Category Archives: #StopIran

That Iran Propaganda Strategy Thing Began in 2011

Posted on by

Amazing what details can be uncovered and how dates and people all seem to tell a much different story when facts are compiled.

A deeper look is required into Ploughshares and the deep relationship with the White House, as the world has been punked by some well placed organizations and some money…imagine that.

Related: White House Makes the Case for Iran Diplomacy (lots of details here)

Related: Ploughshares at the White House in 2011

Related: Where did Ploughshares get the Money? (Whoa on this one)

Related: Commitments, Verification and Next Steps (Ploughshares going to do the work?)

The Secret History of the Iran-Deal ‘Echo Chamber’

By

Bloomberg: A network of advocates, experts and messaging specialists the White House says helped it sell the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 actually began to campaign for such an accord four years earlier, before the real negotiations started.

Last week I was leaked e-mails and documents from an internal listserv operated by the arms control nonprofit Ploughshares Fund. That foundation has come under scrutiny after the New York Times Magazine quoted top White House foreign policy aide Ben Rhodes boasting how the foundation amplified the White House message in 2015 on the Iran deal. Rhodes told the magazine that supporters of the deal comprised an “echo chamber,” suggesting the independent experts were tools of a White House media campaign.

But the messaging work from Ploughshares on Iran began long before there was any Iran deal and long before Rhodes convened his regular meetings with progressive groups on shaping the Iran narrative.

Beginning in August 2011, Ploughshares and its grantees formed the Iran Strategy Group. Over time this group created a sophisticated campaign to reshape the national narrative on Iran. That campaign sought to portray skeptics of diplomacy as “pro-war,” and to play down the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program before formal negotiations started in 2013 only to emphasize those dangers after there was an agreement in 2015.

The strategy group, which included representatives of the Arms Control Association, the National Security Network, the National Iranian American Council, the Federation of American Scientists, the Atlantic Council and others, sought to “develop process and mechanism to implement Iran campaign strategies, tactics and narrative,” according to an agenda for the first meeting of the group on Aug. 17, 2011.

 Related: WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

As a nonprofit, Ploughshares discloses annually the organizations that receive its grants. But until now, the way this network of nonprofits, advocacy organizations and policy experts coordinated its media campaign has been shrouded from the public.

The members of that network had two things in common. They all received substantial grants from Ploughshares and they all sought to prevent a war with Iran. But at the time, the progressives assessed the situation was bleak. An August 2, 2011 memo from Heather Hurlburt, then executive director of the National Security Network, and Peter Ferenbach, a co-founder of ReThink Media, shared with the group an assessment of the “media environment” on Iran and concluded it was “extremely difficult.”

The problem, according to Hurlburt and Ferenbach, was that in 2011 a succession of news stories on Iran, ranging from reports of progress on the country’s nuclear program to the Treasury Department’s designations that accused Iran of colluding with al Qaeda, had put progressives on defense. “We are left in the position of responding to the news headlines and parrying the negative commentary that follows,” they wrote.

Among the authors’ recommendations was that the Iran Strategy Group attack conservatives who advocated military strikes. “On a messaging note, it would be best to describe them as ‘pro-war,’ and leave it to them to back off that characterization of their position,” they wrote.

This approach became a centerpiece of the White House’s own message four years later when Obama was selling his deal to Congress. In a speech at American University that summer he said, “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.”

And yet while the Iran Strategy Group’s message about critics of the deal was echoed by the White House, the group’s initial messaging on Iran itself was much different between 2011 and 2013 than what Ploughshares and its grantees ending up saying in 2015. When the White House and its surrogates were campaigning for the deal in 2015, they emphasized how close Iran was to producing the fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon. Joe Cirincione, the president of Ploughshares, made this point in a piece for Slate after the deal was announced when he wrote, “without the deal, Iran could use its centrifuges to purify enough uranium for one or more bombs within weeks.”

 

This is not an accident. As I reported last year the White House declassified its estimate that Iran was three months away from producing enough fuel for a weapon in April 2015, after a framework for the Iran deal was agreed in Vienna, even though the intelligence community had assessed for more than two years that Iran was three months away from weapons-grade fuel.

Back in 2011, the Iran Strategy Group drafted a set of talking points called “Key Points on Iran and Nuclear Weapons.” Joel Rubin, the director of policy and government affairs for Ploughshares between 2011 and 2014, wrote in an e-mail to the strategy group, “We believe that this paper will help each of you to clearly enunciate, with confidence, a consensus view on how to argue for a sound U.S. policy towards Iran.”

