Obama/Kerry to Announce Iran Deal Czar

Posted on September 17, 2015September 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

Given the diplomatic background of Stephen Mull, there is nothing of any significance that proves he is up to the newly created position. Simply put, this is a very odd choice but more to a puppet position. In fact, as Ambassador to Poland, he was expelled.

US to name coordinator for implementing Iran nuclear deal

Author: Laura Rozen

AlMonitor: With the Iran nuclear deal expected to emerge intact this week from a grueling 60-day congressional review, the Barack Obama administration is preparing to unveil a new office for coordinating its implementation, to be led by outgoing US Ambassador to Poland Stephen Mull.

The announcement of Mull’s appointment as US coordinator for the Iran nuclear deal implementation is expected to be made by Secretary of State John Kerry as early as Sept. 17 — the deadline for Congress to have sent a resolution of disapproval to the president, a move that was blocked by Senate Democrats — or shortly thereafter, US officials said. It is expected to come as the White House also announces the nomination of State Department Counselor Tom Shannon to succeed Wendy Sherman as undersecretary of state for political affairs, as Al-Monitor previously reported.

A veteran foreign service officer, Mull previously served as executive secretary of the State Department (2010-12), ambassador to Lithuania and, most critically, as senior adviser to then-Undersecretary of State William Burns (2008-10) when Burns was the lead US Iran nuclear negotiator and the United States was helping negotiate UN Security Council Resolution 1929 that sanctioned Iran over its nuclear program, among previous relevant assignments. (Mull was described by one former State Department colleague as “Burns’ right arm.”)

Mull, contacted by Al-Monitor, declined to comment on his anticipated new appointment before it is officially announced. His successor as US envoy to Poland, Paul Jones, was sworn in by Kerry at the State Department on Sept. 11.

Mull “is a brilliant choice,” Richard Nephew, former top State Department Iran sanctions official, told Al-Monitor, noting Mull’s experience on the Iran file under Burns from 2009-10 and wide-ranging work with agencies across the government. He may want to bring on as his deputy coordinator somebody who has invested a decade-plus specifically on the Iran file to complement his experience, Nephew said.

Beyond the near-term ribbon-cutting, the office may get off to a somewhat slow start, as Mull gathers his team, meets with all the senior people throughout the government and foreign interlocutors, and brings himself up to speed on every detail of the past two years of negotiations and the 159-page Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, former US officials suggested.

Mull is expected to oversee a small team of up to seven people, based at the State Department, who will coordinate US government implementation of the JCPOA across US government agencies as needed, including the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and so on.

The team will be “lean … not more than seven” people, and Mull “will have reach” across the entire interagency to convene what he needs, said a US official, speaking not for attribution to discuss the still-fluid plans for the office.

The small team working under Mull will be “coordinating this very large interagency group of people, hundreds of people,” across multiple agencies, including the State and Treasury departments and the labs employing Department of Energy nuclear experts, to ensure that both Iran lives up to its commitments under the JCPOA, and the United States lives up to its commitments, a second US official said, stressing that “the function of the team is a coordinating function.”

On the nuclear and sanctions issues, Mull brings a variety of expertise to the table, including his experience serving as Burns’ senior adviser from 2008 to 2010 when the United States was helping negotiate the critical UN Security Council Resolution 1929, and as executive secretary of the State Department, in which he coordinated lots of people to serve then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now Democratic presidential candidate.

The coordinating team will be structured with Mull in charge; he will have an assistant coordinator and a handful of deputies responsible for different functions, including congressional reporting, verifying the nuclear piece, sanctions and sanctions relief.

The other members of the P5+1 — the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — are also in the process of organizing themselves to implement the JCPOA. The JCPOA mandated that a Joint Commission — comprised of each member of the P5+1, plus the European Union and Iran — be established to meet regularly to coordinate implementation of the landmark Iran nuclear deal and work out any disputes that may arise.

“We are still in process and have not decided yet who will be representing us in the Joint Commission,” a Russian official told Al-Monitor, adding that Russia is likely to be represented on the Joint Commission at the expert level, rather than by its chief Iran nuclear negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

France is likely to be represented on the Joint Commission by its political director and chief Iran nuclear negotiator Nicolas de Riviere, a French official told Al-Monitor.

Who will lead the European Union team on the Joint Commission “is still a work in progress,” an EU official told Al-Monitor on Sept. 15. An Iran task force has been established at the European External Action Service, led by Portuguese diplomat Hugo Sobral. Also mentioned as a possibility is Stephan Klement, the longtime top nonproliferation adviser to European Union Deputy Secretary-General Helga Schmid, who played the central role in over two years of Iran nuclear deal negotiations and the drafting of the final deal, reached July 14 in Vienna.

