presentation he spelled out his full agenda in what was to become the long-term mission to elevate Muslims and their organizations at home and globally. The White House objectives have been successful and consequential.

With the new beginning announced, Obama extended his same purpose throughout government agencies, law enforcement and policies as a mandatory doctrine.

‘Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.”  Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.’ Philip Haney, The Hill.

Directly after the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration did reach out to the Muslim communities to determine who was with peace and national security and who perhaps gave clues of a larger and hidden condition that could be festering that would prove clues to more domestic security challenges.

Then came the Holyland Foundation trial in 2007/2008. The material facts and conditions of the domestic threat, people, money, collaboration and global consequence all converged in a courtroom in Texas.

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15) More important details here from the CounterjihadReport.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was included in the full protection of the terror networks and associated people. Congressman Gohmert of Texas challenged AG Holder to no avail in a chilling exchange.

Here is where the ‘words matter’ material documentation began. The Obama administration took this agenda to new standard.

In 2009, DHS published via the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment a ‘Rightwing Extremism’ document, pinpointing those that may challenge the Obama Muslim doctrine. Additionally, DHS posted The Department of Homeland Security launched a ‘Do’s and Dont’s bulletin.

The entire complexion of the Department of Homeland Security began to change with new personnel and outreach under Secretary Janet Napolitano. The outreach extended to law enforcement agencies of which LAPD demonstrates.

The order to purge documents, training materials and database was made. The proof is here.

Barak Obama was not finished. In 2015, the White House introduced a strategy for CVE, Counter Violent Extremism.

Then comes the foreign policy of Obama. All deference to Iran began before Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and continues today. Secret back channels to Iran using Ambassador Burns began in 2008. Further, there is Iraq and Syria with Islamic State. Documents here on ISIS prove the intelligence and forecasts were known, available and delivered.

This would not be complete without mentioning China, Russia or North Korea where policies are non-existent.

The Paris attack was a slaughter and Obama found it wise to snub the solidarity march with other world leaders.

Obama touted Yemen as one of his successes but the country collapsed. Finally, the Obama policy doctrine crumbled and the cause was fully explained here. Obama wilfully recoiled as he and Hillary did on Benghazi.

It really no longer matters that Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry refuse to use key terms to describe militant Islam, the entire well verse and informed world have defined it for them. What does matter beyond the words are the policies and refusals of missions, strategies and conditions to keep America, her interests and allies safe.

It is no wonder there is no global respect for the Obama administration and there is much less to fear from her.

In summary, Obama owns this terror, owns this jihad and owns the death as well as the genocide. This is his legacy, he owns it as his own scarlet letter.

 

 

When and How do Preezy Candidates Get Briefings?