The talking points — drafted by Paul Pillar, the intelligence analyst who was the lead author on the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate shared with Congress before the Iraq war — stressed that diplomacy was the best way to decrease the likelihood Iran went nuclear and that bombing Iran’s facilities would be counterproductive. But the talking points also included “An Iranian nuclear program is not imminent”; “An Iranian nuclear weapon is not inevitable”; and most controversial “If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the United States and the West could live with it, without important compromise to U.S. interests.” Obama himself has contradicted that last line for years, arguing that he would be prepared to use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if diplomacy did not work.

The Iran Strategy Group sought to play down Iran’s nuclear program as late as 2013. E-mails between strategy group members in August of that year in anticipation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on Iran’s nuclear program that was released at the end of that month show that the network was already in campaign mode.  In an Aug. 20, 2013, e-mail to the Iran Strategy Group, Cirincione encouraged the Ploughshares grantees to “create a social media, web, expert push that carries our main points into the media and policy discussions in the first 12-24 hours.” He recommended that the points the group pushed in the media should include the argument that making enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb “is just one step in a long weaponization process,” and that while Iran’s decision to start the Arak plutonium reactor was not good, it was “also just one step in a long alternative path to nuclear material for a weapon.”

The timing here is important. In September 2013, Iran and six other great powers including the U.S. announced the beginning of nuclear talks that ultimately produced the agreement in 2015.

Rubin, who is now president of the Washington Strategy Group, told me that the difference in talking points for the Ploughshares network between 2011 and 2013 and then in 2015 reflected the state of diplomacy with Iran and the real concern for progressives that Israel or the U.S. would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. “The difference between 2011 and 2015 was that there was a different reality of what was taking place on the ground in terms of the negotiations and the process,” he said. “Ahmadinejad was the president in Iran, there was no negotiation process, and much of the chattering class was talking about when will Israel or the U.S. drop the bomb on Iran in 2011.”

When asked for comment on the story, Ploughshares communications director Jennifer Abrahamson said, “As a nonpartisan public foundation dedicated to reducing nuclear threats, Ploughshares Fund is proud to have supported a network of longstanding experts that helped stop Iran from building a bomb without starting another war in the Middle East.”

That pride is apparent. After a critical story from the AP last week on Ploughshares grants to National Public Radio, Cirincione went on the attack. In a column for Huffington Post suggesting the AP story was part of a campaign from opponents of the Iran deal to discredit him and his organization, he wrote, “Neoconservatives are furious that their efforts to trick the country into another unnecessary war in the Middle East failed.”

Don’t be surprised if you hear Ploughshares grantees repeating that. It sounds like a talking point.

Khamenei: U.S. Cant Touch the Missiles

Posted on by

Khamenei: US ‘can’t do a damn thing’ about our missile programSupreme leader:

West ‘extremely sad’ about failure to curb Iran’s military development; Guards chief: US forced to back down in region

Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei on Monday said the United States cannot “do a damn thing” about the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.

“They have engaged in a lot of hue and cry over Iran’s missile capabilities, but they should know that this ballyhoo does not have any influence and they cannot do a damn thing,” Khamenei said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, 'Israel must be wiped out.' (Fars News)

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be wiped out.’ (Fars News)

Iran in March tested ballistic missiles, including two with the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth” emblazoned on them, according to the US and other Western powers. Under a nuclear deal signed last year between world powers and Iran, ballistic missile tests are not forbidden outright but are “not consistent” with a United Nations Security Council resolution from July 2015, US officials say.

According to the UN decision, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” until October 2023.

“The US and other powers are extremely sad at this issue and they have no other option; that is why they made huge efforts in order to bring the country’s decision-making and decision-taking centers under their control, but they failed and God willing, they will continue to fail,” Khamanei said on Monday.

The supreme leader, who has final say on state matters, lambasted the “arrogant” Western powers, arguing that efforts to shut down its nuclear program and missile tests were a pretext to meddle in Iran’s affairs.

“The nuclear issue and missiles are excuses and of course excuses are useless and they can do no damn thing,” Khamenei said. “The point is Iran doesn’t follow arrogant powers.”

“In this war, willpowers are fighting. The stronger willpower will win,” Khamenei added.

Also Monday, Iranian Revolutionary Guards general Qassem Soleimani maintained that without the Islamic Republic, the Islamic State would now control all of Syria. The United States has been forced to back down in the region, he said, according to Iranian reports.

