Category Archives: NSA Spying

WH Visitor Logs Shows the Pro-Iran U.S. Posture

Posted on by

In 2013, NAIC, National Iranian American Council was ordered to pay almost $200,000 due to failure to disclose and comply with lobby rules.

Trita Parsi, the founder of NAIC has frequent access to the White House and exploits that access for the mission to lift sanctions on Iran of which has been most effective during the talks of the P5+1.

Parsi has been at it a very long time and he drafted this fancy document on the sanctions and in full defense of Iran. “Never Give In, Never Give Up”

Parsi also has an interesting

In part from FreeBeacon:

“Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been accused of lobbying on the regime’s behalf, has met a handful of times with the White House between 2013 and 2014, according to visitor logs.

Parsi and NIAC have been key advocates for the administration’s diplomacy with Iran and have been present during various rounds of negotiations.

Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund—a group that has been at the center of attempts to try to sell a deal with Iran—is also listed on White House visitor logs.

Cirincione’s organization has been a key funder of organizations such as NIAC and J Street as they seek to promote a final nuclear deal with Iran and the administration’s efforts.

Ploughshares has been identified in reports as working on a “behind the scenes strategy” with senior White House officials such as Ben Rhodes to help promote the deal.

Plougshares has spent more than $7 million funding organizations and experts that have publicly defended the administration’s concessions to Iran in talks, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“The Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street, and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials,” the Journal reported in March.

In the case of Sfard, a White House NSC official declined to provide further details about his meeting or comment when contacted by the Free Beacon. In addition to the PLO, Sfard also has worked with Breaking the Silence, a far-left group that seeks to launch war crimes charges against Israelis and those in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), according to a dossier published by NGO Monitor, which tracks anti-Israel groups and actors.”

The lobby work begins on lawmakers on the missiles

Pro-Tehran Lobby Demands Iran Be Given Ballistic Missiles

Group pushing Iranian arms on Capitol Hill by Adam Kredo

FreeBeacon:

A pro-Tehran advocacy group long accused of concealing illicit ties to the Iranian regime is lobbying Congress in support of a demand that America repeal a United Nations arms embargo limiting the Islamic Republic’s ability to stockpile arms, including ballistic missiles, which could be used to carry nuclear payloads, according to a copy of an email sent by the group to various lawmakers.

The National American Iranian Council (NIAC), which has long been suspected of acting as Tehran’s lobbying shop in Washington, D.C., sent lawmakers an email on Friday asserting that “the Iranian arms embargo will need to be disposed of as part of a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.”

The email comes roughly a week after Iranian diplomats issued a similar demand during ongoing talks in Vienna between world powers and Iran. The new condition has been blamed for grinding negotiations to a halt, as diplomats blew through a third self-imposed deadline this weekend.

The NIAC email on ballistic missiles is in step with Iran’s potentially deal-breaking demands.

“The UN embargo imposed on Iran’s trade in certain conventional arms was specifically imposed by the Security Council to deal with the nuclear dispute,” wrote Tyler Cullis, who is identified in the email as a legal fellow at the council.

Cullis writes: “Starting with [United Nations Security Council resolution] UNSCR 1747 in 2007, the Security Council imposed a ban on Iranian arms exports. The Council followed up this export ban with more comprehensive restrictions on the sale to or from Iran of certain heavy-weapons, including battle tanks, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and the like in 2010 via UNSCR 1929.”

NIAC maintains that such restrictions should be lifted as part of a nuclear agreement, even though they are not specific restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

A range of sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon—including analysts, former intelligence officials, as well as current and former congressional staffers—challenged both the legal analysis and motivation of NIAC’s letter to lawmakers.

Critics remain concerned that such a move could legally allow Iran to funnel arms to terror groups such as Hezbollah and militias in Yemen.

One former congressional staffer involved in the crafting of sanctions legislation over the years dismissed NIAC’s claims as unfounded and flatly misleading.

“NIAC is the same group that lobbies Congress to defund human rights and democracy promotion programs in Iran for fear of undermining the mullahs,” said one former senior Senate aide with intimate knowledge of Iran sanctions. “What the Iran lobby doesn’t want you to know is that UN Security Council sanctions are directly tied to the dismantlement of Iran’s ballistic missile program—a key element being excused from the P5+1 agreement.”

