Spooky Dude Soros is Back with Big Bucks for Hillary

Posted on July 27, 2016July 27, 2016 by Denise Simon

NYT’s

When some new policy, decision or regulation comes out from government that we question, it generally has Soros behind it. Lately we are hearing so much about prison reform and criminal sentencing reform. Well, when it comes to these discussions, seems Soros was behind much of this as well going back to 2010 funding legal assistance for terrorists. What you say? Yup…..for a summary go here and you will find names like Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and Weather Underground terrorist David J. Gilbert.

George Soros rises again

The billionaire, who had dialed back his giving, has committed more than $25 million to supporting Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes.

PHILADELPHIA — George Soros is back.

Politico: The billionaire investor, who scaled back his political giving after a then-unprecedented $27 million spending spree to try to defeat George Bush in 2004, has quietly reemerged as a leading funder of Democratic politics — and as a leading bogeyman of conservatives.

Soros has donated or committed more than $25 million to boost Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes, according to Federal Election Commission records and interviews with his associates and Democratic fundraising operatives. And some of his associates say they expect Soros, who amassed a fortune estimated at $24.9 billion through risky currency trades, to give even more as Election Day nears.

The 85-year-old Hungarian-born New Yorker had planned to attend his first-ever Democratic convention here to watch Clinton, with whom he has a 25-year relationship, accept the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday. But an associate said he decided to cancel the trip this week because Soros, who recently returned to active trading, felt he needed to closely monitor the economic situation in Europe.

Nonetheless, people close to Soros say he seems more politically engaged than he’s been in years, motivated they say by a combination of faith in Clinton and fear of her GOP rival Donald Trump, who Soros has accused of “doing the work of ISIS” by stoking fears.

Soros’s political adviser Michael Vachon said his boss “has been a consistent donor to Democratic causes, but this year the political stakes are exceptionally high.” Vachon added: “They were high even before Trump became the nominee because of the hostility on the other side toward many of the issues George cares most about and has worked to support for many years, including immigration reform, criminal justice reform and religious tolerance.”

The willingness of Soros to turn on the cash spigot full force to beat Trump is seen in Democratic finance circles as a very good sign for Clinton. Perhaps more than any other donor on the left, Soros is seen as having the potential to catalyze giving by others rich activists.

To be sure, other elite liberal donors are also stroking big checks, including San Francisco environmentalist Tom Steyer (who has donated $31 million in 2016, albeit almost entirely to a super PAC he controls), New York hedge funder Don Sussman ($13.2 million to various campaigns and committees) and media moguls Haim Saban and Fred Eychaner ($11.1 million each). But few have the bellwether effect of Soros.

The cumulative effect of the mobilization of the left’s richest benefactors has helped Clinton’s campaign and its allied outside groups mount a massive financial advantage over committees backing Trump, who is regarded with suspicion at best by the GOP donor class. That’s allowed Clinton and her allies to build a humming campaign machine that dwarfs Trump’s.

Soros has had a hand in funding many pieces of that.

Through the end of June, Soros had donated $7 million to a super PAC supporting Clinton called Priorities USA Action, according to FEC filings, making it the biggest recipient of his political largesse this cycle. And three Democratic operatives say he’s considering donating another $3 million to the group.

FEC records also show Soros gave $2 million to American Bridge 21st Century, an opposition research super PAC that has been targeting Trump and other Republican candidates, and $700,000 to an assortment of Democratic party committees, PACs and campaigns, including Clinton’s.

Soros has committed $5 million to a super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win that’s devoted to increasing turnout among low-propensity Hispanic voters in key swing states, though FEC records show he’d donated only $3 million through the end of June, the period covered by the most recent filings.

Soros has committed another $5 million to a non-profit devoted to fighting conservative efforts to restrict voting, according to the associate. That group, the Voting Rights Trust, is run partly by Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias. It’s registered under a section of the tax code that doesn’t require it to disclose its donors, meaning that Soros’s donations and those of other donors will never be formally publicly reported to the government, and also that it could be possible that some donations might be passed through from other groups.