Last week, a senior Iranian military commander boasted that the Islamic Republic could “raze the Zionist regime in less than eight minutes.” Ahmad Karimpour, a senior adviser to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ elite unit al-Quds Force, said if Khamenei gave the order to destroy Israel, the Iranian military had the capacity to do so quickly.

“If the Supreme Leader’s orders [are] to be executed, with the abilities and the equipment at our disposal, we will raze the Zionist regime in less than eight minutes,” Karimpour said Thursday, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.
A senior Iranian general on May 9 announced that the country’s armed forces successfully tested a precision-guided, medium-range ballistic missile two weeks earlier that could reach Israel, the state-run Tasnim agency reported.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei meets the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy unit that detained US sailors earlier in January, in a photo released by Iran on January 24, 2016.

“We test-fired a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and a margin of error of eight meters,” Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi was quoted as saying at a Tehran science conference. The eight-meter margin means the “missile enjoys zero error,” he told conference participants.

****

Iran’s Missile Program/Iran Primer

  • Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. (Israel has more capable ballistic missiles, but fewer in number and type.) Most were acquired from foreign sources, notably North Korea. The Islamic Republic is the only country to develop a 2,000-km missile without first having a nuclear weapons capability.
  • Iran is still dependent on foreign suppliers for key ingredients, components and equipment, but it should eventually be able to develop long-range missiles over time, including an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile or ICBM.
  • The military utility of Iran’s current ballistic missiles is limited because of poor accuracy, so missiles are not likely to be decisive if armed with conventional, chemical or biological warheads. But Tehran could use its missiles as a political or psychological weapon to terrorize an adversary’s cities and pressure its government.
  • Iran should not be able to strike Western Europe before 2017 or the United States before 2020—at the earliest.
  • Iran’s space program, which includes the successful launch of a small, crude satellite into low earth orbit using the Safir carrier rocket, proves the country’s growing ambitions and technical prowess.
Overview
Iran’s pursuit of ballistic missiles pre-dates the Islamic revolution. Ironically, the shah teamed with Israel to develop a short-range system after Washington denied his request for Lance missiles. Known as Project Flower, Iran provided the funds and Israel the technology. The monarchy also pursued nuclear technologies, suggesting an interest in a delivery system for nuclear weapons. Both programs collapsed after the revolution.
Under the shah, Iran had the largest air force in the Gulf, including more than 400 combat aircraft. But Iran’s deep-strike capability degraded rapidly after the break in ties with the West limited access to spare parts, maintenance, pilot training and advanced armaments. So Tehran turned to missiles to deal with an immediate war-time need after Iraq’s 1980 invasion. Iran acquired Soviet-made Scud-Bs, first from Libya, then from Syria and North Korea. It used these 300-km missiles against Iraq from 1985 until the war ended in 1988.
Since the war, Tehran has steadily expanded its missile arsenal. It has also invested heavily in its own industries and infrastructure to lessen dependence on unreliable foreign sources. It is now able to produce its own missiles, although some key components still need to be imported. Iran has demonstrated that it can also significantly expand the range of acquired missiles, as it has done with Nodong missiles from North Korea, which it then renamed. Iran’s missiles can already hit any part of the Middle East, including Israel. Over time, Tehran has established the capacity to create missiles to address a full range of strategic objectives.
 