One senior congressional aide familiar with efforts to sanction Iran said NIAC is widely viewed as Tehran’s in-house lobbying shop.

NIAC has absolutely no credibility on Capitol Hill, where that organization is viewed as a de facto lobbyist for the Iranian regime,” said the senior congressional staffer.

“To cite the latest example, for many months NIAC has opposed the inclusion of ballistic missile limitations or anything else non-nuclear in the negotiations with Iran, yet today NIAC sent an email to congressional staff that actually backs up the Iranian regime’s ridiculous, last-second demand that the United Nations drop its non-nuclear arms embargo on Iran,” the source said.

Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser for George W. Bush, said the Iranian arms embargo will become even more critical in future years.

“The arms embargo on Iran is even more critical today than when it was imposed in 2007 in UN Security Council Resolution 1747,” Abrams explained. “Since then Iran has helped kill or maim thousands of Americans in Iraq, has sent more and more arms to Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria, has intervened in Yemen, and now has an expeditionary force of Revolutionary Guard troops fighting in Iraq and Syria.”

“To end the arms embargo now would be throwing gasoline in a fire: the flames would spread. It is dangerous and absolutely against U.S. national security interests to lift the arms embargo on Iran,” Abrams said.

One Western source present in Vienna and apprised of the talks cast doubt on NIAC’s legal analysis concluding that the arms embargo was only aimed at Iran’s nuclear program.

“The Security Council had moved beyond Iran’s nuclear work before the first arms embargo was even imposed,” said the Western source. “UNSCR 1737 sought ‘to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programs.”

“Subsequent resolutions reaffirmed that language, and ultimately UNSCR 1929 demanded an arms embargo ‘until such time as the Security Council determines that the objectives of these resolutions have been met,” the source explained.

NIAC has long been viewed as a pro-Tehran lobbying outfit that tows the regime’s line in the halls of Congress.

In 2012, NIAC was ordered to pay reparations to an Iranian dissident who sued the organization for allegedly concealing its ties to the Iranian regime. NIAC was ordered to pay thousands to the defendant and was upbraided by a federal judge for hindering the discovery process in the case.

In recent years, NIAC has spearheaded lobbying efforts on the Hill to threaten lawmakers into supporting a deal with Iran that fully removes economic sanctions and permits the Islamic Republic to retain key aspects of its nuclear infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry announced late Friday that talks will continue through next week.

“We have a couple of different lines of discussion that are going on right now, but I think it’s safe to say that we have made progress today,” Kerry said in a statement to reporters. “The atmosphere is very constructive.”

 

General Dunford Said Russia is #1 Threat, Here is Why

Posted on by

Anyone read the book ‘Disinformation’ by Ronald Rychlak and LtG. Ion Pacepa?

General Joseph Dunford is next in line to replace General Dempsey as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His assessment today about who represented the topic threat to America’s National Security shocked the lawmakers when his response was Russia.

Peeling back some layers, we will come to understand why the General’s alarming conclusions are exactly right. Russia is operating a stealth KGB operation and it has been effective.

Wikileaks Release Indicates Hacking Team Sold To FSB, Russia’s Secret Police

Hacking Team Galileo console

From Forbes:

Now that Wikileaks has released the emails included in the 415GB leaked by the hackers who breached Italian “lawful intercept” provider Hacking Team TISI NaN%, the world has easy access to a trove of information blowing open the inner workings of the private surveillance industry. Amongst the files seen by FORBES so far, emails detailing Hacking Team’s sales to Russia’s secret police, the FSB.

Previous analysis of the leaks had sold its Galileo Remote Control System (RCS) to KVANT, a Russian state-owned military technology company. This inspired questions from  Dutch politician and European Member of Parliament Marietje Shaake about the potential breach of European Union sanctions about the sale of such goods to Russia, which has been put on blacklists for its operations in war-torn Ukraine. Selling to the FSB would likely concern onlookers more, given the agency’s widespread access to communications in Russia. Many more details here.

Going beyond the next layer

Cyber Caliphate Hackers Not Linked to Islamic State

State Department warns IS online threat ‘unmatched’
by: Bill Gertz, FreeBeacon

The hacker group Cyber Caliphate that was thought to be an online arm of the Islamic State has no ties to the terror group despite its cyber attacks in support of the ultra-violent al-Qaeda offshoot, according to a State Department security report.