Posted on by
MICHAEL MORELL
FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, CIA
Once the Democratic and Republican parties officially nominate their Presidential candidates at their political conventions this summer, the nominees will be offered intelligence briefings before the general election.  We asked Michael Morell, the former Deputy Director and twice Acting Director of the CIA, to explain how these briefings work.
The Cipher Brief:  Can you tell us why the sitting President offers those briefings to the nominee from each party?
Michael Morell: There is a great deal of confusion about these briefings in the media.  After a candidate has been formally nominated by her/his national convention, she/he is offered a one-time intelligence briefing (sometimes over multiple days if there are time constraints or if a candidate wants to go deeper on a particular topic).  They do not receive a daily briefing.  They do not receive regular update briefings during the campaign.  They do not receive the President’s Daily Briefing.  Those only come for the president-elect, after the election in November.
There is also confusion in the media as to why every post-war president has offered these one-time, post-convention briefings to the candidates.  The objective is not to start preparing the candidate to deal with the myriad national security issues that they will face six months down the road, if they win the election.  The objective is to protect national security during the campaign by giving the candidates a deep sense of the national security landscape.  Let me explain:  both our adversaries and our allies and partners will be listening closely, extremely closely, to what the candidates say about the issues during the campaign, and saying the wrong thing could damage our national security.  The briefings are meant to help prevent that.
Let me be clear, though:  during the initial, one-time briefing, the candidates are not advised on what to say or what not to say about national security issues on the campaign trail.  The hope is that by simply giving them an objective, unbiased understanding of the issues, the dialogue on those issues during the campaign will be carried out in a way that does not undermine U.S. interests.
TCB:  Who is actually involved in the briefings?
MM:  On the government side, the briefing teams are usually composed of senior leaders from the analytic arms of the Intelligence Community agencies, along with senior analysts who, on a day-to-day basis, cover the issues to be discussed.  I played the former role in a number of briefings for candidates over the years.
On the candidate’s side, they are permitted to bring their closest national security aides.  In my experience, that has ranged from just one person to two-to-three people.  But there is no just showing up.  The IC (Intelligence Community) must approve in advance all of the attendees.
TCB:  Are there any limits to what the nominees can be told?  For instance, will they be provided with classified information or details of ongoing operations?  Are the candidates in essence given security clearances?
MM:  Absolutely, there are limits on what candidates are told.  The briefings are classified Top Secret, but the candidates are only provided the analytic judgments of the IC and the information used to support those judgments.  They are not provided with the details of how that information was collected-what the IC calls sources and methods.  They are not provided with any information on any ongoing covert actions programs related to the issue being discussed.  They are not provided with any operational information.  Those only come after a candidate wins the election.
TCB:  How does the IC prepare for the briefings?  Will the briefings be the same for each candidate?  What issues would you emphasize in the briefings?
MM:  The leadership of the IC, most likely the DNI (Director of National Intelligence), will decide on the topics, perhaps to be approved by the White House.  If I were putting the list together, I would include the threat to the U.S. Homeland and to U.S. interests abroad posed by ISIS and al Qaeda; the threat posed by a variety of actors in cyber space; the political and military situation in Iraq and Syria; the situation in Afghanistan; as well as national security issues related to Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China.
The briefing team will go into the room with the goal of providing the same analytic judgments to both candidates, but I would expect the two briefings to be very different.  I would expect the briefing for Secretary Hillary Clinton (the presumptive Democratic nominee) to delve into issues more deeply and to be more of a dialogue than the briefing for Donald Trump (the presumptive Republican nominee), which I would expect to be more of a tutorial, more of a first cut at the issues, with the need to provide the history and background on issues.  This is simply because the Secretary is starting at much greater level of understanding based on her experience working these issues, her experience working with the IC, and her knowledge of the IC judgments (she was a daily and engaged consumer of both IC collection and analysis).  Trump, most likely, will be starting at square one.  No value judgments here; just the reality of the situation.
TCB:  Any personal observations about a nominee’s response to a briefing you provided?  Without getting into names, has a nominee seemed surprised by the information?  Has it altered a position on an issue or impacted how the nominee publically presented a view?
MM:  In general, candidates who have not been involved in national security are surprised by the number of threats facing the U.S., by the seriousness of those threats, by the complexity of the threats, and by just how difficult they are to mitigate.  They quickly realize that there are not simple solutions.  They quickly realize that their sound bites on the campaign simply don’t fit realty.  And, they quickly realize just how important intelligence is going to be keeping the country safe.
Not surprisingly, the briefing team will get a sense of a candidate.  Does the candidate know what they don’t know, are they trying to understand the issue, do they want to learn, are they open-minded, are they able to grasp complexity, do they ask good questions?  Or do they try to convince the analysts of their point of view, are they just trying to find facts to fit their world view or their policy views, do they look at the issues through the lens of national security or through the lens of politics?
The IC knows the Secretary well, and its expectation will be that she will fall into the first category because that is what she demonstrated as Secretary of State.  I’m sure the analysts will be very interested to see where Donald Trump falls – largely because they will want to know what he would be like if he were to become their “First Customer,” as some analysts at CIA like to call the president.  And they will be interested simply because of the nature of the campaign so far, the nature of the candidate so far.

Obama Concession to Iran: Russian Arms?

