Category Archives: Treasury

The Plan: Five for Freedom

Posted on by

Bringing government spending under control.

NRO: At the last Republican presidential debate, I presented the Simple Flat Tax — which, for a family of four, exempts the first $36,000 from all income tax, and above that amount collects one low rate of 10 percent for all Americans. It eliminates the death tax, the payroll tax, the corporate income tax, and the Obamacare taxes; ends the corporate carve-outs and loopholes; and requires every business to pay the same simple business flat tax of 16 percent.

That plan will unleash unprecedented growth, create millions of new jobs, raise after-tax incomes for all income levels by double-digit percentages — and abolish the IRS as we know it. But eliminating the IRS is only the first step in my plan to break apart the federal leviathan that has ruled Washington and crept into our lives. We can’t stop there. In addition to eliminating the IRS, a Cruz administration will abolish four cabinet agencies. And we will sharply reduce the alphabet soup of government entities, beginning with the ABCs that should not exist in the first place: The Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to American households and businesses. It’s time to return to a federal government that abides by our constitutional framework and strips power from unelected bureaucrats.

The need is urgent.

The total federal debt currently stands at $18.6 trillion, larger than our entire economy. That is up 75 percent since the current president took office, and by the end of his tenure, he is expected to have added almost as much to the national debt as all past presidents combined. And what does the Obama administration have to show for its uncontrolled spending? A stagnant economy, lagging job creation, and the lowest labor-force participation since the Carter administration. The Obama economy has burdened each American household with the equivalent of $57,000 of federal debt. Under such stifling circumstances, it’s no wonder that 84 percent of college graduates do not have a job lined up after graduation, and 13.2 percent of young adults are out of work. The current level of spending is not only irresponsible, but immoral and unjust to future generations.

It is time for bold change. Change that stops Washington from squandering Americans’ money; that creates jobs and restores growth with a single, fair, low rate for everyone; that reins in Washington’s costly regulations; that honors the people’s work with the dignity it deserves; and that finally gets the government out of our pockets and off our backs. Of course, because entitlements constitute roughly two-thirds of federal spending, no government spending plan is complete without addressing entitlement reform. And in the coming months, I will be laying out a detailed plan to do just that, to strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare and to ensure their fiscal strength for decades to come. But we should start with federal discretionary spending.
First, to begin the process of reducing the scope and cost of government, I have identified the Five for Freedom: During my first year as president, I will fight to abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. To do that, I will press Congress relentlessly. And I will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose central charge will be to lead the effort to wind them down and determine whether any of their programs need to be preserved elsewhere because they fall within the proper purview of the federal government. I do not anticipate the lists to be long. The IRS and these cabinet agencies are unnecessary and will be shuttered for the following reasons:
Internal Revenue Service – to dramatically simplify the tax code and enable everyone to fill out their taxes on a postcard or smartphone app. Department of Education – to return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And to block-grant education funding to the states.
Department of Energy – to cut off the Washington cartel, stop picking winners and losers, and unleash the energy renaissance.
Department of Commerce – to close the “congressional cookie jar” and promote free enterprise and free trade for every business.
Department of Housing and Urban Development – to offer real solutions that lift people out of hardship, rather than trapping families in a cycle of poverty, and to empower hurting Americans by reforming most of the remaining programs, such as Section 8 housing. Second, besides these unnecessary cabinet agencies and the IRS, we will sharply reduce the agencies, bureaus, commissions, and other programs that are harming American households and businesses — including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Together with the four departments and the IRS, our conservative estimate of the effects of these eliminations and reductions is a savings of over $500 billion over ten years. And that’s just a start. The true savings — of scaling down the scope of the federal government, of restoring to the states their rightful authority, and of unleashing the people’s ingenuity — cannot be measured by a number. We are uprooting the centralized power that we have lived under for far too long. Third, we will bring back a proven approach from the prosperous days of the Reagan administration: a private-sector panel to assess federal spending levels and evaluate areas of waste and fraud for removal. At President Reagan’s behest, the Grace Commission recommended 2,478 “cost-cutting, revenue-enhancing” suggestions, without raising taxes, weakening defense, or harming social welfare. It was a major success among other policies that created a great economic boom, and it deserves a reprise. Fourth, we will hold Congress accountable; it too often delegates its authority to unelected bureaucrats. We will enact a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. And, by enacting the REINS Act, we will require that a majority of members approve any major, cost-inducing regulations. Fifth, we will put in place a hiring freeze of federal civilian employees across the executive branch. For those agencies in which it is determined that a vacant position needs to be filled, I will authorize the hiring of a maximum ratio of one person for every three who leave. And rather than automatically increasing federal workers’ pay annually, workers will have more opportunities for merit-based pay increases.
The full details of this plan can be found at www.tedcruz.org. It’s past time to dramatically reduce the size of government and restore congressional accountability to the people. Doing so, along with instituting fundamental tax reform and regulatory reform, will reignite the promise that has made this the freest and most prosperous nation in the world.