Likewise, Vachon said Soros has committed or donated $2 million to a voter mobilization group called America Votes that doesn’t disclose its donors and another $1 million or so to a handful of state-based voter mobilization groups that are not required to disclose their donors.

And this month, according to Vachon, Soros donated $1.5 million each to Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC boosting Democratic Senate candidates, and to Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC that boosts candidates who support abortion rights, including Clinton.

The giving pattern and motivations seem similar to 2004, when Soros, motivated by a deep and abiding opposition to the Iraq War and other Bush administration policies, sprinkled $27 million around a handful of liberal groups boosting John Kerry’s unsuccessful challenge to Bush.

That spending, coupled with Soros’s inflammatory rhetoric — he compared the Bush administration’s rhetoric to that of the Nazis and described defeating the Bush as “a matter of life and death” — made him a target of sometimes vicious personal attacks from conservative politicians and media outlets casting him as a puppet-master, a self-hating Jew, a communist or worse.

Some allies say the public chastisement ate at Soros, as did the inability of his political spending spree to oust Bush, and his perhaps slightly ironic concerns that campaign finance laws allowed rich Americans like himself too much influence in politics.

And, after 2004, he dialed back his political giving, suggesting he might never again spend as heavily on politics, characterizing his involvement during the 2004 election as “an exception.”

Instead, he focused his philanthropic attention on his international foundations, which have donated more than $13 billion over the past three decades to non-profits that aim to defend human rights, shape the democratic process in Eastern Europe and expand access to healthcare and education in the U.S. and around the world.

And he played a formative role in the 2005 launch of a secretive club of major liberal donors called the Democracy Alliance. It sought to steer cash away from groups fighting short-term electoral battles and towards ones seeking to build intellectual infrastructure for long-term fights outside the Democratic Party, such as combating climate change, income inequality and the outsize role of big money in politics.

One liberal operative this week recalled asking someone close to Soros why the billionaire had reduced his spending on partisan politics.

“The answer was that he found it ‘odious’ for any one individual to throw too much political weight around through donations,” recalled the operative. “Maybe, in light of what’s happened in the last few cycles, it seems less so, or he feels like he needs to help balance the outside-money scales a bit,” the operative added.

Additionally, though Soros backed Barack Obama over Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, he quickly soured on the Democratic president, who he felt was insufficiently aggressive in pursuing liberal priorities. He expressed frustration with Obama during a private Democracy Alliance meeting in 2010, which some interpreted as a willingness to back a primary challenger in 2012. And though he backed Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, that year he told a close Clinton ally that he regretted supporting Obama over her, and praised Clinton for giving him an open door to discuss policy, according to emails released late last year by the State Department.

Soros “said he’s been impressed that he can always call/meet with you on an issue of policy and said he hasn’t met with the President ever (though I thought he had),” Clinton ally Neera Tanden wrote to the then-Secretary of State. Tanden continued that Soros “then said he regretted his decision in the primary — he likes to admit mistakes when he makes them and that was one of them. He then extolled his work with you from your time as First Lady on.”

The Soros associate dismissed the conversation characterized in Tanden’s email as “idle dinner party chatter,” suggesting it did not represent Soros’s full assessment of Obama.

But Jordan Wood, the national finance director for a PAC called End Citizens United, on Tuesday suggested Soros’s giving may have slumped in recent years partly because of Obama. “With George, his giving has spiked because of Hillary. He really likes Hillary Clinton and he didn’t like Obama as much,” said Wood, in an interview at a reception at a Center City bar for the campaign finance reform group Every Voice.

End Citizens United, which supports candidates including Clinton who pledge to push campaign finance reforms, this year received a $5,000 check from Soros, the maximum he could legally give to that group. He also has donated to Every Voice, as has his son Jonathan Soros, who attended Tuesday’s reception.