Iranian officials told Al-Monitor they were still figuring out their representation on the Joint Commission, and they understood the same to be true of some of the other P5+1 governments.

“At this moment, all these questions are under consideration in Iran and even, I assume, by other P5+1 countries, and no definite position has yet been made on them,” a member of the Iranian negotiating team, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor on Sept.16.

Diplomats from Iran and the P5+1 are expected to meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly opening session that gets underway in New York later this month. Both US President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani are scheduled to address the UN General Assembly on the first day, Sept. 28.

The first meeting of the Joint Commission is likely to happen in New York at the political director level. “It’s supposed to be held on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York,” a senior Iranian official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor on Sept. 15. He added that the date is not finalized yet.

“Adoption day” of the JCPOA is Oct. 18 — 90 days after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the deal, US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told journalists at a press conference in Vienna on Sept. 14 on the sidelines of an International Atomic Energy Agency general conference.

Barring surprises from Congress, after Sept. 17, “our expectation … is that the agreement will then go forward,” Moniz told journalists in Vienna on Sept. 14. “Certainly our thinking … is [then] on the question of implementation.”

“This is a large task,” Moniz said. “And my view … is that over the next year and a half, the most important thing is in fact implementing well on all sides, and essentially demonstrating the value [of the Iran nuclear deal] so that … next year, what we will see [is that] the Iran nuclear program has been rolled back substantially.”

Kerry’s Iran Deal Destroys Power of Congress, Stalls Business

Posted on September 17, 2015September 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

If John Kerry was still in the Senate, would he have accepted or tolerated this kind of action? Further, what if any government employee or diplomat would hold hostage an entire body of government?

Obama Admin: Iran Deal Limits New Congressional Action on Iran

Limits new sanctions on Iranian terrorism, human rights violations

The recently inked nuclear accord with Iran restricts the United States’ ability to impose new sanctions on the Islamic Republic in response to terror activities, human rights abuses, and ballistic missile development, according to a document provided to Congress by the Obama administration and obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

Secretary of State John Kerry writes in the document that although the nuclear accord theoretically allows Congress to impose new non-nuclear sanctions, American lawmakers will be restricted from enacting legislation that Iran could use as an excuse for walking away from the deal, according to the document, which was provided as an on-the-record response to a series of questions from Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.).

Experts who spoke to the Free Beacon raised alarms about the Obama administration’s response, which they claim would give Iran a veto over congressional efforts to respond to Iranian human rights atrocities and global terror activities. Tehran, they say, would claim that such measures are an excuse for re-imposing nuclear sanctions slated to be lifted under the deal.

Iran claimed in a letter sent to the United Nations last July that it would treat any new sanctions efforts—including those not related to its nuclear program—as a violation of the deal, specifically if those sanctions targeted Iranian entities that had once been penalized for illicit nuclear activity.

Iran emphasized in the letter that it would enforce that interpretation “irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear related or other grounds,” according to a copy of the letter published by Foreign Policy.

Kerry, in his recent letter to Rubio, admitted that the United States will have limited options in sanctioning Iran.

Congress will not have “free rein to simply re-impose tomorrow all of our nuclear-related sanctions under some other pretext,” Kerry wrote. “Iran would obviously see that as bad faith.”

“We do not have free rein to re-impose nuclear-related sanctions without a credible rationale,” Kerry said later in the document.

Insiders told the Free Beacon that the administration’s stance would likely prevent the United States from responding to Iranian aggression and human rights violations.

“You have to understand how crazy backwards this is,” a senior D.C.-based political strategist involved in the fight over Iran sanctions legislation told the Free Beacon. “If you’re an Iranian general who is just involved in terrorism, we may be able to sanction you for that.”

“But let’s say you’re an Iranian general who was involved in the nuclear program, and we designated you for that but now under the deal we’re delisting you,” the strategist said. “If you now switch to being an arch-terrorist, Congress can’t touch you because the Iranians will say we’re doing an end-run around the JCPOA.”

Kerry declined to support new congressional actions against Iran, stating that the administration would “remain vocal about human rights violations in Iran” and would only “continue to enforce existing human rights sanctions.”

The administration’s stance comes amid repeated promises to lawmakers that the administration would double down on the use of sanctions as a means to push back against Iranian non-nuclear aggression.

Meanwhile:

Corporate America stuck on the sidelines in Iran

TheHill: U.S. companies won’t be rushing in to do business in Iran, even once the terms of the landmark nuclear accord go into effect.