Iran’s expanding arsenal
The Islamic Republic’s arsenal now includes several types of short-range and medium-range missiles. Estimates vary on specifics, and Iran has exaggerated its capabilities in the past. But there is widespread consensus that Tehran has acquired and creatively adapted foreign technology to continuously increase the quality and quantity of its arsenal. It has also launched an ambitious space program that works on some of the same technology. The arsenal includes:
Shahab missiles: Since the late 1980s, Iran has purchased additional short- and medium-range missiles from foreign suppliers and adapted them to its strategic needs. The Shahabs, Persian for “meteors,” were long the core of Iran’s program. They use liquid fuel, which involves a time-consuming launch. They include:
The Shahab-1 is based on the Scud-B. (The Scud series was originally developed by the Soviet Union). It has a range of about 300 kms or 185 miles.
The Shahab-2 is based on the Scud-C. It has a range of about 500 kms, or 310 miles. In mid-2010, Iran is widely estimated to have between 200 and 300 Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles capable of reaching targets in neighboring countries.
The Shahab-3 is based on the Nodong, which is a North Korean missile. It has a range of about 900 km or 560 miles. It has a nominal payload of 1,000 kg. A modified version of the Shahab-3, renamed the Ghadr-1, began flight tests in 2004. It theoretically extends Iran’s reach to about 1,600 km or 1,000 miles, which qualifies as a medium-range missile. But it carries a smaller, 750-kg warhead.
Although the Ghadr-1 was built with key North Korean components, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani boasted at the time, “Today, by relying on our defense industry capabilities, we have been able to increase our deterrent capacity against the military expansion of our enemies.”
Sajjil missiles: Sajjil means “baked clay” in Persian. These are a class of medium-range missiles that use solid fuel, which offer many strategic advantages. They are less vulnerable to preemption because the launch requires shorter preparation – minutes rather than hours. Iran is the only country to have developed missiles of this range without first having developed nuclear weapons.
This family of missiles centers on the Sajjil-2, a domestically produced surface-to-surface missile. It has a medium-range of about 2,000 km or 1,200 miles when carrying a 750-kg warhead. It was test fired in 2008 under the name, Sajjil. The Sajjil-2, which is probably a slightly modified version, began test flights in 2009. This missile would allow Iran to “target any place that threatens Iran,” according to Brig. Gen. Abdollah Araghi, a Revolutionary Guard commander.
The Sajjil-2, appears to have encountered technical issues and its full development has slowed. No flight tests have been conducted since 2011. If Sajjil-2 flight testing resumes, the missile’s performance and reliability could be proven within a year or two. The missile, which is unlikely to become operational before 2017, is the most likely nuclear delivery vehicle—if Iran decides to develop an atomic bomb. But it would need to build a bomb small enough to fit on the top of this missile, which would be a major challenge.
The Sajjil program’s success indicates that Iran’s long-term missile acquisition plans are likely to focus on solid-fuel systems. They are more compact and easier to deploy on mobile launchers. They require less time to prepare for launch, making them less vulnerable to preemption by aircraft or other missile defense systems.
Iran could attempt to use Sajjil technologies to produce a three-stage missile capable of flying 3,700 km or 2,200 miles. But it is unlikely to be developed and actually fielded before 2017.
Space program: Iran’s ambitious space program provides engineers with critical experience developing powerful booster rockets and other skills that could be used in developing longer-range missiles, including ICBMs.
The Safir, which means “messenger” or “ambassador” in Persian, is the name of the carrier rocket that launched Iran’s first satellite into space in 2009. It demonstrated a new sophistication in multistage separation and propulsion systems.
 
The Simorgh, which is the Persian name of a benevolent, mythical flying creature, is another carrier rocket to launch satellites. A mock-up was unveiled in 2010. It has a cluster of four engines and indicates that Iran’s space program is making progress in its long-term goals.
Development of larger, more powerful launchers could also provide Iran with an ability to place communication and reconnaissance satellites into orbit, independent of foreign powers.
Factoids
  • Iran has invested at least $1 billion in its missile programs since 2000, according to “Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities: A Net Assessment.”
  • Iran’s space program aspires to place an astronaut into earth’s orbit. Development of the Simorgh launcher is a key step towards this objective.
  • Iran’s universities and other technical centers are conducting basic and applied research in support of the missile and space launcher development programs.
Limitations
Iran’s ballistic missiles have poor accuracy. The successful destruction of a single fixed military target, for example, would probably require Iran to use a significant percentage of its missile inventory. Against large military targets, such as an airfield or seaport, Iran could conduct harassment attacks aimed at disrupting operations or damaging fuel-storage depots. But the missiles would probably be unable to shut down critical military activities. The number of transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) available and the delays to reload them would also limit the impact of even a massive attack.
Without a nuclear warhead, Iran’s ballistic missiles are likely to be more effective as a political tool to intimidate or terrorize an adversary’s urban areas, increasing pressure for resolution or concessions. Such attacks might trigger fear, but the casualties would probably be low – probably less than a few hundred, even if Iran unleashed its entire ballistic missile arsenal and a majority succeeded in penetrating missile defenses.
Iran is also likely to face difficulties if it decides to develop a “second-generation” intermediate-range missile of 4,000 km to 5,000 km, or 2,500 miles to 3,100 miles, using solid-fuel technology. Its engineers would have to design, develop and test a much larger rocket motor. There is little reason to believe that the Islamic Republic could field such a missile before 2018. Moreover, Iran would still have to rely on imported technologies, components and technical assistance, and carry out a lengthy flight-test program.
Finally, Iran’s past missile and space-launcher efforts suggest that Tehran would probably develop and field an intermediate-range missile before trying to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States more than 9,000 km or 5,600 miles away. So an Iranian ICBM seems unlikely before 2020.
Trendlines
  • Although Iran’s ballistic missiles are too inaccurate to be militarily effective when armed with conventional warheads, the regime likely believes that the missiles can deter and possibly intimidate its regional adversaries, regardless of warhead type.
  • Iran’s advanced engineering capabilities and commitment to missile and space launcher programs are likely, over time, to lead to development of additional missile systems. Export controls will slow, but not stop progress.
  • There is no strong evidence that Iran is actively developing an intermediate-range or intercontinental ballistic missile. And a new system can’t be deployed out of the blue. If Iran decides to pursue an intermediate-range capability, the necessary flight testing will provide a three-to-five year window for developing countermeasures.