“Although Cyber Caliphate declares to support ISIL, there are no indications—technical or otherwise—that the groups are tied,” the two-page report from the Overseas Security Advisory Council states. The Islamic State (IS) is also known by the acronyms ISIL or ISIS.

Instead, Russian hackers now appear to be linked to the Cyber Caliphate, a fact discovered by French government authorities after a cyber attack on TV5Monde television in France last April.

In addition to the announcing the lack of a connection between IS and the Cyber Caliphate, the State Department warned that the terrorist group nevertheless continues to have unprecedented online recruitment and propaganda capabilities.

“ISIL’s online presence for propaganda and recruitment purposes continues to be unmatched by other terrorist organizations,” the report said.

The Islamic State uses Internet sites and social media strategies to disseminate and control its Islamist message.

“ISIL’s use of Twitter has been deemed particularly effective; a Brookings study reported at least 46,000 Twitter accounts in use by ISIL supporters during the timeframe of September through December 2014,” the report said.

IS also deftly exploits modern technology and has mastered online propaganda in appealing to young and computer-savvy foreigners, including known hackers who support its ends.

“Although ISIL continues to demonstrate success in using online tools for propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising purposes, the suspected link of Russian hackers to the TV5Monde attack reinforces the assessment that ISIL still lacks the ability to carry out a technically sophisticated cyberattack,” the report concludes.

President Obama on Monday defended the administration strategy against ISIL—despite the group’s expansion from Iraq and Syria to other parts of the world.

Obama said ISIL is “particularly effective” in recruiting foreigners, including Americans, and is using online methods to spread its ideology.

The president said that to defeat ISIL and al Qaeda, “it is going to also require us to discredit their ideology.”

However, the president and his administration continue to play down the Islamist nature of the threat, preferring the non-religious term “violent extremism.”

“Ideologies are not defeated with guns. They’re defeated by better ideas, [a] more attractive and more compelling vision,” Obama said.

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online.”

The State Department report, “Who Is Cyber Caliphate? Re-examining the Online ISIL Threat,” was produced by a unit of the Department’s Office of Diplomatic Security, which supports American businesses overseas. It describes Cyber Caliphate as a relatively unsophisticated group that has conducted cyber attacks against perceived enemies of the Islamic State.

“This included targeting various media outlets, issuing threats against U.S. military spouses, and the highly publicized hacking of U.S. Central Command’s Twitter account and YouTube channel,” the report said.

Most of the group’s technical activities involved website defacements and hacking of Twitter accounts. The cyber vandalism seems to have beeen intended to spread IS propaganda and to build notoriety for the group.

However, the TV5Monde cyber attack that disrupted live broadcasts, staff email accounts, and the station’s web page for some 20 hours demonstrated new capabilities, the report said.

“The methodology employed in the attack was atypical of previous Cyber Caliphate activity, and further investigation by French authorities and U.S. private cyber security companies instead pointed to nation-state actors,” the report said.

Among the information said to have been compromised during the TV5Monde attack were personal information about relatives of French soldiers fighting IS. France is among the coalition of nations engaged in military operations against IS.

According to the report, IP addresses traced to the TV5Monde attack were traced to the Russian hacker group known as APT28.

“The [APT28] hacking group was formerly observed targeting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, entities in Eastern Europe, security companies, and journalists,” the report said.

“APT28 is assessed to conduct operations to benefit the Russian government, and was not previously seen using hacktivists or terrorist organizations as cover.”

The origin of Cyber Caliphate and its members remains unclear. Initially, it was believed by security authorities that the group started by a British hacker, 20-year-old Junaid Hussain, who was linked to a hack against former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Hussain then was said to have moved from Britain to Syria where he sought to recruit hackers.

The Cyber Caliphate has not been officially endorsed by IS but it has gained from the free publicity its hacker attacks have generated.

The group’s attack on TV5Monde was described in the report as an anomaly for the hackers. Several theories are under consideration by experts regarding the nature of the group’s actions.

Some analysts believe the group was testing its cyber capabilities in preparation for expanded strikes on new targets.

Other analysts said the television station cyber attack was retaliation based on strained ties between Moscow and Paris.

Russia was angered by France’s recent decision to cancel a $1.3 billion deal for two Mistral-class helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy after Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.