 

Do You Know Gilbert Chagoury or Rajiv Fernando? Hillary Does

Posted on by

Rajiv Fernando and  Gilbert Chagoury are very good friends of Hillary and known to Barack Obama as well. Yikes, more emails? This is a story, scandal that seems to have no end. Perhaps it is time to start prosecuting people at the State Department for non compliance, obstruction of a federal investigation and falsification of government documents.

Primer:

ABC: For one of President Obama’s top fundraisers, the appointment last year to an elite group of State Department security advisors appeared to be an odd fit.

Rajiv Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, has never touted any international security credentials, yet he was appointed alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on crucial security matters.

PBS: Chagoury is a diplomat representing the tiny island nation of St. Lucia. He is also a friend of former President Bill Clinton and a generous philanthropist, who, since the Abacha years, has used his money to establish respectability. He appeared near the top of the Clinton Foundation donor list in 2008 as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. (His name made the list again in 2009.)

Release of Clinton Documents Delayed After State Department Discovers ‘Thousands’ of Unsearched Records

Citizens United, Judicial Watch lawsuits affected by development

FreeBeacon: The State Department’s recent discovery of thousands of unsearched records from Hillary Clinton’s tenure has delayed several public records lawsuits and could keep many of the documents out of the public sphere until next fall.

The watchdog groups Citizens United and Judicial Watch, which are suing the State Department for Clinton-related records, are two plaintiffs that have been affected by the discovery. The State Department said the new documents could take months to process, a time period that extends well beyond its court-ordered deadlines.

Citizens United said the State Department has yet to explain how the electronic files were overlooked for the past two years, raising questions about whether this was a stonewalling effort. The group is seeking records related to Clinton donors Gilbert Chagoury and Rajiv Fernando.

“With this 11th hour revelation, the State Department has missed its court-ordered deadline to finish the production of documents in this case,” said David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United. “These newly discovered records could impact document production in other Citizens United FOIA lawsuits as well as cases involving other plaintiffs.”

On Jan. 14, the State Department disclosed in a Judicial Watch case that officials had recently found shared and individual electronic files in the executive secretary’s office that were not previously searched in response to the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last May.

Although the court had ordered the State Department to turn over all relevant records by last October, attorneys said they would need until this spring to process the new documents.

State filed a nearly identical status report in the Citizens United lawsuit on Feb. 29, the same day as its court-ordered deadline to turn over all requested documents.

Attorneys for the department told Citizens United the discovery of unsearched records could set back the processing schedule until next fall. The State Department said it had not informed Citizens United earlier because its attorneys did not know about the new sources of records until Feb. 11—even though they had been disclosed to Judicial Watch in early January.

“Neither State’s agency counsel nor undersigned counsel for State was aware of this issue until February 11, 2016,” said the State Department in a Feb. 29 court filing.

According to court statements, the new sources of information come from the executive secretary’s office, which acted as the liaison between Secretary Clinton’s office and the rest of the State Department, the White House, and national security agencies.

One of the new sources is a series of “shared office folders,” computer folders that were used by multiple staff members. State Department public records officials said they first discovered this source in November. They said the files had previously been overlooked because they had been “retired” and removed from the executive secretary’s office last year.