 

Syria: Charge Assad with Crimes Against Humanity

Posted on by

Monitor: 60,000 dead in Syria government jails

Most dead as a result of torture or poor humanitarian conditions, says Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Rights groups have lodged torture accusations at many parties of Syrian conflict [Martial Trezzini/EPA]Rights groups have lodged torture accusations at many parties of Syrian conflict [Martial Trezzini/EPA]

AJ: More than 60,000 people have been killed through torture or died in dire humanitarian conditions inside Syrian government prisons throughout the country’s five-year uprising, according to a monitor.

The numbers were obtained from Syrian government sources, the United Kingdom-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday.

“Since March 2011, at least 60,000 people lost their lives to torture or to horrible conditions, notably the lack of medication or food, in regime prisons,” said the Observatory’s Rami Abdel Rahman.

Though the Syrian conflict started with popular protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, it quickly became a civil war between the government and rebel groups.

Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations special envoy to Syria, recently estimated that 400,000 people had died throughout the last five years. The number was his personal estimate and not an official UN statistic.

‘No progress on detainees’

Calculating a precise death toll is impossible, partially due to the forced disappearances of tens of thousands of Syrians whose fates remain unknown.

Nadim Houry, a Beirut-based Middle East researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW), accuses the Syrian government of “rampant torture”.

READ MORE: Speaking out on ‘sadistic’ Syrian government jails

Explaining that HRW cannot verify the Observatory’s statistics, Houry told Al Jazeera: “We have known how bad the situation is in the detention facilities for a long time and that many people have died inside.”

In a report published in December, HRW concluded that the Caesar photographs – a photo cache documenting the deaths of more than 28,000 deaths in government custody which was smuggled out of the country – suggested that the government had carried out crimes against humanity.

“There has been no progress on detainees,” Houry said. “The entire world saw the large scale detention and death in the Ceasar photos, and despite all of this, there was no reaction.”

‘War crimes’ 

The International Syria Support Group – the 17-country coalition that includes the United States and Russia – released a statement on Tuesday that urged the UN special envoy de Mistura to negotiate the release of detainees in government custody, as well as those held by armed groups.

Houry added: “Detainees deserve the same level of attention from the high level political actors, like the US and Russia, as all the other issues. It has been going on for too long and with too high a cost.”

In a February 2016 report, the UN Human Rights Council accused both government and opposition forces, including the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS), of subjecting detainees to torture.

The council accused the government and al-Nusra of war crimes, while it said ISIL has “committed the crimes against humanity of murder and torture, and war crimes”.

**** Last year, 2015:

Paris (AFP) – France has launched an inquiry into Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for alleged crimes against humanity, saying it was forced to act in the face of “systematic cruelty”.

The announcement Wednesday came after world powers sparred at the United Nations over the embattled Syrian leader’s fate.

A judicial source told AFP that prosecutors in Paris, with the backing of the foreign ministry, had opened a preliminary inquiry on September 15 into alleged crimes committed by the Syrian government between 2011 and 2013.

The French investigation is largely based on evidence from a former Syrian army photographer known by the codename “Caesar” who fled the country in 2013, taking with him some 55,000 graphic photographs. He now lives in France under tight security.

 

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said France had a “responsibility” to take action.

“Faced with these crimes that offend the human conscience, this bureaucracy of horror, faced with this denial of the values of humanity, it is our responsibility to act against the impunity of the killers,” Fabius said in a statement.

