Category Archives: Iran Israel

Obama Spied on Congress/Israel, Contempt/Disdain

Posted on by

U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress
National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders also swept up the content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers

WSJ: President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.

In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.

Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

Israeli, German and French government officials declined to comment on NSA activities. Turkish officials didn’t respond to requests Tuesday for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA declined to comment on communications provided to the White House.

This account, stretching over two terms of the Obama administration, is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. intelligence and administration officials and reveals for the first time the extent of American spying on the Israeli prime minister.

Taking office
After Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials gave his national-security team a one-page questionnaire on priorities. Included on the form was a box directing intelligence agencies to focus on “leadership intentions,” a category that relies on electronic spying to monitor world leaders.

The NSA was so proficient at monitoring heads of state that it was common for the agency to deliver a visiting leader’s talking points to the president in advance. “Who’s going to look at that box and say, ‘No, I don’t want to know what world leaders are saying,’ ” a former Obama administration official said.

In early intelligence briefings, Mr. Obama and his top advisers were told what U.S. spy agencies thought of world leaders, including Mr. Netanyahu, who at the time headed the opposition Likud party.

Michael Hayden, who led the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush administration, described the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Israel as “the most combustible mixture of intimacy and caution that we have.”

The NSA helped Israel expand its electronic spy apparatus—known as signals intelligence—in the late 1970s. The arrangement gave Israel access to the communications of its regional enemies, information shared with the U.S. Israel’s spy chiefs later suspected the NSA was tapping into their systems.

When Mr. Obama took office, the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, Unit 8200, worked together against shared threats, including a campaign to sabotage centrifuges for Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies targeted one another, stoking tensions.

“Intelligence professionals have a saying: There are no friendly intelligence services,” said Mike Rogers, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Early in the Obama presidency, for example, Unit 8200 gave the NSA a hacking tool the NSA later discovered also told Israel how the Americans used it. It wasn’t the only time the NSA caught Unit 8200 poking around restricted U.S. networks. Israel would say intrusions were accidental, one former U.S. official said, and the NSA would respond, “Don’t worry. We make mistakes, too.”

In 2011 and 2012, the aims of Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama diverged over Iran. Mr. Netanyahu prepared for a possible strike against an Iranian nuclear facility, as Mr. Obama pursued secret talks with Tehran without telling Israel.

Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees.

By 2013, U.S. intelligence agencies determined Mr. Netanyahu wasn’t going to strike Iran. But they had another reason to keep watch. The White House wanted to know if Israel had learned of the secret negotiations. U.S. officials feared Iran would bolt the talks and pursue an atomic bomb if news leaked.

The NSA had, in some cases, spent decades placing electronic implants in networks around the world to collect phone calls, text messages and emails. Removing them or turning them off in the wake of the Snowden revelations would make it difficult, if not impossible, to re-establish access in the future, U.S. intelligence officials warned the White House.

Instead of removing the implants, Mr. Obama decided to shut off the NSA’s monitoring of phone numbers and email addresses of certain allied leaders—a move that could be reversed by the president or his successor.

There was little debate over Israel. “Going dark on Bibi? Of course we wouldn’t do that,” a senior U.S. official said, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.

One tool was a cyber implant in Israeli networks that gave the NSA access to communications within the Israeli prime minister’s office.

Given the appetite for information about Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions during the U.S.-Iran negotiations, the NSA tried to send updates to U.S. policy makers quickly, often in less than six hours after a notable communication was intercepted, a former official said.

Emerging deal
NSA intercepts convinced the White House last year that Israel was spying on negotiations under way in Europe. Israeli officials later denied targeting U.S. negotiators, saying they had won access to U.S. positions by spying only on the Iranians.

By late 2014, White House officials knew Mr. Netanyahu wanted to block the emerging nuclear deal but didn’t know how.

On Jan. 8, John Boehner, then the Republican House Speaker, and incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed on a plan. They would invite Mr. Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress. A day later, Mr. Boehner called Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, to get Mr. Netanyahu’s agreement.

Despite NSA surveillance, Obama administration officials said they were caught off guard when Mr. Boehner announced the invitation on Jan. 21.