Lawmakers have been unable to kill the terms of the agreement on Capitol Hill, but lingering sanctions and the threat of new action will prevent the vast majority of American companies from setting up shop in Iran — even while their foreign competitors race in.

“If you’re a U.S. company, the day after implementation day is going to look a lot like the day before implementation day,” said Richard Nephew, who worked on Iran sanctions within the Obama administration and is now a program director at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“I’m really, really skeptical that any major U.S. companies are going to want to tread in that space until they are pretty sure that they’re not going to get bitten as a result of this.”

“It would be a big mistake,” agreed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the few Senate Democrats to oppose the deal, “because there’s going to be still a whole host of other sanctions that will still exist for Iran’s non-nuclear transgressions, and it is likely that we will see other sanctions come down the road.”

In fact, except for caviar, carpets and a few other specific areas, the U.S. economic relationship with Iran won’t change much at all.

The nuclear deal lifts sanctions on Iran’s oil and financial sectors in exchange for limits on its ability to build a nuclear bomb.

The vast majority of U.S. sanctions, however, will only be lifted on foreign companies — not American firms.

“We are not removing our trade embargo on Iran,” a senior administration official said in a recent briefing with reporters. “U.S. persons and banks will still be generally prohibited from all dealings with Iranian companies, including investing in Iran [and] facilitating cleared country trade with Iran.”

However, there are a few exceptions.

Once regulators certify that Iran has taken a number of steps to shut down its nuclear program — which won’t happen for a few months — some industries will have a small amount of flexibility.

The most notable is civilian aircraft materials, of which Iran is in desperate need.

The U.S., in return, will allow imports of Iranian carpets and foodstuffs including caviar and pistachios. Those shipments serve a symbolic purpose but aren’t likely to have a transformational effect on the Iranian economy, analysts said.

Some foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies can also begin doing business in Iran. The Obama administration has yet to signify exactly what types of activities might be allowed, though, so it remains to be seen how overseas subsidiaries will respond.

In any case, corporate America doesn’t appear to be chomping at the bit to rush in to Iran, which may be in part due to the threat of new sanctions from Congress.

Opponents of the Iranian nuclear deal on Capitol Hill have so far failed in their bid to block it and are now turning to other avenues to undermine the agreement.

Meanwhile, as GOP presidential candidates are quick to remind people, the terms of the deal could be abandoned with the stroke of a pen from the next resident of the White House.

Those comments might cause

businesses to be wary of investing heavily in a legal opening that could close in just 16 months.

Europeans, meanwhile, have a different story to tell.

While many American firms will be on the outside looking in at Iran, the deal will lift most United Nations and European Union sanctions on Iran, which could open the floodgates for foreign firms.

“The bottom line is U.S. companies and U.S. persons will be more constrained, because we will have what is essentially a unilateral, U.S.-only embargo,” said William McGlone, a partner at the Latham & Watkins law firm who specializes in export controls and sanctions.

Some jostling has already begun.

“There are huge trade delegations over there,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee and is strongly opposed to the deal.

“There’s not an empty hotel room in Tehran.”

The main target of that foreign activity is likely to be energy, though the degree to which American firms get in on the game remains a question mark.

Federal analysts say the country has up to 30 million barrels of oil in storage and could grow its production by up to 700,000 barrels a day once sanctions are lifted.

Iran’s oil minister said in May that “we will witness involvement” of American firms once that happens, but even companies bullish on the prospects aren’t moving quickly to confirm their involvement.

Royal Dutch Shell told The Hill in May that the company is “interested in exploring the role Shell can play in developing Iran’s energy potential,” but a spokesman Wednesday said only that that position still stands.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he doesn’t expect many U.S. companies to join the parade to Iran, citing uncertainty about the stability of the country’s legal system and its lax environmental regulations.

But other countries, Cassidy predicted, are ready to move in when they can.

“The Chinese are going to be the ones who benefit the most in terms of trade, and then the Russians and then the Germans,” he said. “I don’t think the American companies would be anywhere close to it.”

“This is an incredible deal — if you’re in another country, starting with Iran.”

Release bin Ladin AQ Iran Documents

Posted on September 16, 2015September 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

Former VP Dick Cheney gave a speech a week ago that proved Iran played a large role in support of al Qaeda and the attacks of 9-11.

Backgrounder on Iran and al Qaeda beginning in 2007.

WSJ Editorial: White House Should Release Bin Laden Letters Showing Iran-Al Qaeda Alliance

The Obama administration should release all of the papers found at Osama Bin Laden’s complex that expose the ongoing ties between Iran and al-Qaeda, The Wall Street Journal urged in an editorial (Google link) Tuesday.