He said the “thousands of unbearable photos, authenticated by many experts, which show corpses tortured and starved to death in the prisons of the regime, demonstrate the systematic cruelty of the Assad regime”.

The inquiry will be led by France’s war crimes body.

The judicial source said the term “crimes against humanity” was used to include kidnappings and torture by the regime in the probe.

The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcomed the announcement, saying the investigation was “a world first”.

While Assad is unlikely to ever stand trial in a French court, the inquiry could add to political pressure on the Syrian leader in the midst of a diplomatic row between the West and Russia and Iran over his fate.

The Syrian conflict has taken centre stage at the UN General Assembly in New York, where US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin clashed over how to bring an end to Syria’s civil war.

– ‘Assad’s secret killings’ –

On Tuesday, Obama said removing Assad was a vital step to defeating Islamic State jihadists who have taken advantage of the chaos in Syria to bring large parts of the country and neighbouring Iraq under its rule.

French President Francois Hollande echoed Obama’s call in his UN speech, but Putin — a long-time Assad ally — dismissed their pleas, saying they “should not be involved in choosing the leadership of another country”.

Syria’s four-year war has killed more than 240,000 people and Western diplomats have accused Assad’s regime of killing more of their own people than the Islamic State group by dropping barrel bombs — charges the government denies.

The brutal conflict has also displaced millions of people, a key driver behind Europe’s refugee crisis.

The photographs that Caesar brought out of Syria show people with their eyes gouged out, emaciated bodies, people with wounds on the back or stomach, and also a picture of hundreds of corpses lying in a shed surrounded by plastic bags used for burials.

Entitled “Assad’s secret killings,” the dossier is being used by international bodies including the UN as part of an investigation into the regime’s role in “mass torture”.

The Syrian government has branded the report “political”.

Ceasar said in an interview with French magazine L’Obs released Wednesday that he wanted to “show the real face of Bashar al-Assad — that of a dictator who has caused a lot of blood to flow”.

Fabius said the opening of the French probe should not prevent the United Nations and particularly its International Commission of Inquiry on Syria to press on with their own investigations.

 

Psst, Another Scandal, Thomas Pickering/Panama Papers

Posted on by

Who is Tom Pickering? He is the fella that Hillary tapped to do the Accountability Review Board Report on Benghazi. And, thanks to my buddy Clare Lopez, former CIA, she authored a white paper on ol’ Thomas and his pro-Iran lobby.

Pickering was also part of a secret group to lobby the lifting of sanctions on Iran. The White House lobby operation for Iran was huge, well funded and full of collusion.

Well, there is more to Mr. Pickering.

Panama Papers detail how ex-ambassador helped Russian company

McClatchy:  WASHINGTON ~ MarisaTaylor: As Russian software company Luxoft prepared to offer shares on the U.S. stock market, its executives turned to a well-known U.S. diplomat.

Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia who also served as undersecretary of state for political affairs under President Bill Clinton, agreed in May 2013 to be a director of Luxoft Holding Inc. a month before the company’s debut on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

The relationship between Luxoft and Pickering, whose diplomatic career spans six presidents and four decades, is detailed in the massive Panama Papers leak and comes amid a global debate over the role of offshore companies. Luxoft is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

Pickering is the highest-level former U.S. official to be identified as involved in a Panama Papers offshore company so far. The papers, which were leaked from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca to an international group of reporters, including the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and McClatchy, have already revealed that former and current world leaders had offshore companies and have led to criminal inquiries around the globe, including in the United States.

However, nothing appears illegal or unethical about Pickering’s role, experts said. Pickering said in an interview that he had disclosed his role on Luxoft’s board to the State Department as required under government ethics rules.

“I disclosed about 150 interests, including that I was on this board,” he said. “It is a Russian company and – obviously for tax reasons or otherwise – incorporated itself in Tortola, the British Virgin Islands. That I knew. And I didn’t see any problem with that.”

He also said he’d donated his compensation from the company to charity.

Luxoft declined to comment. “As a public company we do not respond to unsolicited enquiries of this nature,” Natasha Ziabkina, general counsel of Luxoft Group, wrote in an email to McClatchy. “Any material information about our company is disclosed through our publicly available securities filings.”

Pickering said he’d also disclosed his role and had donated compensation when he served until about four years ago on the board of TMK, a Russian manufacturer and exporter of steel pipes for the oil and gas industry.

 

“I’ve been very careful in my dealings with the boards,” Pickering said.