According to the report, the cyber security firm iSight Partners has assessed the Cyber Caliphate as a “false front for anti-western Russian actors.”

Another theory is that Cyber Caliphate is part of a Russian disinformation operation used by Moscow’s hackers as cover for their cyber attacks. The report noted “Russia’s long history of disinformation campaigns.”

The Size and Scope of Anonymous, Hacktivists

Posted on by

Now that we are beginning to understand how big the hacker network is, what is the real agenda and mission of those inside the group? One cannot estimate yet it appears to have many variances. Anonymous does get involved in policy issues and members and or sympathizers participate.

Anonymous marchers
Masked Anonymous supporters march away from the U.S. Capitol during a 2013 demonstration. Reuters/Jim Bourg
  • Anonymous holding baby
    A woman wearing an Anonymous mask holds up a baby during a Brazil demonstration in 2013. Reuters/Nacho Doce

 

 

There is a documentary on ‘We Are Legion’,

How big is Anonymous? Maybe bigger than you thought

By: CS Monitor An analysis from a University of Copenhagen graduate student suggests the online-phenomenon-turned-protest movement is more globally connected on the Web than previously thought.

  • close
    Protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks held signs that read “Anonymous is here for our countrymen” during an April rally against a political corruption in Guatemala City.
     

The actual size and reach of the shadowy hacktivist collective Anonymous has long been the fodder of online squabbles. It’s diminished by detractors and puffed up by ardent devotees.

So, a University of Copenhagen graduate student set out to determine the actual extent of Anonymous’ influence around the world. And, it turns out that Anonymous appears to have a wider scope and is more international than previously imagined.

Even academics who study Anonymous were surprised. “The Anonymous network is larger than many of us thought,” said Gabriella Coleman, an anthropology professor at McGill University and author of “Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous.”

Recommended: Revealing Anonymous and its web of contradictions

The analysis looks at Facebook pages connected with Anonymous to gain insight into its international prowess. Yevgeniy Golovchenko, a graduate student in the school’s sociology department, examined 2,770 Anonymous Facebook pages that generated a collective 22.2 million “likes.” This is just the “absolute minimal size” of the entire global Anonymous network, Mr. Golovchenko explained in an interview.

The point of the study was to “show the enormity and connectivity of the Anonymous movement at a global level,” he said. The end result revealed a network greater than he expected. It was even “a lot bigger than my Anon informants thought it would be,” said Golovchenko.

Professor Coleman, considered the leading expert on Anonymous, says the data reveals “a parallel world, or really worlds, that live on Facebook” instead of other social media sites such as Twitter and Internet Relay Chat services.

It is far more likely there are more Anonymous Facebook pages than the ones in Golovchenko’s study. Facebook pages belonging to Anonymous included in his analysis had to meet at least one of the following criteria: Pages directly identified as Anonymous (“we are Anonymous”), shared or organized “operations,” or used Anonymous symbols beyond the Guy Fawkes mask.

“The [Anonymous’ network is also dynamic,” he noted, since when “some pages die out, others are born.” The average Anonymous page was connected to 18 other Anonymous pages. Golovchenko used Facebook “likes” as a way to establish connections, because a “like” acts as an “acknowledgement,” and shows the admin of one page is aware of another Anonymous contingent, in most cases in a different country. The “Offiziell Anonymous Page” had the most connections with 517 likes. It should be noted that “Offiziell Anonymous Page” hasn’t updated since December 2014.

Golovchenko was drawn to Anonymous’ Facebook pages given these pages are a public and easily accessible aspect of the relatively secretive hacktivist collective. These Facebook pages exist to either share information, or promote and help organize projects, and if they were harder to access, they’d alienate the average person.

Looking at all this Facebook data reveals several patterns. The position of the “node groupings was done by an algorithm, but it magically describes the realities of where people live in the world, to some extent,” said Golovchenko. An example of this are the German Anonymous Facebook pages, like the Anonymous Deutschland node, which are shown as blue dots:

German Anonymous Facebook pages. Yevgeniy Golovchenko

Another example of this regional breakdown is the Anonymous Unified Korea node, which is primarily focused in West Asia, except for that one supportive Belgian Facebook page:

Anonymous Unified Korea node, which is primarily focused in West Asia, except for one supportive Belgian Facebook page. Yevgeniy Golovchenko

Looking at the Anonymous Angola node reveals an even smaller network comprised of only a few African countries with the exception being Brazil (see below). Anonymous Hacker Brazil has a much larger international network.