Soon after, Israel’s lobbying campaign against the deal went into full swing on Capitol Hill, and it didn’t take long for administration and intelligence officials to realize the NSA was sweeping up the content of conversations with lawmakers.

The message to the NSA from the White House amounted to: “You decide” what to deliver, a former intelligence official said.

NSA rules governing intercepted communications “to, from or about” Americans date back to the Cold War and require obscuring the identities of U.S. individuals and U.S. corporations. An American is identified only as a “U.S. person” in intelligence reports; a U.S. corporation is identified only as a “U.S. organization.” Senior U.S. officials can ask for names if needed to understand the intelligence information.

The rules were tightened in the early 1990s to require that intelligence agencies inform congressional committees when a lawmaker’s name was revealed to the executive branch in summaries of intercepted communications.

A 2011 NSA directive said direct communications between foreign intelligence targets and members of Congress should be destroyed when they are intercepted. But the NSA director can issue a waiver if he determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence.”

The NSA has leeway to collect and disseminate intercepted communications involving U.S. lawmakers if, for example, foreign ambassadors send messages to their foreign ministries that recount their private meetings or phone calls with members of Congress, current and former officials said.

“Either way, we got the same information,” a former official said, citing detailed reports prepared by the Israelis after exchanges with lawmakers.

During Israel’s lobbying campaign in the months before the deal cleared Congress in September, the NSA removed the names of lawmakers from intelligence reports and weeded out personal information. The agency kept out “trash talk,” officials said, such as personal attacks on the executive branch.

Administration and intelligence officials said the White House didn’t ask the NSA to identify any lawmakers during this period.

“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He declined to comment on any specific communications between lawmakers and Israel.

The NSA reports allowed administration officials to peer inside Israeli efforts to turn Congress against the deal. Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.

“These allegations are total nonsense,” said a spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington.

A U.S. intelligence official familiar with the intercepts said Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

NSA intelligence reports helped the White House figure out which Israeli government officials had leaked information from confidential U.S. briefings. When confronted by the U.S., Israel denied passing on the briefing materials.

The agency’s goal was “to give us an accurate illustrative picture of what [the Israelis] were doing,” a senior U.S. official said.

Just before Mr. Netanyahu’s address to Congress in March, the NSA swept up Israeli messages that raised alarms at the White House: Mr. Netanyahu’s office wanted details from Israeli intelligence officials about the latest U.S. positions in the Iran talks, U.S. officials said.

A day before the speech, Secretary of State John Kerry made an unusual disclosure. Speaking to reporters in Switzerland, Mr. Kerry said he was concerned Mr. Netanyahu would divulge “selective details of the ongoing negotiations.”

The State Department said Mr. Kerry was responding to Israeli media reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to use his speech to make sure U.S. lawmakers knew the terms of the Iran deal.

Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress.

In the final months of the campaign, NSA intercepts yielded few surprises. Officials said the information reaffirmed what they heard directly from lawmakers and Israeli officials opposed to Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign—that the prime minister was focused on building opposition among Democratic lawmakers.

The NSA intercepts, however, revealed one surprise. Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes.

***

Enter Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader

The Phone Call that Upended U.S.-Israel Relations

WSJ: It started off as a routine call between then-House Speaker John Boehner and the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about ways Republicans in Congress could put the brakes on the nuclear pact President Barack Obama was negotiating with Iran.

Then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell had a light-bulb moment: They could undercut Mr. Obama by extending an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress opposing the emerging deal.

The initiative set in motion by Messrs. Boehner and McConnell during the Jan. 8 phone call not only would inflame hostilities between the White House and Republicans in Congress but exacerbate the biggest breakdown in relations between U.S. and Israeli heads of state in decades, as detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece.

Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio) and Mr. McConnell (R., Ky.) knew secrecy was key. If word leaked out, they believed the White House would pressure Mr. Netanyahu to decline. To ensure the invitation would come as a surprise, the leaders decided to tell only their closest aides.

“We knew this would be a poke in the eye,” a person close to the Republican leaders said of the invitation.