Jonathan Soros wouldn’t comment on his father’s increased political giving, but he pointed to George Soros’s recent writing about Trump, which includes one column in which Soros warned voters that it’s important to “resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz” if the U.S. is to effectively fight terrorism.

Another Terror Attack in Germany, Risks in USA

Posted on July 24, 2016July 24, 2016 by Denise Simon

Al Qaeda chief urges kidnappings of Westerners for prisoner swaps

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has appeared in an audio interview calling on fighters to take Western hostages and exchange them for jailed jihadists, the monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group said on Sunday.

In recording posted online, Al-Zawahiri called on the global militant network to kidnap Westerners “until they liberate the last Muslim male prisoner and last Muslim female prisoner in the prisons of the Crusaders, apostates, and enemies of Islam,” according to SITE. More here from Reuters.

******

A 21-year-old Syrian refugee was arrested on Sunday after killing a pregnant woman with a machete in Germany, the fourth violent assault on civilians in western Europe in 10 days, though police said it did not appear linked to terrorism.

The incident, however, may add to public unease surrounding Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door refugee policy that has seen over a million migrants enter Germany over the past year, many fleeing war in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.

German police said they arrested the machete-wielding Syrian asylum-seeker after he killed a woman and injured two other people in the southwestern city of Reutlingen near Stuttgart. Much more here from Newsweek.

*****

Related reading on NGO’s: UNHCR – Partnership in Resettlement

So what about the real vetting process in the United States you ask…..it is a great question.

After the Paris attacks, the White House called in 34 governors to discuss the policy and vetting process of refugees into the United States. While we focus on ‘Syrian’ refugees, they hardly make up the majority and it is this fact that must be noted. Even so, the White House, 3 days later published a chart of the vetting program and it does have some gaps (questions) that too must be answered.

‎Refugees undergo more rigorous screening than anyone else we allow into the United States. Here’s what the screening process looks like for them:

The full text is found here from the White House.

The admission of refugees to the United States and their resettlement here are authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980. The INA defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country and who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In special circumstances, a refugee also may be a person who is within his or her country and who is persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The maximum annual number of refugee admissions (refugee ceiling) and the allocation of these numbers by region of the world are set by the President after consultation by Cabinet-level representatives with members of the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees.

The Department of State’s (DOS’s) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) is responsible for coordinating and managing the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Prospective refugees can be referred to the U.S. program by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a U.S. embassy, or a designated nongovernmental organization (NGO), or in some cases, they can access the U.S. refugee program directly. PRM generally arranges for an NGO, an international organization, or U.S. embassy contractors to manage a Resettlement Support Center (RSC) that assists in refugee processing.

Following the consultations, the President issues a Presidential Determination that sets the refugee ceiling and regional allocations for that fiscal year. Once the Presidential Determination for a fiscal year has been issued, INA Section 207 also allows for additional refugee admissions in response to an “emergency refugee situation.” In such a situation, the President may, after congressional consultation, issue an Emergency Presidential Determination providing for an increase in refugee admissions numbers.

For FY2016, the Obama Administration initially proposed a refugee ceiling of 75,000 and held consultations with Congress on that proposal. The proposal reportedly included an allocation of 33,000 for the Near East/South Asia, the region that includes Syria.5 The Administration subsequently announced that the United States would admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in FY2016. On September 29, 2015, the Obama Administration released the Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016.6 It sets the FY2016 refugee ceiling at 85,000, with 79,000 admissions numbers allocated among the regions of the world and 6,000 admissions numbers comprising an unallocated reserve.7 The allocation for the Near East/South Asia region is 34,000.

Actual Admissions

In FY2015, the United States admitted 69,933 refugees. The Near East/South Asia region accounted for 24,579 admissions, of which 1,682 were Syrian refugees. In the first month of FY2016 (October 2015), total refugee admissions were 5,348, Near East/South Asia region admissions were 1,979, and Syrian admissions were 187. From October 1, 2010, through October 31, 2015, the United States admitted a total of 2,070 Syrian refugees.