Pickering said he had been approached to be on Luxoft’s board years before the company went public on the British and American stock exchanges, by a Luxoft executive he’d known while he was senior vice president of international relations for Boeing Co. from 2000 to 2006. Boeing was a client of Luxoft.

“I got to know them and I got to know the man who ran Luxoft,” Pickering said. “Years ago, he said if we go on the London market or on the U.S. would I join their board. I said in principle I would.”

 

After the company went public in London, Pickering said, he looked into the company and decided to join the board. He also serves on Luxoft’s audit committee.

Pickering was appointed director of Luxoft Holding at a time when the company still had ties to one of Russia’s biggest banks, VTB Bank. Rus Lux Limited, the VTB-linked company, had a 10.2 percent stake in Luxoft.

Luxoft has generally performed well since its formation. It was among the best-performing major Russian companies on the New York Stock Exchange in 2014. And earlier this month it reported that its fourth-quarter revenue had increased 23.2 percent over the previous year.

In the Mossack Fonseca documents, Luxoft reassures the law firm in December 2015 that Rus Lux had sold its shares before the U.S government sanctioned VTB in July 2014. The U.S. Treasury Department issued the sanctions against VTB and other Russian banks in response to Russia’s role in the Ukrainian conflict.

“Rus Lux Limited was a minority shareholder a long time ago,” wrote Ziabkina, general counsel of Luxoft Group. “They fully divested and sold their shares in Luxoft Holding in November 2013 before the sanctions took effect.”

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said he didn’t see any ethical problem with Pickering’s relationship with Luxoft.

“What else is new?” asked Gillers. “Yes, people sometimes use their former government experience to do exactly this.”

Jay Ritter, a University of Florida business professor, said Luxoft’s inclusion of Pickering on its board was not unusual for foreign companies gearing up for an initial public stock offering in the U.S.

“When you’re dealing with a company in Russia – whether they’ve got to set it up in the British Virgin Islands or not, there’s a required leap of faith for investors,” said Ritter, an expert on IPOs. “Appointing someone like Pickering to the board gives a certain amount of credibility because he’s got his personal reputation at stake. Presumably, he doesn’t want to get involved with something that’s obviously sleazy.”

Pickering has served as the U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan, and to the United Nations.

Luxoft also disclosed his role in its public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company has its operating headquarters in Switzerland.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the Panama Papers.

Kirby said Pickering was required to file financial disclosure forms with the State Department because he served as one of 25 members of the first Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

The board was launched in December 2011 to provide the secretary of state and senior department officials with independent advice on U.S. foreign policy.

Pickering served a two-year term on the board from December 2011 to December 2013. He returned to the board in 2014 and remains a member. Members of the Foreign Affairs Policy Board do not work full time as members of the board, but in an advisory capacity.

The former ambassador also chaired the Accountability Review Board, which investigated the 2012 fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including an ambassador. The panel concluded in its December 2012 report that security at the facility in Benghazi was “grossly inadequate,” leading to the suspension of four State Department officials. They were reinstated by Secretary of State John Kerry in August 2013.

Pickering continued to offer advice to the Obama administration, according to emails that the State Department released during a controversy over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Pickering wasn’t compensated for any position, Kirby said.

 

Taliban Leader Dead in Drone Strike

Posted on by

For many years the Obama administration has been negotiating some kind of peace agreement with the Taliban which included exchanging 5 of their leaders from Guantanamo Detention Center for Bowe Bergdahl. It is even more curious these talks continued using proxy country leaders to assist in the talks, so taking out the newest Taliban leader at this time is worrisome or is it because of his connections to Iran?


Some say that the Taliban is especially threatened now and will be encouraged to stay at the table for continue talks.

Islamabad is hosting a fifth round of four-nation Afghan peace talks aimed at reviving long-stalled negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Afghanistan’s ambassador to Pakistan, Omar Zakhilwal, is representing Kabul at the meeting with diplomats from Pakistan, the United States, and China. 

A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Dawa Khan Menapal, said the country would not be sending a delegation from Kabul “until Pakistan fulfills its promises made during previous meetings.” 

The four countries have been attempting since January to bring Taliban delegates to the table in order to restart direct peace talks. 

But progress stalled as the Taliban launched a spring offensive and intensified its battle against Afghan government forces. More here.

****

Death Showcases Afghan Taliban Leader’s Iran Connection

The Pakistani passport the Afghan Taliban leader was allegedly carrying.