The editorial noted that former Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech last week in which he quoted Gen. Michael Flynn, the former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as saying that the papers included “letters about Iran’s role, influence and acknowledgment of enabling al-Qaeda operatives to pass through Iran as long as al-Qaeda did its dirty work against the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Flynn described the contents of the papers as “very telling” and said that Congress should seek the complete collection.

The editorial cited an example from one of the papers that has been made public.

In a memo to bin Laden, an al Qaeda operative talks about another who is ready to travel:

“The destination, in principle, is Iran, and he has with him 6 to 8 brothers that he chose. I told him we are waiting for final complete confirmation from you to move, and agree on this destination (Iran). His plan is: stay around three months in Iran to train the brothers there then start moving them and distributing them in the world for their missions and specialties.”

The editorial observed that while the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no proof that Iran knew about al-Qaeda’s plan to strike the United States on September 11, 2001, “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.” A number of the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission about Iran’s cooperation with al-Qaeda were collected here.

The editorial also cited State and Treasury Department reports on the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda during the past four years, and called on President Barack Obama to release all the documents detailing the ties between Iran and al-Qaeda. If he does not, “Congress ought to demand them.”

Many governments and news sources have reported in recent years on ties between Iran and al-Qaeda. The Canadian government said in 2013 that two suspects in a plot to attack a passenger train had been supported by members of al-Qaeda who were based in Iran. A spokesman for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria said last year that al-Qaeda did not target Iran in order to leave its network inside Iran intact. The pan-Arab newspaper a-Sharq al-Awsat reported in February that Saleh al-Qarawi, a senior member of al-Qaeda who operates in Iran, had been targeting American interests in the Gulf since 2007.

Sky News reported on Sunday that Iran was freeing five senior al-Qaeda members it had been holding. It is thought that they will leave Iran and head to Syria, “prompting fears they will join other terrorists in Syria planning attacks on the West.”

***

Not long after his inauguration in January 2009, President Barack Obama penned a letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. As a presidential candidate, Obama had promised to conduct “tough, direct diplomacy” with the Iranians. And Obama figured, correctly, that all diplomatic entreaties would end up on Khamenei’s desk. So, the newly elected president decided to write Iran’s ultimate decision-maker directly. And he has written several letters since.

According to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the correspondence, Obama sent his latest letter to Khamenei in October of last year. The president was hoping to find common ground with the Iranians in Iraq, where the Islamic State, an offshoot of al Qaeda, has made stunning advances since early 2014. Obama believes that the United States and the Shiite jihadists of Iran have a common interest in pushing back the Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State. If the two sides can just resolve the thorny issue of Iran’s nuclear program, Obama reportedly thinks, that will pave the way for détente, and possibly a de facto alliance against our mutual enemies. Indeed, the president entertains the idea that Iran can be America’s partner in combating Sunni extremism throughout the region.

President Obama’s assumption is grossly mistaken. The president’s own State and Treasury Departments have repeatedly exposed Iran’s ongoing sponsorship of al Qaeda. Moreover, terrorists directly tied to al Qaeda’s Iran-based network have plotted attacks in the West on three occasions since Obama took office.

Most recently, in September, the Obama administration launched missile strikes against al Qaeda’s so-called Khorasan Group in Syria. The administration pointed to intelligence indicating that this cadre of “core” al Qaeda operatives was planning mass killings in the West, and possibly even in the United States. Two of the terrorists who lead the Khorasan Group formerly headed al Qaeda’s operations in Iran. Tellingly, Iran allowed this pair to continue their fight against the West, even as they have battled Iran’s chief allies in Syria.

Obama’s Treasury Department first publicly recognized the relationship between the Iranian regime and al Qaeda on July 28, 2011. Treasury added six al Qaeda operatives to the U.S. government’s list of designated terrorists. The principal terrorist among them is known as Yasin al-Suri, “a prominent Iran-based al Qaeda facilitator” who operates “under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.” Treasury described al Qaeda’s presence in Iran as a “core pipeline” and “a critical transit point for funding to support al Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Treasury made it clear that other high-level al Qaeda members were actively involved in shuttling cash and recruits across Iran.

On December 22, 2011, the State Department announced a reward of up to $10 million for any information leading to Suri’s capture. The reward is one of the largest offered by the U.S. government in its “Rewards for Justice” program, which is designed to help hunt down terrorists. “Operating under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian Government, al-Suri moves money and al Qaeda recruits from the Middle East through Iran and on to Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Foggy Bottom said in its announcement. “Iranian authorities maintain a relationship with al-Suri and have permitted him to operate within Iran’s borders since 2005.”