Role of the Department of Homeland Security

USCIS adjudicates refugee applications and makes decisions about eligibility for refugee status. USCIS officers in the Refugee Corps interview each applicant in person and consider other evidence and information to determine whether the individual is eligible for refugee status. More comprehensive reading here.

Hey Obama, Kerry, Rhodes, Explain this Secret on Iran Deal

Posted on July 18, 2016July 18, 2016 by Denise Simon

Related reading: Banking & Money Laundering Risk

Iranian financial institutions remain locked out of the U.S. financial system, and therefore cut off from much of the global financial system. International banks have been hit with $14 billion in fines since 2009 for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. The U.S. continues to designate the entire Iranian financial sector as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

****

Iran urged to avoid further ballistic missile launches, to preserve deal July 18, 2016

Iran has been urged not to carry out further ballistic missile tests, which might be deemed inconsistent with the “constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal struck with world powers a year ago.

The call came from UN Under Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman, briefing the Security Council on the implementation of the resolution which endorsed the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

AP Exclusive: Confidential text eases Iran nuke constraints

VIENNA (AP) — Key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program imposed under an internationally negotiated deal will start to ease years before the 15-year accord expires, advancing Tehran’s ability to build a bomb even before the end the pact, according to a document obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The document is the only text linked to last year’s deal between Iran and six foreign powers that hasn’t been made public, although U.S. officials say members of Congress have been able to see it. It was given to the AP by a diplomat whose work has focused on Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, and its authenticity was confirmed by another diplomat who possesses the same document.

The diplomat who shared the document with the AP described it as an add-on agreement to the nuclear deal. But while formally separate from that accord, he said that it was in effect an integral part of the deal and had been approved both by Iran and the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the six powers that negotiated the deal with Tehran.

Details published earlier outline most restraints on Iran’s nuclear program meant to reduce the threat that Tehran will turn nuclear activities it says are peaceful to making weapons.

But while some of the constraints extend for 15 years, documents in the public domain are short on details of what happens with Iran’s most proliferation-prone nuclear activity – its uranium enrichment – beyond the first 10 years of the agreement.

The document obtained by the AP fills in the gap. It says that as of January 2027 – 11 years after the deal was implemented – Iran can start replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines.

Centrifuges churn out uranium to levels that can range from use as reactor fuel and for medical and research purposes to much higher levels for the core of a nuclear warhead. From year 11 to 13, says the document, Iran can install centrifuges up to five times as efficient as the 5,060 machines it is now restricted to using.

Those new models will number less than those being used now, ranging between 2,500 and 3,500, depending on their efficiency, according to the document. But because they are more effective, they will allow Iran to enrich at more than twice the rate it is doing now.

The U.S. says the Iran nuclear agreement is tailored to ensure that Iran would need at least 12 months to “break out” and make enough weapons grade uranium for at least one weapon.

But based on a comparison of outputs between the old and newer machines, if the enrichment rate doubles, that breakout time would be reduced to six months, or even less if the efficiency is more than double, a possibility the document allows for.

The document also allows Iran to greatly expand its work with centrifuges that are even more advanced, including large-scale testing in preparation for the deal’s expiry 15 years after its implementation on Jan. 18.

A U.S. official noted, however, that the limit on the amount of enriched uranium Iran will be allowed to store will remain at 300 kilograms (660 pounds) for the full 15 years, significantly below the amount needed for a bomb. As well, it will remain restricted to a level used for reactor fuel that is well below weapons grade. Like the diplomats, the official demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the document.

“We have ensured that Iran’s breakout time comes down gradually after year 10 in large part because of restrictions on its uranium stockpile until year 15,” the official said. “As for breakout times after the initial 10 years of the deal, the breakout time does not go off a cliff nor do we believe that it would be immediately cut in half, to six months.”

Still the easing of restrictions on the number and kind of centrifuges means that once the deal expires, Tehran will be positioned to quickly make enough highly enriched uranium to bring up its stockpile to a level that would allow it to make a bomb in half a year, should it choose to do so.