The immediate concern was whether Mr. Netanyahu would agree to accept the invitation. Mr. Netanyahu’s relationship with Mr. Obama was already deeply troubled. Initially, the two Republicans weren’t sure the prime minister would be eager to make that situation even worse by entering into a direct political fight with the president in Congress.

When Mr. Boehner called Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Jan. 9, the ambassador said he liked the idea and would sound out the prime minister, according to a person familiar with the call.

From the beginning, Mr. Boehner wasn’t entirely comfortable with what was a clear breach of protocol. Typically, only the White House would extend such an invitation in consultations with Congress. He and Mr. McConnell did not tell the White House about their discussions at any point during the planning, congressional officials said.

(Ironically, the Obama administration had already broken the precedent by inviting the South Korean president to address Congress without first consulting Mr. Boehner.)

Mr. Boehner tapped his chief of staff, Mike Sommers, to serve as the main point of contact for Mr. Dermer in the negotiations. No one else on Mr. Boehner’s staff was told.

This was not the first time Mr. Boehner had invited the Israeli prime minister to address Congress. Early in his tenure as speaker, the Ohio Republican approached the White House about inviting Mr. Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of House and Senate members. The White House dragged its feet before eventually giving Mr. Boehner the green light to extend an invite.

In waiting on the White House, tension developed between Mr. Boehner and his no. 2, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). Mr. Cantor, for years the only Jewish Republican in the House, pushed the speaker to demand an answer from the Obama administration, but Mr. Boehner wanted to give the president and his team time to digest the idea.

In the end, Mr. Netanyahu declined the invitation.

The second time, the Republicans knew they would be stirring a partisan hornets’ nest, given the controversy about the Iranian talks.

The Boehner and McConnell teams had decided they would send a formal letter inviting Mr. Netanyahu on Jan. 21, one day after Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address.

On Jan. 20, Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the negotiations with Iran, held a 45-minute meeting with Mr. Dermer, who didn’t say a word about the pending announcement, U.S. officials said.

That afternoon, Mr. Boehner sent final word to Mr. Dermer finalizing plans to made the announcement the next day.

An Israeli official in Washington said the ambassador “felt it would be inappropriate for him to raise the issue with the administration, including in his meeting with the secretary of state, until the speaker notified them.”

In the State of the Union, the president hailed the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran and warned Congress not to throw obstacles in the way.

“New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, making it harder to maintain sanctions and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again,” Mr. Obama said.

On Jan. 21, as planned, Mr. Boehner’s office formally sent the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. A few hours before Mr. Boehner’s office released the invitation letter to the press, Mr. Boehner’s chief of staff, Mr. Sommers, called Katie Fallon, Mr. Obama’s top congressional liaison, to inform her. The initial call was cordial. Mrs. Fallon said she appreciated the heads up. The White House had yet to digest the news.

At the White House National Security Council, then-coordinator for the Middle East, Philip Gordon, reacted with disbelief when told Mr. Netanyahu would address a joint session of Congress on the Iran deal. “No he’s not,” Mr. Gordon said in response. “I talk to Dermer all the time.” In those discussions, Mr. Dermer never mentioned an impending speech, Mr. Gordon said.

An hour after Mr. Sommers told the White House, Mrs. Fallon called Mr. Boehner’s chief of staff back. This time she was not as understanding and scolded Mr. Sommers for going around the Obama administration’s back.

Senior officials demanded answers from their Israeli counterparts. Administration officials thought the idea was cooked up by Messrs. Dermer and Netanyahu, and then proposed to the Republicans in Congress. In fact, it was the other way around, congressional officials said.

Mr. Dermer told his American counterparts it was his impression the speaker’s office would “take care of” informing the White House, according to a former U.S. official.

The National Security Agency was spying on Israeli communications but didn’t pick up on the discussions between Messrs. Boehner and Dermer, nor on the deliberations that followed between Messrs. Dermer and Netanyahu on accepting the invitation.

Retired Adm. Kirby Needs Another Day Job

Posted on by

Admiral John Kirby is the official spokesperson for the State Department under Secretary John Kerry. Things are real twisted in this agency and Adm. Kirby knows enough to question the media talking points and yet has joined the ranks of unsupervised liberals at the State Department with weird descriptions of achievements especially when it comes to Syria.