Just a few months later, on February 16, 2012, Treasury designated the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) a terror-sponsoring organization. “MOIS has facilitated the movement of al Qaeda operatives in Iran and provided them with documents, identification cards, and passports,” Treasury explained. “MOIS also provided money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) . . . and negotiated prisoner releases of AQI operatives.”

The Islamic State is the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq and grew out of the organization. Obama, therefore, seeks Iran’s cooperation against an entity the Iranian regime has supported.

The administration’s public scrutiny of the deal between Iran and al Qaeda, especially Suri’s role, likely had an effect, but it hardly ended the collusion. In late 2011, Suri was temporarily replaced as al Qaeda’s chieftain inside Iran. But another veteran terrorist filled in for him.

On October 18, 2012, the Treasury Department announced another designation, saying it “further exposes al Qaeda’s critically important Iran-based funding and facilitation network.” Muhsin al-Fadhli, a Kuwaiti long wanted by the U.S. government, had replaced Suri, Treasury noted. Fadhli “began working with al Qaeda’s Iran-based facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by the Iranians.” But the regime “subsequently released” Fadhli in 2011, and he quickly assumed al Qaeda’s top post in the country.

“In addition to providing funding for al Qaeda activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Treasury explained, Fadhli and his al Qaeda comrades in Iran are “working to move fighters and money through Turkey to support al Qaeda-affiliated elements in Syria.” Treasury also named Fadhli’s deputy in Iran, Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi, in the designation.

Fadhli’s arrest and release is hardly surprising. This is how the Iranian government makes sure al Qaeda doesn’t step out of line. In its October 2012 designation, Treasury explained how the deal works.

“Under the terms of the agreement between al Qaeda and Iran, al Qaeda must refrain from conducting any operations within Iranian territory and recruiting operatives inside Iran while keeping Iranian authorities informed of their activities,” Treasury revealed. “In return, the Government of Iran gave the Iran-based al Qaeda network freedom of operation and uninhibited ability to travel for extremists and their families. Al Qaeda members who violate these terms run the risk of being detained by Iranian authorities.”

Curiously, the Iranians continue to allow the al Qaeda terrorists operating on their soil to support the Nusra Front, which has been fighting Iranian-backed forces in Syria. The Nusra Front is an official branch of al Qaeda and openly loyal to al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri.

On February 6, 2014, Treasury designated yet another al Qaeda member working in Iran. “The [al Qaeda] network also uses Iran as a transit point for moving funding and foreign fighters through Turkey to support al Qaeda-affiliated elements in Syria, including the al-Nusrah Front,” Treas-ury said at the time. And there was another new development: Fadhli had relocated to Syria, where he linked up with the Nusra Front.

Ayman al Zawahiri ordered a number of al Qaeda operatives from around the globe to move to Syria in 2013 and 2014. These terrorists, including Fadhli, formed the Khorasan Group, which was instructed to explore different ways to launch mass-casualty attacks in the West. The Khorasan Group is not a separate entity, but instead deeply embedded with the Nusra Front. When the United States launched missile strikes against the Khorasan Group in September 2014, officials pointed to Fadhli, in particular, as a threat to international security. It was rumored that Fadhli had been killed in the airstrikes, but his death was never confirmed, and he may very well have survived.

Another member of al Qaeda’s Khorasan Group in Syria is a senior al Qaeda leader known as Sanafi al-Nasr. He, too, has been designated a terrorist by the Obama administration. Treasury added him to the government’s list of al Qaeda terrorists on August 22, 2014. Prior to working with al Qaeda in Syria, Nasr “served in early 2013 as chief of al Qaeda’s Iran-based extremist and financial facilitation network.” Nasr relocated to Syria, paving the way for Yasin al-Suri to resume his role as al Qaeda’s head man in Iran. Upon his arrival in Syria, Nasr posted multiple tweets on his popular Twitter feed indicating that he could not wait to strike American interests.

The Iranians may or may not have known what al Qaeda’s Khorasan Group was up to in September 2014, when the Obama administration decided military force was necessary to stop them. But the Iranian regime has long worked with the likes of Fadhli and Nasr. They almost certainly would not have been allowed to relocate to Syria in the first place if the Iranians had not blessed the move. And, according to the Obama administration, the Iranians knowingly allow the al Qaeda facilitators inside Iran to funnel support to Al Nusra, which houses the Khorasan operatives.

On at least two other occasions since January 2009, terrorists tied to al Qaeda’s Iran network planned to lash out at the West. As first reported in these pages (“Al Qaeda’s Network in Iran,” April 2, 2012), American and European counterterrorism officials thwarted a Mumbai-style attack in the West in 2010. The international plot, which was likely the last one overseen by Osama bin Laden prior to his death, relied on European recruits who traveled to northern Pakistan for training. The cell traveled through Iran, relying on Yasin al-Suri and his subordinates to coordinate their movements. According to one of the would-be terrorists who was put on trial in Germany, they relied on the Iranian ratlines in order “to not get caught.” After the plot was broken up, some of the cell’s surviving members were given safe haven inside Iran for a time, even as they were hunted by the West.