The document doesn’t say what happens with enrichment past year 13. That indicates a possible end to all restrictions on the number and kind of centrifuges even while constraints on other, less-proliferation prone nuclear activities remain until year 15.

Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA says Tehran has essentially kept to its commitments since the agreement was implemented, a little more than six months after Iran and the six powers finalized it on July 14, 2015.

Marking the agreement’s anniversary Thursday, President Barack Obama said it has succeeded in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, “avoiding further conflict and making us safer.” But opposition from U.S. Republicans could increase with the revelation that Iran’s potential breakout time would be more than halved over the last few years of the pact.

Also opposed is Israel, which in the past has threatened to strike Iran if it deems that Tehran is close to making a nuclear weapon. Alluding to that possibility, David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security is a U.S. government go-to resource on Iran’s nuclear program, said the plan outlined in the document “will create a great deal of instability and possibly even lead to war, if regional tensions have not subsided.”

The deal provides Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for its nuclear constraints. But before going into recess, U.S. Congress last week approved a bill to impose new sanctions for Tehran’s continuing development and testing of ballistic missiles, a program the White House says is meant to carry atomic warheads even if it is not part of the nuclear agreement.

It also approved a measure that calls for prohibiting the Obama administration from buying more of Iran’s heavy water, a key component in certain nuclear reactors.

The White House has said removing the country’s surplus heavy water denies Tehran access to a material that may be stored for potential nuclear weapons production. But critics note that the purchase was made only after Iran exceeded heavy water limits proscribed by the nuclear deal and assert it rewarded Tehran for violating the agreement.

FBI Required to Sign Unique NDA on Hillary Case

Posted on July 14, 2016July 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

If you think the Hillary team, the Department of Justice and the FBI have not colluded with the White House to alter the course of history and the election, then think again.

Proof? Click the link and read it for yourself. It is all clear now how confident Hillary was, why Comey made his press briefing and why Loretta Lynch refused to answer questions at the hearing. This takes the Department of Justice to the highest level of corruption and collusion in American history. Think about that.

Hillary FBI NDA

‘Gag’ order: FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe

FNC: The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy — and subject to lie detector tests — in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a “chilling effect.”

A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” which says the disclosure of information is “strictly prohibited” without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.

“The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation,” the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, “….I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination.”

The measures show the extent to which the bureau has gone to keep additional details of the politically sensitive case from going public. While Comey has provided some information ‎on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case at a House hearing Tuesday.

A recently retired FBI agent, who declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the matter, said a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” is reserved for “the most sensitive of sensitive cases,” and can have a “chilling effect” on agents, who understand “it comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case.”

The former agent said the agreements can also contribute to “group think” because investigators cannot bounce ideas off other agents, only those within a small circle.

John Kerry, Iran is Cheating on JPOA, Germany Report

Posted on July 13, 2016July 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Paging Mr. Kerry, paging Mr. Obama, paging Ben Rhodes..paging anyone, pick up on line 4.

Do we have to rely on Angela Merkel of Germany to get the truth?

In 2015: The number two man at the CIA said today he has a “high degree of confidence” that if Iran cheats on the newly-signed, controversial nuclear deal, the U.S. intelligence community would catch them in the act.

“Our assessment of the provisions that are in the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) that provide the real-time, persistent access to the cleared sites, as well as a mechanism for getting scheduled access to suspicious sites, combined with other capabilities and information that we have available to us, gives us a reasonably high degree of confidence that we would be able to detect Iran if it were trying to deviate from the requirements that they’ve signed up to in the JCPOA,” David Cohen, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said at the Aspen Security Forum today. “So I think our assessment is that the JCPOA gives us a good ability to detect Iranian deviation from the limitations on enrichment and the other specific elements in the JCPOA.”

When referring to access to Iranian sites, Cohen was presumably referring to the access provided to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, as stipulated in the agreement, not access by the CIA. More here from ABC.