There are 60 million people displaced in the Middle East from their home countries especially when it comes to Syria. Russia is using old cluster bombs and hitting civilians, Bashir al Assad is using chemical weapons and Islamic State in addition to other al Qaida factions are in control of countless regions.

Where is the peace John Kerry?

State Dept.: We Brought ‘Peace’ to Syria

State Dept. counts ‘bringing peace’ to Syria as a 2015 win

The State Department is counting “bringing peace” to Syria as one of its wins in 2015.

A boastful recap of the State Department’s accomplishments, written by spokesman John Kirby, includes the bold subheadline of “Bringing Peace, Security to Syria” above a more modest entry talking about U.S. aid for those affected by the country’s turmoil and the U.S. push for a political transition from President Bashar Assad.

While Secretary of State John Kerry has played an integral role in the Syrian peace talks, the country remains embroiled in a nasty civil war and terrorized by the Islamic State.

“The United States and many members of the international community have stepped up to aid the Syrian people during their time of need — the United States has led the world in humanitarian aid contributions since the crisis began in 2011,” Kirby said.

Kirby wrote that the Syrians have “borne a heavy load” but that under Kerry’s stewardship the United Nations passed a U.S.-sponsored resolution to create a road map for Syria going forward.

The apparent declaration of a win echoes comments from President Barack Obama, who has been heavily criticized for calling the Islamic State a “JV team” in a January 2014 article and for calling the group’s territorial expansion efforts “contained,” just days before the Paris attacks.

Kirby also explicitly touched on the Islamic State, also called ISIL, saying that the U.S. is “winning [the] fight against violent extremists.”

“Although challenges remain, we have made positive strides over the last year, including in our fight against ISIL,” Kirby said. “This forward progress will only continue as more countries pledge resources to the anti-ISIL effort and as citizens around the world increasingly reject ISIL’s misguided ideology.”

Kirby cited the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, hosted in February, which he called “monumental.”

Other things the State Department is counting as wins: re-establishing ties with Cuba, protecting the Arctic, clinching the Iran nuclear agreement, stopping the Ebola outbreak, committing to U.N. development goals, securing a free trade deal, preserving ocean health, and reaching the climate agreement.

How about the ‘Rape Handbook’ just published by Islamic State fighters?

New Rules:

It is not permissible for the owner of a female captive to have intercourse with her until after she has had menstrual cycle and becomes clean.
If she does not menstruate and is pregnant, he is not allowed to have intercourse with her until after she has given birth.
It is not permissible to cause her to abort if she is pregnant.
If the owner of a female captive releases her, only he can have intercourse with her and he cannot allow someone else to have intercourse with her.
If the owner of a female captive, who has a daughter suitable for intercourse, has sexual relations with the latter, he is not permitted to have intercourse with her mother and she is permanently off limits to him. Should he have intercourse with her mother then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her daughter and she is to be off-limits to him.
The owner of two sisters is not allowed to have intercourse with both of them; rather he may only have intercourse with just one. The other sister is to be had by him, if he were to relinquish ownership of the first sister by selling her, giving her away or releasing her.
If the female captive is owned by a father, his son cannot have intercourse with her and vice-versa. Moreover, intercourse with his wife’s female captive is also not permissible.
If a father had intercourse with his female captive then gave her away or sold her to his son, he is no longer permitted to have intercourse with her.
If the female captive becomes pregnant by her owner, he cannot sell her and she is released after his death.
If the owner releases his female captive then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her afterwards because she has become free and is no longer his property.
If two or more individuals are involved in purchasing a female captive, none of them are permitted to have sex with her because she is part of a joint ownership.
It is not permissible to have intercourse with a female captive during her menstrual cycle.
It is not permissible top have anal sex with a female captive.
The owner of a female captive should show compassion towards her, be kind to her, not humiliate her and not assign her work she is unable to perform.
The owner of a female captive should not sell her to an individual whom he knows will treat her badly or do unto her what Allah has forbidden.
Professor Abdel Fattah Alawari, dean of Islamic Theology at Al-Azhar University, said Islamic State has “nothing to do with Islam”.

 

CIA Stopped From Having Clandestine Assets in Iraq?