Through this visualization, it is easy to identify allies of certain sects, or regional Anonymous crews. For example, quite a few Brazilian Anonymous pages are connected to Anonymous in Iceland, of all countries. The Occupy Brazil node is connected to various Anonymous Facebook pages in Canada, which could explain why so much traffic during a recent operation against Canadian government websites came from Brazil.

Yevgeniy Golovchenko

All these networks within networks reveal an incredibly complicated communication stratus. “Even if only one-third of the likes represent actual Facebook users,” noted Golovchenko, “the network is surprisingly immense … . Only few mainstream media can match the movement’s enormous internet infrastructure.”

When Ignoring the Enforcement of Law Becomes a Wider Threat

Posted on by

There are an estimated 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States and some you would never imagine existed. For a sampling click here.

Further, click here for the evidence of organizations, missions and the functional manuals all justice and enforcement components.

If you would like to understand justice and enforcement statistics, click here. Indeed, there is a great argument that should happen that there are too many laws to be enforced much less those that are not prosecuted. All the while, when those that are omitted or discretion is used, the damage which speaks to the psyche of the criminal has yet to be fully understood as a threat to security and lawlessness.

Enter Victor Davis Hanson, where he authored a cogent piece on the threat of more lawlessness and anarchy.

Why disregard of law is America’s greatest threat

Citizens may ask why they should obey the rules when illegals go scot-free

Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture.

Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. All the German euros in the world will not save Greece if Greeks continue to dodge taxes, featherbed government and see corruption as a business model.

Even obeying so-called minor laws counts. It is no coincidence that a country where drivers routinely flout traffic laws and throw trash out the window is also a country that cooks its books and lies to its creditors. Everything from littering to speeding seems negotiable in Athens in a way not true of Munich, Zurich or London.

Mexico is a naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the United States.

But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power.

In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services.

Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay.

The frightening thing about disgraced Internal Revenue Service bureaucrat Lois Lerner’s knowledge of selective audits of groups on the basis of their politics is not just that she seemed to ignore it, but that she seemingly assumed no one would find out, or perhaps even mind. And she may well have been right. So far, no one at the IRS has shown much remorse for corrupting an honor-based system of tax compliance.

Illegal immigration has been a prominent subject in the news lately, between Donald Trump’s politically incorrect, imprecise and crass stereotyping of illegal immigrants and the shocking murder of a young San Francisco woman gratuitously gunned down in public by a Mexican citizen who had been convicted of seven felonies in the United States and had been deported five times. But the subject of illegal immigration is, above all, a matter of law enforcement.

Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws. Liberal “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco choose to ignore immigration laws. Imagine the outcry if a town in Utah or Montana arbitrarily declared that federal affirmative action or gay marriage laws were null and void within its municipal borders.

Once an immigrant has successfully broken the law by entering and residing in the United States illegally, there is little incentive for him to obey other laws. Increasing percentages of unnaturalized immigrants are not showing up for their immigration hearings — and those percentages are higher still for foreign nationals who have been charged with crimes.

The general public wonders why some are selectively exempt from following the law, but others are not. If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?

Consider the immigration activists’ argument that immigration authorities should focus only on known felons and not those who only broke immigration law. This is akin to arguing that the IRS shouldn’t worry about whether everyday Americans pay their income taxes and should enforce the tax laws only against those with past instances of tax avoidance.

But why single out the poor and foreign-born? Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton once pocketed a $100,000 cattle-futures profit from a $1,000 investment, with help from an insider crony. A group of economists calculated the odds of such an unlikely return at one in 31 trillion. Mrs. Clinton then trumped that windfall by failing to fully pay taxes on her commodities profits, only addressing that oversight years later.

Why did Mrs. Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, snub government protocols by using a private email account and a private server, and then permanently deleting any emails she felt were not government-related? Mrs. Clinton long ago concluded that laws in her case were to be negotiated, not obeyed.

President Obama called for higher taxes on the wealthy. But before doing so, could he at least have asked his frequent adviser on racial matters, Al Sharpton, to pay millions in back taxes and penalties?

Might the government ask that its own employees pay the more than $3 billion in collective federal back taxes they owe, since they expect other taxpayers to keep paying their salaries?