The second new source is “individual folders,” which contain word documents, PDF documents, and the emails of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan. These emails had already been processed, but officials said they did not realize until last December that there were other types of documents in these folders.

The late findings have impacted at least two additional Judicial Watch lawsuits, according to court documents. The House Benghazi Committee last week received over 1,600 pages of documents related to Libya from the new files, which the committee said it had requested nearly a year ago.

The State Department said it could not comment on whether other public records lawsuits could be impacted, or why Citizens United wasn’t informed about the new files at the same time as Judicial Watch.

“The State Department does not comment on matters in litigation,” a State Department official said. “We can confirm that State recently located documents from electronic sources not previously searched that are potentially responsive to certain FOIA cases involving records originating from the Office of the Secretary during Secretary Clinton’s tenure. As a result, the Department is undertaking additional searches of those files.”

“These unsearched materials include a variety of file types, but do not include the email accounts of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff, which we have been searching for some time,” the official said.

The State Department noted that it has been taking steps to improve records management and hired a transparency coordinator last fall.

Sources also pointed to another recent personnel change at the State Department—the departure of attorney Catherine Duval, who had been involved in processing Clinton’s emails for release last year. Duval was previously in charge of document production at the IRS when many of the agency’s emails were destroyed. Congressional Republicans have accused Duval of obstructing their efforts to obtain Clinton documents.

Duval left the State Department last September. A few weeks later, the Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee released a statement praising increased transparency at the State Department.

“It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production,” committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a Sept. 25, 2015 press release.

But the latest disclosure of unsearched records will still have an impact on groups like Citizens United, which first filed its public records request in 2014 and could be waiting until after the presidential election before it receives all its documents.

In light of the new discovery, the court pushed back the State Department’s production deadline until next August. Citizens United said it would not be surprised by additional delays.

“The public has a right to inspect records that are in the possession of their government,” Bossie said. “These delay tactics by the Obama Administration look like nothing more than an assist to former Secretary Clinton.”

“This latest declaration is more of the constant ‘drip, drip, drip’ that [D.C. District Court] Judge Sullivan spoke of last week,” he added. “Unfortunately, when dealing with the State Department, it’s not a matter if this will happen again, it’s a matter of when.”

Special Counsel for Hillary’s Email-Gate

Posted on by

Brian Pagliano, the part time IT person hired by Hillary’s company called Clinton Executive Services Corporation has already cooperated with the FBI by turning over records from the server.

Politico: Logs for Hillary Clinton’s email server turned over to the FBI by a former aide to Clinton show no evidence of suspicious foreign traffic or hacking from abroad, a person familiar with the investigation said. The records were provided to the FBI by former Clinton information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Pagliano worked at the State Department but was also involved in setting up the server at Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home. More here.

Hillary did have phishing emails on her server but she did not open those emails. Attempts were clearly made, and for sophisticated hackers, there may be have some successes into her server where no cyber intrusion DNA would be glaring or found.

Special counsel to investigate Hillary urgently needed

TheHill: March at the United Nations, Hillary Clinton stood in front of the world and lied when she stated: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

As a former U.S. attorney, I believe we must follow the evidence.  In this case the evidence leads to one place—an urgent need to appoint special counsel to investigate this most serious breach of national security.
Since the State Department started its monthly release of Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of State, the evidence has shown that she recklessly communicated with her staff and top political advisors with no regard for the security of classified material that the American people entrusted her to handle ethically and intelligently.
While the much-publicized events and revelations regarding this situation had already made a strong case for special counsel to be appointed, one particular recent discovery has made it absolutely imperative. Not only did Clinton’s emails contain over 1,700 emails with classified information, they contained SAP information—information classified at a level beyond top secret. This information was, and remains, such a security risk that the State Department refused to release even heavily redacted emails—it simply was “too damaging” to release in any form.  At this point, there is no doubt Clinton’s actions put our nation at risk.