Posted on by

The CIA is well known for having spies, double agents and in some cases triple agents. They are known for having ‘assets’ in all countries deemed to be adversarial to the West. Some assets were of great success while others betrayed the CIA and the West.

When came to Iraq, there were no assets and no chance of creating any with proven worth. After the Clinton administration, the CIA was operating at a profound handicap and today under Barack Obama, the CIA continues to be handicapped. Reliance on technology is no replacement for human intelligence.

Relying on walk-ins or other allied assistance in the world of espionage is not a viable objective, often it falls to scant military personnel or contractors to fill the gaps.

A senior Central Intelligence Agency official, who led the agency as its acting director before retiring in 2013, has said that not having sources in the Iraqi government’s upper echelons led to the intelligence failure of 2003. Michael Morell retired as deputy director of the CIA, after having served twice as its acting director, in 2011 and from 2012 to 2013. A Georgetown University graduate, Morell joined the agency in 1980 and rose through the ranks to lead the Asia, Pacific and Latin America divisions. In May 2015, Morell published his book, The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight against Terrorism from al Qa’ida to ISIS, which he has been promoting while working as a consultant in the private sector.

Morell spoke at the Aspen Institute earlier this month, and once again offered a public apology to former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell for the CIA’s erroneous estimates on Iraq. He was referring to the Agency’s claims prior to the 2003 US invasion that Iraq maintained an active weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) program. The claims formed the basis of Powell’s February 2003 speech during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, in which he claimed that the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had “biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce […] many more.” There was no question, said Morell, that Powell’s reputation “was tarnished” as a result of the speech, and that a public apology was in order. The same apology, said Morell, applied “to every single American.”

The retired intelligence official went on to say that the main cause of the CIA’s erroneous assessment of Iraq’s WMD program was that the Agency had failed to penetrate the highest echelons of the Hussein regime. “We were not able to come up with the right answer [because] we didn’t do our fundamental job of penetrating [Hussein’s] inner circles with a human asset,” said Morell. As a result, there was “no information to give to the [CIA] analyst to say ‘here’s what this guy is up to’,” he added. The author of The Great War of Our Time, went on to suggest that the CIA’s failure to penetrate the inner circle of the Iraqi government prior to 2003 was “quite frankly a national security failure.”

There is a feeble clandestine operation in Syria, with few results. We then must question the espionage efforts in Afghanistan with the Taliban, Daesh and al Qaida. The Taliban and the West once again have a common enemy in country in Islamic State. So are we forced to support the Taliban where they beheaded a handful of Islamic State fighters?

Who is the United States relying on when it comes to Iran? It is reported that Iran has shipped uranium out of country to Russia, but what uranium exactly? The next fight between the White House and Congress on Iran comes in January when Obama returns from his holiday vacation in Hawaii.

Obama removed spies from China in 2010, but why? The United States maintained a clandestine operation in Russia until under Barack Obama we didn’t and a few years ago swapped assets.

The question now, is what is the condition of the CIA’s espionage efforts across the globe today? How many countries need U.S. supported human intelligence and covert operations? The list is long.

Impeach John Kerry over Allegiance to Iran

Posted on by

Incredible…..John Kerry with the Obama administration’s approval proves more loyalty to Iran than to the United States. It is no longer deniable that Iran’s best partner is John Kerry with Barack Obama’s approval. It is all about the waiver, meaning agreements, treaties and accords have no teeth, the pen is mighty when waivers unwind objectives and our own Congress.

In part from Politico: “Has anybody in the West been targeted by any Iranian national, anybody of Iranian origin, or anyone traveling to Iran?” Zarif asked. “Whereas many people have been targeted by the nationals of your allies, people visiting your allies, and people transiting the territory of, again, your allies. So you’re looking at the wrong address.”

Zarif mentioned the 9/11 attacks, as well as the recent San Bernardino and Paris attacks. His remarks were veiled references to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, whose citizens have been implicated in those and other lethal strikes. Neither nation is singled out in the new visa law.