***** So….under Obama and Kerry, is the CIA allowed to track Iranian actions and report cheating and violations?

*****

Iran cheats on nuclear deal

Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This piece is reprinted with permission and can be found on Abrams’ blog “Pressure Points.”

Hayom: The greatest imminent danger in last year’s nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was always that Iran would cheat — taking all the advantages of the deal, but then seeking to move forward more quickly toward a nuclear weapon — and that the Obama administration would be silent in the face of that cheating.

This was always a reasonable prospect, given the history of arms control agreements. Those who negotiate such agreements wish to defend them. They do not wish to say, six or 12 months and even years later, that they were duped and that the deals must be considered null and void.

Last week, Germany’s intelligence agency produced a report detailing Iranian cheating. Here is an excerpt from the news story:

“Germany’s domestic intelligence agency said in its annual report that Iran has a ‘clandestine’ effort to seek illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies ‘at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level.’ The findings by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s equivalent of the FBI, were issued in a 317-page report last week.

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel underscored the findings in a statement to parliament, saying Iran violated the United Nations Security Council’s anti-missile development regulations. ‘Iran continued unabated to develop its rocket program in conflict with the relevant provisions of the U.N. Security Council,’ Merkel told the Bundestag. … The German report also stated, ‘It is safe to expect that Iran will continue its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.’

“According to an Institute for Science and International Security July 7 report by David Albright and Andrea Stricker, Iran is required to get permission from a UN Security Council panel for ‘purchases of nuclear direct-use goods.’

“While the German intelligence report did not say what specifically Iran had obtained or attempted to obtain, the more recent report said dual use goods such as carbon fiber must be reported. Iran did not seek permission from the U.N.-affiliated panel for its proliferation attempts and purchases in Germany, officials said.”

Here is a summary of that report by the Institute for Science and International Security:

“The Institute for Science and International Security has learned that Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization recently made an attempt to purchase tons of controlled carbon fiber from a country. This attempt occurred after Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The attempt to acquire carbon fiber was denied by the supplier and its government. Nonetheless, the AEOI had enough carbon fiber to replace existing advanced centrifuge rotors and had no need for additional quantities over the next several years, let alone for tons of carbon fiber. This attempt thus raises concerns over whether Iran intends to abide by its JCPOA commitments. In particular, Iran may seek to stockpile the carbon fiber so as to be able to build advanced centrifuge rotors far beyond its current needs under the JCPOA, providing an advantage that would allow it to quickly build an advanced centrifuge enrichment plant if it chose to leave or disregard the JCPOA during the next few years. The carbon fiber procurement attempt is also another example of efforts by the P5+1 to keep secret problematic Iranian actions.”

So Iran isn’t only being more aggressive since the signing of the JCPOA — in Iraq and Syria, for example, or in cyber attacks on the United States — but is also cheating on the deal. And what is the reaction from the Obama administration, and other cheerleaders for the JCPOA? Nothing.

John Kerry famously said, “Iran deserves the benefits of the agreement they struck.” They do not deserve to be allowed to cheat. Kerry said in April when asked if Iran would “stick to the key terms of this deal for the next 20 years” that “I have faith and confidence that we will know exactly what they’re doing during that period of time. And if they decide to try to cheat, we will know it, and there are plenty of options available to us. That I have complete faith and confidence in.”

That’s nice. But now we know they are cheating, and the option the administration appears to have chosen is silence: just ignore the problem. When asked about the German intel report and the Institute for Science and International Security report, the State Department spokesman replied, “We have absolutely no indication that Iran has procured any materials in violation of the JCPOA.”

Needless to say this kind of response will only encourage Iran to cheat more, secure in the knowledge that Obama administration officials will not call them out on it, nor choose any serious one of the “plenty of options” it says it has. This means that Iran’s breakout time will diminish, and the danger to its neighbors and to the United States will grow and grow.

From “Pressure Points” by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.