And on April 22, 2013, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police announced that they had disrupted an al Qaeda plot to derail a passenger train traveling from New York to Toronto. Canadian officials said the plotters received “direction and guidance” from al Qaeda members in Iran. According to Reuters, investigators think that one of the suspects “traveled to Iran on a trip that was directly relevant to the investigation of the alleged plot.” Citing “U.S. national security sources close to the investigation,” Reuters added that the detained operative had met with “low- to middle-level al Qaeda fixers and ‘facilitators’ based in the town of Zahedan, close to Iran’s borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan, that moves money and fighters through Iran to support its activities in South Asia.” That description is entirely consistent with Treasury’s summary of the network headed by Yasin al-Suri, who has maintained a base of operations in Zahedan.

Fortunately, none of these al Qaeda plots against the West has come to fruition. Western counterterrorism and intelligence officials intervened in each case. But a clear pattern emerges: Al Qaeda is using its Iran-based operations to export terrorism around the world. And the Iranians, according to the Obama administration, allow them to do so.

President Obama seeks a nuclear deal with Iran and hopes that this will pave the way for cooperation against our common enemies throughout the Middle East. He fundamentally misunderstands the situation. Even though Iran and its allies are clearly opposed to al Qaeda everywhere from Yemen to Syria, the Iranians still see value in supporting al Qaeda. For Khamenei, the United States is Iran’s chief adversary, not al Qaeda.

The Iranians do not want to work with the United States against the Islamic State either. Khamenei repeatedly, and falsely, blames the United States for the Islamic State’s rise in Iraq and Syria. The supreme leader consistently says the West, not the Islamic State, is the biggest threat to Iranian interests.

More than six years into his presidency, Obama is still seeking a deal with the Iranians. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has had a much easier time coming to an accommodation with Iran.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

BUSTED: Immigrant’s Handbook Getting into Europe

Posted on September 16, 2015September 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

Behind this handbook operation is: http://bordermonitoring.eu/ Germany has been in full cooperation until command and control was lost and other neighboring pushed back hard like Hungary. This site requires translation.

Sky Finds ‘Handbook’ For EU-Bound Migrants

The “rough guide” contains maps, tips and phone numbers of organisations which might help refugees making the perilous crossing.

About this site

w2eu.info provides information to refugees and migrants that might be useful on their journey to and through Europe. We want to give access to counseling and useful contacts in different european countries.

From the very start at the outer borders of Europe, many forces are going in an inhuman direction: people are refused entry, are imprisoned and deported. Nevertheless they are coming – challenging the migration regime. And there are movements supporting them in their struggle for a better life.

“I can see clearly now what Europe looks like, that it sends its armies to fight us at the sea and puts us in awful prisons. Together we have to start a second journey to another safe place that might exist in the future.” (Eritrean woman, arriving on the island of Lesvos)

We welcome all travellers on their difficult trip and wish all of them a good journey – because freedom of movement is everybody’s right!

General advice:

We intend to keep the available information up-to-date. But the asylum system changes all the time and you will have to contact specialized lawyers and counselors to find out if the information is still valid!

If you find anything on the site that is no longer valid, please let us know by sending an email.

There are always exceptions to the rule: the asylum system is depending very much on the particular case. Specialized lawyers may sometimes find possibilities. Contact counselors in the country where you have arrived.

Active participation:

– Spread this site and link it.

– We are always in need of translators from English into French, Arabic and Farsi.

– This web guide is a work in progress:

If you have any other special information, don’t hesitate to send us your material.

If you have further topics and questions that need an answer, let us know.

If you know people in different European countries who are experienced in counseling, bring them into contact with us.

Mailto: contact(at)w2eu.info

The information given on this website may have changed. Although we try to update it regularly, you should contact the groups and organisations listed for each country, to be sure about what to expect. If you notice any changes on your journey that might be important for others, please inform us via the contact form.

No One Can Explain Russia, Even Obama

Posted on September 16, 2015September 16, 2015 by Denise Simon

The National Security Council, led by Susan Rice, the State Department and Barack Obama is rudderless….the result is an epic global threat condition level.