Perhaps the need for special counsel would not be as clear and urgent without the troubling track record Clinton has had with the truth in this matter.  Chief among the many examples is that her story has changed from claiming she didn’t traffic in any classified material to she didn’t send anything “marked classified,” while continuing to deny she did anything wrong.  This attempt to excuse her behavior is simply not relevant—she was entrusted to keep marked and unmarked classified information secure.  She created the emails containing the classified material, and it would be absurd to think her failure to mark a document as classified would excuse the mistreatment of the information.  Further, she continued to store classified information in an unsecure manner for years.  Though she claims to have done nothing wrong, the evidence directly contradicts her public statements.

Polling has shown that over the years the American citizens’ trust in government has eroded. This is due, at least partly, to situations like this, where politically powerful individuals make statements that are completely contrary to the evidence, and are not held to the same standards as everyone else.  Ironically, it was President Clinton who in 1994 called the independent counsel “a foundation stone for the trust between the government and our citizens,” and “a force for government integrity and public confidence.”  Although independent counsel is no longer available, the sentiment remains equally applicable to the appointment of special counsel.

While I am encouraged the FBI is seriously investigating Hillary Clinton’s treatment of classified information, it is imperative someone independent from the administration is appointed. Our justice system is built on unbiased and equal treatment.  The political and personal ties between the president and Hillary Clinton prohibit this—President Obama appointed Clinton to the position and has practically endorsed her presidential bid. Both Clinton and Obama have made statements about the criminal case, indicating the outcome of the investigation would be favorable to Clinton in spite of the evidence.  The American people need to know that when the evidence dictates, even a politically powerful individual will be held to the same standard as all other citizens.  The integrity of the justice system requires appointment of special counsel with broad jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute any criminal violations discovered as the result of the use of Clinton’s private email system or discovered from the release of those documents.

It is a rare occurrence to appoint special counsel.  But it is also an unprecedented circumstance to have a secretary of State set up a private email server in her home to transmit classified information and expose the nation to security risks, and for that individual to then run to be commander in chief for the next four years.  Given the facts of this case—that it involves information at the highest echelons of our national defense and security, that the individual involved has misled and deceived at every turn, and that a clear conflict of interest exists with the Executive branch—no subjective person can believe the truth will be unearthed without a special counsel.

The American people deserve the truth, this tool will provide it, and on behalf of the American people—it should be deployed immediately.

Emerging Putin’s Geo Aggressions

Posted on by

Putin has an inside circle and it is bid-rigging and creating wealth though fraud and collusion. Cunning, calculated, measured and well planned, Putin has a global objective. Is he stoppable beyond Syria?

Few have spoken about the national blackout, the cyber-attack on Ukraine’s power grid. If it can happen in Ukraine, it can happen in America. It must be noted who owns and controls companies with ties to infrastructure….Putin’s friends. For a chilling read, go here.

In part: In a statement announcing the sanctions, the U.S. Treasury Department alleged that Putin “has investments” with Gunvor, the oil-trading firm that Timchenko founded but exited a day before he was hit with U.S. sanctions, and “may have access to Gunvor funds.”

Washington has not released any evidence to substantiate these claims, which the Kremlin and Gunvor deny. (The firm also says CEO Torbjorn Tornqvist was in charge of daily operations.)*

Meanwhile, Navalny filed a lawsuit earlier this month accusing Putin of a conflict of interest in awarding $1.75 billion in state financing to a company part-owned by Shamalov, his alleged son-in-law. A Moscow court rejected the lawsuit, saying it did not qualify for consideration under “administrative proceedings.” Full article here.

When it comes to Crimea and most recently Ukraine, does anyone care? For a data cache on Russian aggressions on Ukraine, go here.

According to Ukrainian officials on March 1 Russia sent three trains with ammunition to the occupied city of Ilovaisk and two tanks and four armoured personnel vehicles to Novoazovsk.

NATO’s top commander says Russian military activity in eastern Ukraine is increasing. Earlier, General Philip Breedlove also warned of ‘disturbing trends’ – including more sniper fire and shelling on the frontline. The NATO leader claims Russia has placed “well above” 1,000 pieces of military hardware in Ukraine over the past 12 months. More here.

Then comes Kazakhstan, where it appears covert pro-Russian adjustments are next up for Putin and Kazakhstan is taking notice.