Civilizations unwind insidiously not with a loud, explosive bang, but with a lawless whimper.

 

 

Iran Gets GOLD

Posted on by

An Iran nuclear czar? Zarif and Kerry today, Friday said a deal was never closer.

Iran has had 13 tons of their gold stored in South Africa for at least 2 years and due to lifted sanctions, the gold has been released and delivery in a handful of shipments under high security is complete. The gold was delivered to the central bank.

Since 2013 under the Obama White House agreement, Iran has received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets and was awarded another $2.8 billion by Obama just to stay at the table and committing to continued talks.

Iran Violations:

Iran has been found in non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and accordingly is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).1 Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program and heavy water-related activities in defiance of Security Council resolutions calling for their suspension. The IAEA is trying to resolve a number of matters indicating a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program, but Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA’s investigations. There are well-founded concerns that the Iranian enrichment and heavy water programs have a military objective – to give Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. What is not clear is how far Iran intends to proceed down this path – will it cross the nuclear weapon threshold, or if not, how far short will it stop?

Amongst other issues, this paper addresses the commonly held belief that Iran is entitled to undertake uranium enrichment, and the closely related question whether nuclear hedging – establishing a nuclear weapon break-out capability in the guise of a civilian program – is a legitimate activity under the NPT. If a negotiated solution with Iran is achieved that allows for continued enrichment, this must also adequately address international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose. A “solution” that allows continued development of a military dimension would be pointless. Many more details in this report.

Going back a decade, it has been well known that Iran has been using the black market to skirt sanctions.  The audio discussion on the black market and violations is here. Additionally, you would be stunned at who does business with Iran and the value of that commerce.

What about the secret low enriched uranium? Glad you asked.

The controversy over the status of Iran’s newly produced low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) initially surprised us at ISIS. We have been monitoring the various provisions of the JPA since its inception, including Iran’s pledge to convert its newly produced LEU hexafluoride stocks into uranium dioxide form during the JPA term and its extensions. We would have expected the public controversy to center on other issues, including the near 20 percent LEU stocks in Iran. These stocks are far too large, and if left in place, will undermine the administration’s central case that Iran would need 12 months to break out, if it reneged on a long term deal. Yet, upon reflection, this issue of the newly produced LEU is a microcosm of the legal, technical, and political challenges in the on-going negotiations with Iran. It is also another indication that U.S. secrecy is excessive and contributing to problems on its own. Finally, it is necessary to state that this case is a lesson in how difficult it is to understand all the issues in these negotiations, even for those of us who spend enormous amount of time following and assessing provisions in these negotiations.

Concessions

From CNN:

Concessions checklist

So what has the U.S. ceded so far? And what has it gotten in return? Supporters and opponents of the Iran talks are both keeping their checklists ready. They’re tallying the wins and losses and keeping a close eye on the remaining sticking points.

Breakout time

Breakout time is the amount of time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. In the event of a final deal, if Iran were to dash toward weaponization, it would take 12 months to build a nuclear bomb, according to U.S. calculations.

That figure is a considerable improvement over the two- to three-month breakout time that Iran currently has.

Some worry, however, that one year is not enough to guarantee the U.S. and other countries could actually prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should Iran decide to race toward one, given the number of diplomatic and verification steps that would precede the use of military force.

Centrifuges

Iran will be allowed to keep 6,104 centrifuges, and just over 5,000 of those will continue enriching uranium, based on the preliminary agreement.

That’s a far ways from where American officials initially said they wanted to end up, first demanding Iran cut its centrifuges to between 500 and 1,500 and then floating 4,000.

The agreement still cuts down most of the nearly 19,000 currently installed — about 10,000 of which are now used for enrichment — but even the additional centrifuges won’t be scrapped entirely. They’ll remain in Iran under the control of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and will be freed up at the end of the period of constraints on its program.

Enrichment activity

Under the framework for negotiations, Iran has already significantly reduced the level to which it enriches uranium, capping those levels far below what is needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran has agreed to restrict all of its enrichment activity to one reactor site — Natanz. This is reassuring to the U.S. and Israel because it would be easier for them to take effective military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Furthermore, Iran will only use its first-generation centrifuges, which are slow to enrich uranium and are unreliable.

Duration of the deal

The restrictions that will keep Iran to a one-year breakout time will expire after 10 years.