Despite Kerry’s letter, the National Iranian American Council remained wary of the visa law. “It remains unclear how these steps will ensure that dual citizens are not discriminated against solely on the basis of their nationality,” the group said Sunday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/iran-visa-waivers-kerry-nuclear-deal-217014#ixzz3v93uDvMt

Iran Nuclear Deal Restricts U.S. More Than Congress Knew

By &

Members of Congress knew the Iran nuclear deal came with strings attached. They just didn’t know how many.

When the administration presented the agreement to Congress, lawmakers were told that new sanctions on Iran would violate the deal. Now the administration is trying to sidestep a recently passed provision to tighten rules on visas for those who have visited Iran.

Since the accord was struck last summer, the U.S. emphasis on complying with its end of the deal has publicly eclipsed its efforts to pressure Iran. In that time, Iranian authorities have detained two American dual nationals and sentenced a third on what most observers say are trumped up espionage charges. Iran’s military has conducted two missile tests, one of which the U.N. said violated sanctions, and engaged in a new offensive with Russia in Syria to shore up the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

In the latest example of the U.S. effort to reassure Iran, the State Department is scrambling to confirm to Iran that it won’t enforce new rules that would increase screening of Europeans who have visited Iran and plan to come to America. There is concern the new visa waiver provisions, included in the omnibus budget Congress passed last week, would hinder business people seeking to open up new ventures in Iran once sanctions are lifted.

U.S. officials confirmed over the weekend that Secretary of State John Kerry sent his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, a letter promising to use executive powers to waive the new restrictions on those who have visited Iran but are citizens of countries in the Visa Waiver Program. These officials also told us that they have told Iranian diplomats that, because they are not specific to Iran, the new visa waiver provisions do not violate the detailed sequence of steps Iran and other countries committed to taking as part of the agreement. Even so, the State Department is promising to sidestep the new rule.

At issue is a provision that would require travelers who visit certain countries — including Iran, Sudan, Syria and Iraq — to apply at a U.S. Embassy for a visa before coming to the U.S., even if they are from a country for which such visas would normally be waived.

House staffers who spoke with us say Iran was included for good reason, because it remains on the U.S. list of state of sponsors of terrorism for its open support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The White House did not object until the Iranian government told the administration last week that the bill would violate the nuclear agreement, according to correspondence on these negotiations shared with us.

Since 2013, when the open negotiations with Iran began, the Obama administration has repeatedly told Congress that additional sanctions on the Islamic Republic would wreck negotiations. The resulting agreement obligates the West to lift sanctions in exchange for more transparency and limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran and the White House seem to be interpreting “lift sanctions” more broadly than others expected.

“If the United States Congress cannot implement a more secure visa procedure for those who travel to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, then the Iran deal ties the hands of lawmakers to a greater extent than even deal critics feared,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an expert in Iran sanctions, told us.

Over the weekend, Zarif said in an interview with al-Monitor that Iran’s inclusion on the list might violate the agreement. Zarif called the new restrictions “absurd” because no one connected to Iran was involved in the attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. He also said the provision “sends a very bad signal to the Iranians that the U.S. is bent on hostile policy toward Iran, no matter what.”

The issue is particularly sensitive for the State Department because Iran has yet to implement its side of the deal: The new transparency and limitations on the nuclear program are to begin in the coming weeks. State Department officials have said they fear more hardline elements of the regime in Tehran are trying to scuttle the deal for political advantage over President Hassan Rouhani, whose administration negotiated the accord.

In February, Iran will have parliamentary elections and elections for the powerful assembly of experts, the committee of clerics that would choose the next supreme leader of Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies. If anti-deal elements win those elections, the future of the nuclear deal will be dim.

These factors explain why Kerry has been willing to overlook Iran’s own provocations while trying to mitigate what Iran sees as provocations from the U.S. Congress. They also explain why Iran seems so intent to provoke the U.S. at the moment it’s supposed to implement the deal to which it just agreed.

Turkey Partially Deals with Hamas, Terror

Posted on by

If the United States knows the top Hamas terrorist and where he is, then why not detain him? While Secretary of State, John Kerry has failed miserably at dealing with all the terrifying issues with Iran, at least some pressure was placed on Turkey to get rid of the top Hamas leader, but Hamas in general is allowed to continue operations in Turkey. It is twisted for sure.