Reuters in part: Demographically, the region therefore has much in common with Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula and the eastern Donbass region, whose majority Russian-speaking populations pulled out of Kiev’s orbit with help from Moscow.

There is no separatist rebellion in northern Kazakhstan, but the ethnic Russians, who make up more than a fifth of the country’s 18 million population, are feeling increasingly insecure and some sympathize with the separatists in Ukraine.

The Ukraine experience has made the Kazakh authorities highly sensitive to any signs of disloyalty by ethnic Russians. Ethnically based political parties are banned.

Last year, a court in eastern Kazakhstan sentenced a user of Vkontakte, a Russian-based social network, to five years in prison for posting a poll which asked people whether they would support the idea of that region, which also has a big ethnic Russian population, becoming part of Russia.

“Their bodies are in Kazakhstan but their minds are in Russia,” said political analyst Dosym Satpayev, talking about what he described as the significant portion of the Kazakh population influenced by Russian media.

“There are signs that (the authorities) in Kazakhstan are beginning to realize it also faces a separatist threat,” said Satpayev, who runs the Risk Assessment Group, a think tank.

There are no signs of Moscow promoting separatism in Kazakhstan, although it wants to keep the country in its orbit. More here.

So beyond the matter of Putin taking over Syria, then gaining power and control in Afghanistan again, there is the matter of the Arctic. Enter ICEX.

Military: The U.S. Navy’s submarine force is setting up a temporary command center on a sheet of Arctic ice, where U.S. underwater capabilities will be put to the test in the increasingly strategic High North.


The five-week submarine drill coincides with separate war games in Norway called Cold Response involving 16,000 U.S. and NATO forces. Marines have been launching stinger missiles and maneuvering tanks, and the Air Force has dispatched three B-52 Stratofortress bombers.
Together, the exercises underscore the emergence of the Arctic as an area of concern as melting ice caps raise the prospects for competition over vital undersea natural resources. The area could become a flash point between the U.S. and Russia.


“The Arctic environment plays a key role in national defense,” said U.S. Submarine Forces commander Vice Adm. Joseph E. Tofalo in a statement announcing the launch of Ice Exercise 2016. “With over a thousand miles of Arctic coastline, the U.S. has strong national security and homeland defense interests in the region.”


Then ICEX drill, which is being conducted in the Arctic Ocean, aims to evaluate the terrain and assess the readiness of U.S. submarines operating under ice. It does not explicitly address concerns of a growing Russian military presence.
Still, Russian activity in the High North has grabbed the attention of top U.S. military commanders.
“We are facing a very challenging situation in the Arctic,” European Command’s Gen. Philip Breedlove told lawmakers last week. “Many of our NATO allies, Canada and the U.S. are concerned about what we see as the militarization of the Arctic now by Russia.”
Since 2008, Russia has been steadily upgrading its forces in the Arctic: reopening air bases, restoring air-defense radar stations and building new submarines. The moves are all in response to new security challenges brought on by melting ice and the prospect of new shipping lanes.
Moscow’s actions reflect a focus on “goals beyond the Arctic region,” the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said in a recent report examining Russian military capabilities and intentions in the region. More here.

Is there some negotiating or new deal that can stop Putin? Anyone?

 

 

 

Boeing Secret Deals with Iran, Skirting Sanctions

Posted on by

Why Boeing kept Iran dealings under the radar

Author: Saam Borhani

alMonitor: Barely a week after the Jan. 16 lifting of nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, Tehran hosted its first international business summit in years. The event, sponsored by the Centre for Aviation (CAPA), brought together 400 executives of the global aviation industry to re-establish links with their Iranian counterparts after a decades-long estrangement. What raised eyebrows in Tehran and Washington, however, was the conspicuous absence of Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer. Boeing’s curious decision to skip the CAPA event raised questions about the United States’ commitment to the sanctions relief mandated under the July 14, 2015, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The decision Boeing made to stay home, likely prompted by unease as to the confusing web of remaining US sanctions, is a harbinger of things to come for the delicate dance between Iran and American business.