Posted on by

Obama Admin Considers Permitting Advanced Russian Arms Sales to Iran

White House might not invoke laws triggering new sanctions
FreeBeacon: The Obama administration has the power to sanction key Russian arms sales to Iran, but has so far abstained from exercising this right under U.S. law, prompting some in Congress to question whether the administration is “acquiescing” to the arms sales in order to appease Iran, according to conversations with sources and recent congressional correspondence to the White House exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

President Barack Obama has the authority under U.S. law to designate as illegal Russia’s contested sale to Iran of the S-300 missile system, an advanced long-range weapon that would boost the Islamic Republic’s regional military might.

However, the administration has declined for weeks to clarify its stance on new sanctions, despite expressing opposition to the sale. Administration officials have further declined to answer questions from the Free Beacon and other outlets about whether the president will consider taking action in the future.

The administration’s hesitance to act has prompted a new congressional inquiry, the Free Beacon has learned, and has sparked accusations that the White House is not exercising its sanction authority in order to prevent Iran from walking away from last summer’s nuclear deal.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio) sent an inquiry to the White House about the matter more than a month ago. The White House has not responded.

“Given the series implications for the United States and our allies in the region, I respectfully request that you quickly determine that Russia’s transfer of S-300 surface-to-air missile systems advance Iran’s efforts to acquire ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advances conventional weapons’ and impose the necessary U.S. sanctions once the Russian delivery takes place,” Chabot wrote to the White House on April 7, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Free Beacon.

Chabot outlined concern “that without such a determination the United States may be viewed as acquiescing to this transfer” of a major defensive weapons system to Iran.

Chabot told the Free Beacon on Thursday the administration has not responded to multiple inquiries about the potential designation.

“Despite multiple inquires to the U.S. Department of State, I still have not received a response on Russia’s S300 surface-to-air missile system transfer to Iran,” Chabot said. “This apparent dismissal leaves me wondering what exactly the Administration is hiding. I am really asking a simple question – is the introduction of a sophisticated weapon system into Iran, that has not been there previously, going to illicit the appropriate U.S. sanctions response? I am not sure why the Administration has found it so hard to come to a determination. The S300 is one of the most advanced anti-aircraft missile system’s in the world and significantly bolsters Iran’s offensive capabilities and stands as a serious hurdle to our efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. This is absolutely a destabilizing conventional weapon system.”

When contacted for comment, a State Department official told the Free Beacon that the administration has not made a final determination about whether the S-300 sale would trigger additional U.S. sanctions.

“We’re continuing to closely follow reports concerning the delivery of the S-300 defensive missile system from Russia to Iran‎,” the official said. “We have not made a determination as to whether this delivery, if and when complete, would trigger any actions under U.S. authorities.”

“These systems would significantly bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities and introduce new obstacles to our efforts to eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I believe existing U.S. sanctions should be used to deter Russia from transferring this or other dangerous weapons systems to Iran,” Chabot said.

The sale is technically permitted under current United Nations resolutions governing weapons sales. However, the Obama administration has the right to veto the sale at the U.N. Security Council. The administration has not committed to doing so.

U.S. law also grants the president the right to designate such sales as illicit and therefore open to sanctions.

The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 grants the president authority to sanction the sale of “advanced conventional weapons” to Iran by any nation.

“U.S. law provides your administration with the authority to apply U.S. sanctions in response” to the sale, Chabot explains in his letter. “For example, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act and the Iran Sanctions Act provide authority for you to sanction individuals or countries that you determine are aiding Iran’s efforts to acquire or develop ‘destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.’”

Sanctions would kick in if the president decides that such a sale would destabilize the Middle East and shift regional balance.

“Iran’s acquisition of these systems would embolden Tehran to adopt a more threatening regional posture and to pursue offensive activities detrimental to regional stability in the belief that the systems would deter retaliation,” according to Chabot.

Reporters as well as lawmakers have attempted for weeks to get an answer from the administration about whether the president would make such a determination.

One foreign policy adviser who works closely with Congress on the Iran issue told the Free Beacon that the administration can no longer waffle on the issue.

“The administration tried to look the other way, but got called out for it by Congress. Then they spent a month and a half hoping that the whole thing would go away,” the source said. “Now I don’t know what they’re going to do, since it’s obvious that they’re letting Iran import advanced weapons in violation of U.S. law just to preserve the nuclear deal.”