President Barack Obama has conceded that “in year 13, 14, 15 … the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

After the 10th year, Iran would be able to start upping its uranium enrichment. And after 15 years, the program would be completely unbridled.

There was always going to be a sunset — it’s inconceivable that Iran would accept restrictions and inspections on its nuclear program indefinitely — but the Obama administration’s starting ask was for restrictions lasting 20 to 25 years.

Even if political change doesn’t come to Iran in that period — which he hopes it will — Obama insisted this spring that the U.S. will have “much more insight into their capabilities” as a result of the rigorous inspections, and 10 to 15 years improves considerably upon the status quo.

But the sunset provision has experts like Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies worried that Iran will simply “go back to what they were doing before” — and without the limitations of sanctions.

“We think 10 to 15 years is a long time,” he said. “They think it’s a blip in history.”

Revealing past Iranian military activities

For years the United States and the rest of the international community has demanded that Iran come clean about suspected past efforts to militarize its nuclear program.

Tehran even pledged to the IAEA in 2007 that it would do so, and the fact that it hasn’t raises questions about the reliability of its commitments.

When Kerry was asked by PBS in April about Iran’s obligation to answer such questions, he said bluntly, “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal, it will be done.”

Kerry, though, recently indicated such a “confession” was no longer essential to a deal.

“We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did,” Kerry said last month.

Underground nuclear sites

Under an eventual deal, Iran would stop enriching uranium at Fordow, its fortified, underground nuclear site, for 15 years and only use the facility for research with some inactive centrifuges remaining onsite. It also won’t be able to store any fissile material at the site.

Though the West had originally called for Fordow to be shut down entirely, cutting off enrichment at the site is a relief not just for the U.S. but also for Israel, which was concerned its military arsenal would not be able to reach the site — buried deep in the side of a mountain.

The U.S. has a more powerful bunker-busting bomb than Israel, one that may be able to penetrate the site, though not with total certainty.

Heavy water reactor

Iran will significantly modify its heavy water reactor so it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium, a possible component for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has already begun redesigning the reactor to limit its capacity — a key change for a country that has repeatedly defended the reactor’s medical and scientific applications.

Israel had previously called for the reactor’s total dismantlement, but serious modifications have quelled many concerns about Iran’s ability to use the reactor for non-peaceful purposes.

Outstanding issues

Officials still have to determine whether Iran will dilute or export its eight-ton stockpile of highly enriched uranium and determine the parameters for Iran to use more highly enriched uranium for scientific research purposes.

But it’s the two other remaining issues that are the most contentious, and will ultimately determine for most experts whether they have confidence that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

Inspections

The West is insisting that Iran give inspectors unfettered access to any site they suspect of nuclear activity — military sites included. Without that, officials fear that Iran could try to sneak its way to a bomb by using a secret facility, especially given its history of cheating and concealing its nuclear work.

“The most likely form of cheating would be at undeclared or secret facilities, and so you’ve got to have strong inspections,” said Gary Samore, who previously served as Obama’s top arms control adviser.

Iranian officials, though, have insisted that they won’t relent on that point, certainly not when it comes to military facilities.

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken insisted Thursday on CNN that the U.S. will “walk away” if Iran doesn’t agree to the rigorous inspections and verification regime the U.S. is seeking.

Negotiators have floated the idea of a commission of countries that would hear Iran’s objections to inspections requests. But if Iran still refuses to allow inspections at the site, international sanctions would be reimposed.

Ilan Berman, a skeptic of the deal, said that type of “managed access” could give the Iranians the chance to scrub evidence from a site while they stall for time.

“You want to do snap inspections, not ones where they can move things around,” said Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

Sanctions relief

Western officials have insisted that sanctions won’t be removed until Iran holds up its end of the bargain by reining in its nuclear activity as agreed.

Iran, on the other hand, at first demanded sanctions be lifted as soon as a final agreement is signed and sealed. Iranian officials now appear to be relenting somewhat and agreeing that sanctions could fall at a later date, after they make the necessary changes to their nuclear program.

Negotiators are now looking to iron out the details of the sequence for the removal of those sanctions.

But once those sanctions come off, it’s unclear how effectively the international community could snap them back into place — if it’s even willing to. While Iran’s economy has suffered because of the restrictions, so have many companies based in the countries that have imposed them.