It turns out that Boeing, while skipping the high-profile CAPA event in Tehran, has actually been unofficially negotiating behind the scenes with Iranian civil aviation officials for a considerable time. Indeed, weeks after European rival Airbus signed a multibillion dollar deal for 118 passenger jets with Iran, Washington finally gave the go-ahead for Boeing to begin official negotiations and to apply for special licenses to sell aircraft to the Iranians.

As the world cashes in on an Iran ready to do business, the United States risks being late to the game because of a mixture of political sensitivities, confusion about the remaining American sanctions and structural impediments that make trading with Iran prohibitively risky for all but the most adept American companies.

American trade with Iran is known to attract seething headlines in both countries. A simple form on McDonald’s website about franchise opportunities in Iran last year prompted warnings of an impending cultural invasion of the country in the Iranian right-wing media. Similarly, US companies risk the wrath of special interest groups devoted to inflicting reputational damage because of trade with Iran. Halliburton and Hewlett-Packard are prominent examples of companies that have been attacked in the American media for previous legal business relations with Iran.

Groups such as United Against a Nuclear Iran have also been successful in convincing around half of the state legislatures to pass measures punishing companies operating in Iran. These local laws have directed state pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divest from targeted companies and sometimes have barred these companies from public contracts. The impact of these state “sanctions” on the JCPOA is not clear and may yet prompt a political and legal battle between the federal government and state officials. Indeed, the harm to the reputations of US companies by such local punitive measures is a strong deterrent to engaging with the Iranian consumer. It is also an issue that is likely to continue, as long as Iran remains listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department.

For American companies large enough to weather bad publicity, the remaining and now largely unilateral US sanctions on Iran represent a potentially costly minefield. The JCPOA allows for licensed sales of American airliners to Iran and the legal importation of Iranian foodstuffs and rugs. Besides these specific carve-outs, US companies may trade with Iran under the general licenses that were available before the JCPOA and under specific licenses granted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Treasury Department’s sanctions administrator. In addition, foreign subsidiaries of US companies that are not under the control and direction of US persons may trade directly with Iran. Maintaining a robust compliance system and routinely checking company interactions with Iran to make sure that they do not run afoul of OFAC regulations is a costly and time-consuming endeavor. Indeed, any American company that trades with Iran under the terms of the JCPOA, and especially under the complicated foreign subsidiary clause, must be large enough to support sufficiently adept legal compliance teams. Small and medium-size US businesses are thus effectively shut out of a presence in Iran for this very reason.

For the large multinational American companies that may be able to gain a foothold in Iran, there remain structural constraints that residual US sanctions place on legal trade with Iran. The United States has made it clear that no payments linked to Iran may be processed through its financial system. This means that profits made by American businesses in Iran will likely not be able to be directly repatriated and probably will remain offshore in segregated foreign accounts. American companies must also contend with strict bars on doing business with any Iranian entities that remain on OFAC’s “specially designated nationals” list, the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Each of these barred entities took over vast parts of the Iranian economy as a result of the international sanctions that have now been lifted.

The JCPOA has opened small opportunities for trade between American and Iranian firms. However, the remaining labyrinth of hard-to-understand restrictions will likely spook most Americans.

Both the Iranian and US governments have a vital interest in seeing that the JCPOA is an enduring agreement — and this partly depends on sanctions relief benefiting Iranian and American private sectors in a way that would effectuate the “buy-in” of JCPOA skeptics. A mutually beneficial trading arrangement that connects the private sectors of the United States and Iran — despite political differences — would strengthen the nuclear deal by attaching a direct economic cost to nonadherence. The limited avenues for legal trade, if quickly institutionalized, can be insulated from the historically volatile political relationship between Iran and the United States.

In this vein, a quiet Iranian commitment to protect American investors in Iran and to tone down the harshest anti-US rhetoric, at least with respect to American business, would give space for Wall Street to influence a change in Washington’s largely monolithic view of a hostile Iran. More importantly, a quiet US commitment to actively support legal trade with Iran — with the same zeal that it uses to enforce sanctions — would give the Iranians space to consider future negotiated compromises.