US has no plans yet for Syrian airspace despite Russian Prescence

TheHill:The Pentagon has no plans yet on how to deconflict airspace with Russia in Syria, despite signs Moscow is establishing a forward air operating base to help bolster the Assad regime, according to U.S. officials. While Defense Department officials say they are concerned about U.S. aircraft operating in Syrian airspace along with potential Russian air operations, they acknowledge there are no plans yet on how to handle it. More here.

Report: we had the chance to get rid of Assad in 2012 but turned it down

HotAir:

From the Things That Might Have Been file.

One of the chief diplomats involved in negotiations regarding the crisis in Syria has reported that the Russians put an offer on the table back in 2012 which would have involved Bashar al-Assad stepping down and relinquishing power. But at the time the other representatives involved in the negotiations, including the United States, figured Assad was already toast so there was no need to work with the Russians. (The Guardian)

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

We’ve debated Syria here more times than I can count and personally I think the pros and cons of Assad are still an open question. There is something of a case to be made that in dangerous, unstable areas, a strongman, be he ever so evil, can at least keep a stopper in the bottle and prevent the region from completely collapsing into chaos. That could be said for Saddam Hussein in Iraq as well, though it’s an ugly concept to contemplate. But then, Assad remained in power and the place has still melted down entirely anyway so the proposal loses a few points there.

Much more to the point, though, is the fact that this story highlights yet again just how powerful the Russians have been in this mess since the very beginning. Putin has been Assad’s only supporter with any power, pledging continued support for his “friend” all along. If it weren’t for Russia Assad probably would have been gone long ago and other possible paths to a solution have been hindered by the shadow Russia casts over the region. That situation is spiraling further downward this month as a new report emerged claiming that the Russians now have tanks at a forward air base in the country. (Yahoo News)

Russia has positioned about a half dozen tanks at an airfield at the center of a military buildup in Syria, two U.S. officials said on Monday, adding that the intentions of Moscow’s latest deployment of heavy military equipment were unclear.

Moscow has come under increased international pressure in recent days to explain its moves in Syria, where the Kremlin has been supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a 4-1/2-year war.

Russia’s end game remains unclear, but it should be fairly obvious by now that they have absolutely zero fear of defying the intentions of the United States and the West in general and are busy with their own agenda there. I know I’ve harped on this in the past, but the Russians are beefing up their military presence in multiple regions and are clearly preparing to project force well beyond their own borders. Just this week we’ve seen yet another report that Putin has been augmenting his air power significantly in terms of both fighter aircraft, drones and missiles. One of our own Air Force generals went so far as to call it “alarming.” (Yahoo News)

General Frank Gorenc, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, told reporters he was concerned about Russia’s moves to increase the quantity and quality of its aircraft and field unmanned aircraft.

“The advantage that we had from the air, I can honestly say, is shrinking,” Gorenc said at the annual Air Force Association conference.

Gorenc called “alarming” both Russia’s investments in modernizing its air force and in building formidable surface-to-air missile defenses.

Thus far most of this expansion seems to be focused around the Crimea region of Ukraine, with other resources being deployed closer to their northwestern border, but there seems to be little doubt that the Russian bear is renewing its aerial warfare capabilities. (Of course, this comes at a time when we’re hearing a lot of doubts about the capabilities of our newest fighter jet.)

What are the Russians up to? And what possible use does Putin see for a base of operations in Syria? It’s not like ISIS is going to love the Russians any more than they do us. I have to wonder if he thinks he can just crush the uprising against Assad through brute military force on the ground and restore the old order. That would be an unexpected development, though it doesn’t seem likely to succeed. But pardon me for saying that no matter what he’s got in mind it’s not going to be in our best interests.

***

U.S. Should Condemn Spain’s Military Support to the Russian Navy

Heritage: As Russia continues its occupation of Crimea and sections of eastern Ukraine, some European countries continue to provide Russia with military support. Most notable among these is Spain, which allows the Russian Navy regular use of Spanish ports. In total, at least 20 Russian Navy vessels have visited Spain to refuel and resupply since Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in March 2014. The most recent visit occurred on August 28, 2015, when a Russian attack submarine resupplied in Ceuta, Spain. This behavior is unbecoming of 21st-century NATO allies. In the same way that there was public outcry in 2014 against France for selling two amphibious-class warships to Russia—France subsequently cancelled the contracts—the U.S. should work with like-minded European partners to apply pressure on Spain to end its military assistance to Russia.

Spain Welcomes the Russian Navy

Spain possesses two sovereign enclaves called Ceuta and Melilla that border Morocco. They are both sizable cities, with populations of 73,000 and 79,000, respectively. They are legally part of Spain, and they are the only two European Union (EU) cities located in mainland Africa. They are also part of the Schengen Agreement and the eurozone.