Hamas is a terror organization and responsible for deadly conflicts and hostilities on a constant basis in Israel.

This condition as explained below, describes how convoluted diplomatic objectives are with respect to how the Obama administration functions, rather, malfunctions.

Top Hamas Terrorist Leaves Turkey After Pressure From U.S., Israel

TheTower: Saleh al-Arouri, a Hamas leader who manages the terrorist group’s operations in the West Bank, was reportedly expelled from Turkey under pressure from the United States and Israel, The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday.

According to the Post, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal agreed that al-Arouri would “voluntarily” depart the country and not return, though Hamas would be allowed to continue operations on its soil. Erdogan’s ongoing support for the terror group remains a stumbling block in efforts to restore diplomatic relations between Anakara and Jerusalem.

Earlier this month, Erdogan said that reconciliation between Israel and Turkey would benefit the entire region. The two countries reached a preliminary deal to restore diplomatic relations late last week. Israel agreed to compensate the families of crew members killed during the IDF’s 2010 raid on the Mavi Marmara, which attempted to breach Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, but refused to end its blockade of the territory, despite Erdogan’s demands.

In Where the Shadiest Players Find a Home, which was published in the September 2014 issue of The Tower Magazine, Jonathan Schanzer explored the extent of Turkey’s recent support for Hamas:

But Turkey’s support for Hamas remains strong. Just how strong? We don’t know. In December 2011, Palestinian news sources reported that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan “instructed the Ministry of Finance to allocate $300 million to be sent to Hamas’ government in Gaza.” Both Turkey and Hamas denied this, but Reuters and Haaretzpublished subsequent reports citing this number. …

Then there is the presence of the aforementioned Saleh al-Arouri. The Israeli news website Ynet reported last year that Arouri “operates out of Turkey, with the backing of the Turkish government.”…

Arouri is also believed to be in charge of Hamas’ operations in the West Bank. In January, a senior Israeli military official confirmed this when he told Israel Hayom that Hamas’ recent West Bank operations are “directed from Gaza via Turkey.” More recently, in August, the Israelis announced that Arouri was at the center of a plot to bring down the Palestinian Authority government of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank. Arouri recruited the leader of the operation, according to reports. …

Arouri is not the only Hamas figure in Turkey. In 2011, Israel released 10 Hamas operatives to Turkey as part of the prisoner exchange deal with Hamas that secured the release of kidnapped Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit. Among the Hamas figures believed to have gone to Turkey include Mahmoud Attoun and Taysir Suleiman. Both were sentenced to life terms in Israeli prison for murder. Both men today appear on television and lecture about the merits of Hamas in Turkey and around the Arab world.

YNet: Israel established al-Arouri’s expulsion from the country as a condition for achieving full reconciliation between Ankara and Jerusalem. Al-Arouri’s “voluntary” departure was agreed upon during the meeting between Hamas’ political chief, Khaled Mashal and Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu last Saturday.

Nevertheless, Erdogan clarified to close associates that he had no intention of closing Hamas’ offices in Turkey and would not stop his financial and moral support of Hamas, as Israel requested.

Moreover, Turkey is adamant regarding its request that Israel remove the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and Israel refuses to do this. Turkish officials claim that Israel agreed to lighten the blockade, but Israel denies this.

 

A secret meeting was reported on last Thursday between the soon-to-be Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s envoy in the contacts with Turkey, Joseph Ciechanover and Turkish under-foreign minister Feridun Sinirlioglu in Zurich.

 

The Prime Minister’s Office announced that at the meeting it was agreed upon that Turkey’s ambassador would return to Tel Aviv and Israel’s envoy would return to Ankara. Moreover, Israel agreed to establish a compensation fund for those killed in the Mavi Marmara incident, and in return Turkey will renounce any and all claims regarding it.

 

It was also agreed upon that al-Arouri would be expelled from Turkey and that talks about laying a gas pipeline between Israel and Turkey would soon begin.

 

Al-Arouri, one of the founders of Hamas’ military wing, sat in Israeli jails for 15 years before being expelled to Syria. In 2012, when Hamas’ offices in Syria were closed down, he fled to Turkey. From Turkey he was involved in orchestrating the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers in Gush Etzion in June 2014.