  • RFERL: The likely killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansur in a U.S. drone strike in southwestern Pakistan has attracted attention to Islamabad and its longstanding covert alliance with the Afghan Taliban.

But less attention is being paid to budding relations between the hard-line Sunni insurgent movement and Iran’s clerical establishment.

A well-placed Afghan source has confirmed to RFE/RL’s Gandhara website that Mansur was targeted on the afternoon of May 21 after returning from Iran earlier that day.

Mansur and his driver were killed on the outskirts of Ahmad Wal town on the main highway connecting Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan Province, to Iran. Ahmad Wal is nearly 500 kilometers or a five-hour drive from the Taftan border crossing between Pakistan and Iran.

According to Pakistani media reports, one of the passengers killed in the attack bore a Pakistani passport with the name Wali Muhammad. The Afghan source said Muhammad was a pseudonym of Mansur’s. Indeed, the photo on the passport closely resembles Mansur.

Pakistani officials, meanwhile, are investigating the passport and identity of the driver and passenger killed in the drone strike.

A Pakistani identity card the Afghan Taliban leader was allegedly carrying.

A Pakistani identity card the Afghan Taliban leader was allegedly carrying.

Pakistan’s ARY News TV reported that the driver was identified as Muhammad Azam, who used to ferry passengers from Taftan to Quetta in his taxi. The report said Azam’s partially burned remains had been handed over to his relatives on May 22.

Pakistani media reports suggested Pakistani immigration stamps on Muhammad’s passport showed he went into Iran in in late March and returned on May 21.

Islamabad, however, denounced the U.S. drone strike believed to have killed Mansur. A Pakistani foreign office statement on May 22 said the drone strike was a violation of its sovereignty.

“A person named Wali Muhammad, son of Shah Muhammad, carrying a Pakistani passport and I.D. card, entered Pakistan from [Iran through the] Taftan border,” the statement noted. “His passport bore a valid Iranian visa.”

The Afghan source said deepening covert cooperation between Tehran and the Afghan Taliban under Mansur seemed to be driven by threats posed by the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) in Afghanistan since early 2015.

“The emergence of IS is the main reason [for their cooperation],” he said. “But Iran has stakes in Afghanistan, and if it can gain some influence over the Taliban, why wouldn’t it?”

The source said Tehran is keen on keeping the Taliban from becoming a close ally of its regional archrival, Saudi Arabia. “Iran’s relations with the Taliban can fit every possible game and strategy for Tehran,” he said.

In recent months, Afghan sources claimed that after capturing large swaths of rural territories in Afghanistan after the end of NATO’s combat mission in 2014, the Taliban have reached out to Iran and Russia to break free from their reliance on Pakistani financing and sanctuaries.

Indeed, the Taliban have systematically eliminated IS cells in Afghan provinces bordering Iran or in close proximity with the Iranian border.

The Iranian and Pakistani immigration stamps on the Pakistani passport the Afghan Taliban leader was allegedly carrying.

The Iranian and Pakistani immigration stamps on the Pakistani passport the Afghan Taliban leader was allegedly carrying.

The Taliban’s relations with Islamabad, however, have meanwhile deteriorated. Many were surprised when Sartaj Aziz, a foreign affairs adviser to the Pakistani prime minister, stated in March that Islamabad has some “influence over them [the Taliban] because their leadership is in Pakistan.”

Afghan officials then asserted that after denying the Taliban’s presence in its territory, Pakistan was keen on asserting its control over the Afghan insurgents because the Taliban were increasingly slipping away from Islamabad’s control.

Several informed sources suggested Mansur’s targeting inside Pakistan was made possible by a tip from the country’s security services, who have long nurtured Taliban and other extremists to promote Pakistani interests in Afghanistan and other neighboring countries.

The Afghan source said Pakistan seems to have helped Washington in targeting Mansur in Balochistan, where an Afghan Taliban safe haven has been immune from U.S. drone strikes that have killed hundreds of Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders in the neighboring Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

“Pakistani intelligence seems to have delivered this to the U.S. in exchange for easing up on F-16s [fighter aircrafts], other aid, and relieving the overall pressure from Washington,” the source said.

Earlier this month, U.S. senators dubbed Pakistan a “frenemy” and barred U.S. financing for a $700 million deal with Lockheed Martin that would see eight F-16 fighter jets and other equipment sold to Pakistan.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a defense budget that tied $450 million in aid to Islamabad to a crackdown on the Taliban’s deadly military wing, the Haqqani network.