In 2011, Moscow started to regularly use the port facilities at Ceuta. Since then at least 57 ships of the Russian Navy have called into the Spanish port (as of August 31, 2015),[1] including destroyers, frigates, amphibious assault ships, and even an attack submarine.

Some of the visits by the Russian Navy have curious timing. For example, during the same week in April 2014 that the EU announced a new round of sanctions against Russia, Spain made a mockery out of the sanctions by hosting at Ceuta the Russian destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov, and two Russian navy tankers, the Dubna and the Sergey Osipov.

The most recent visit was made by the Russian submarine Novorossiysk en route to its base in the Black Sea. The Novorossiysk, commissioned in August 2014, is one of Russia’s newest submarines and one of the quietest diesel-powered submarines in the world.

Proximity to Gibraltar: A Cause for Concern

Russia’s access to Ceuta is of particular concern considering Ceuta’s close proximity to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. From America’s first overseas military intervention in 1801 against the Barbary States to the most recent military interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. has often relied on Gibraltar’s military facilities.

This is especially true for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered submarines. Gibraltar is the best place in the Mediterranean Sea to repair and resupply U.S. submarines. Strong U.S.–U.K. military cooperation assists the U.S. in keeping its submarine assets integrated into the European theater. Yet the real threat of Russian submarine activity in the region endangers all of those operations. As the former commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, once pointed out, “These [submarine] capabilities are increasingly important as the Russian Federation Navy increases the pace, scope, and sophistication of its submarine fleet.”[2]

All maritime vessels entering or leaving the Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean must pass through the Strait of Gibraltar. Gibraltar is one of the U.K.’s Permanent Joint Operating Bases and serves as an important forward operating base for the British military, which affords a supply location for aircraft and ships destined for Africa and the Middle East for the U.K. and her allies. The deepwater Port of Gibraltar provides a secure docking area as well as vast amounts of safe anchorage for nuclear-powered submarines. The topography of Gibraltar makes intelligence gathering a core function. Having Russian submarines resupply mere miles away presents a potential intelligence and security problem for the U.S. and its allies.

Spain’s policy of allowing the Russian Navy to use Ceuta is hypocritical in relation to its reluctance to allow NATO to make direct visits between Gibraltar and Spanish ports. Therefore, under certain circumstances, Spain would rather have a Russian ship visit a Spanish port than a NATO ship.

Disunited for Ukraine

Although Russia’s aggression in Eastern Europe is the biggest threat to the continent since the end of the Cold War, there has been division on how to respond. Some countries, such as Germany and Italy, have strong economic ties to Russia. Some Western European countries do not want to station NATO troops in Eastern Europe. The Syriza-led government in Greece, for example, has cozied up to Moscow.

Russia’s main naval base in the Mediterranean Sea is currently located at Tartus, Syria. As the security situation in Syria worsens, Moscow is keeping an eye open for alternatives. Even though Europe and NATO have spent the past 18 months confronting Russian aggression through a series of economic sanctions and modest military deployments, Spain is not alone in providing succor to the Russian Navy.

Since Russia seized Crimea, the Russian warship Vice Admiral Kulakov visited Malta in July 2014[3] and the Yaroslav Mudry visited in February 2015.[4] Although Malta is not a member of NATO, it is a member of the EU. As recently as June 2015, the Russian Navy landing ship Korolev 130 visited Piraeus, Greece.[5] This visit was particularly worrying because Greece is not only a member of NATO and the EU, but also home to a NATO and U.S. naval base on the island of Crete.

Pressure from All Sides

Spanish support of the Russian Navy weakens NATO’s opposition to Russian aggression against Ukraine and projects an image of a divided alliance. The situation requires:

Action from Congress. Congress needs to make it clear that Spanish support to the Russian Navy is unbecoming of a NATO ally.
Leadership from the White House. President Barack Obama should make public his disappointment with Spain’s actions. He should also call for Greece and Malta to cease their support of the Russian Navy while the crisis in Ukraine continues.
Pressure from Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon. Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter should use every opportunity, including NATO ministerial meetings, to raise this issue with their Spanish counterparts.
A coordinated effort with European allies. The Administration should coordinate with like-minded allies in NATO to apply pressure to force a change in policy in Madrid.

Completely Unacceptable

It is irresponsible for Madrid to allow Russian warships—especially some of Russia’s most advanced submarines—to use Spanish ports, especially ports located a short distance from such an important naval base as Gibraltar.

It is unacceptable that a major NATO member would offer support to the Russian Navy at a time when Moscow is actively attempting to dismember Ukraine and is undermining the security of the Baltic States. The U.S. government should make it clear at the highest levels that it views any support of the Russian Navy as completely unacceptable in light of Russian aggression.