Category Archives: Treasury

Trump’s Pick for Sec. of Army, but Tillerson is Still a Problem

Posted on by

For the most part, the team leading the auditions for Cabinet posts in the Trump administration are pretty good. It was announced on December 19, that Trump’s choice for Secretary of the Army is Vincent Viola. Viola is a billionaire and a West Point graduate. Formerly an air borne ranger, Viola is in fact a military patriot as he helped fund the ‘counter-terrorism’ center.

Hat tip on this choice.

Upon continued deeper dives however on Rex Tillerson, there is an iceberg ahead on this as his Russian ties are even more robust than previously reported.

****

ExxonMobil helped defeat Russia sanctions bill

The company’s formidable lobbying operation cleared the way for outgoing CEO Rex Tillerson to help restore a program worth billions of dollars as secretary of state.

ExxonMobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would have made it harder for the next president to lift sanctions against Russia, clearing the way for the oil giant to restart a program worth billions of dollars if Donald Trump eases those restrictions as president.

The company’s effort could be helped by outgoing CEO Rex Tillerson, who, if confirmed as secretary of state, would be a key adviser on the decision.

The bill, known as the STAND for Ukraine Act, would have converted into law for five years President Barack Obama’s measures punishing Russia for annexing Crimea, making it more difficult for Trump to roll them back. The Senate left town on Monday without acting on the bill, making it easier for Trump to end the sanctions with a stroke of the pen.

The sanctions forced Exxon to step back from a drilling project in Russia’s Arctic, a loss that the company valued in a regulatory filing at as much as $1 billion. Exxon also lobbied the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against previous bills punishing Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, according to a person familiar with the company’s efforts on Capitol Hill.

Exxon’s intervention against the sanctions bill could add to concerns among senators — including Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio — that Tillerson is too chummy with Vladimir Putin. Exxon’s business partner in Russia is state-owned Rosneft, led by Igor Sechin, a close Putin ally who was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2014. Tillerson and Putin personally concluded the joint venture in 2011.

In a statement, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said the company “sought and provided information” about its activities in Russia and Ukraine and disclosed its lobbying as required. “Our contacts were reported per congressional requirements, but were mainly in the first half of 2014,” when the Russia sanctions were first imposed, he added. More detail here from Politico.

****

Yes there is more:

Leak reveals Rex Tillerson was director of Bahamas-based US-Russian oil firm

Documents from tax haven will raise more questions over suitability of Donald Trump’s pick for US secretary of state

Rex Tillerson, the businessman nominated by Donald Trump to be the next US secretary of state, was the long-time director of a US-Russian oil firm based in the tax haven of the Bahamas, leaked documents show.

 Mediaite

Tillerson – the chief executive of ExxonMobil – became a director of the oil company’s Russian subsidiary, Exxon Neftegas, in 1998. His name – RW Tillerson – appears next to other officers who are based at Houston, Texas; Moscow; and Sakhalin, in Russia’s far east.

The leaked 2001 document comes from the corporate registry in the Bahamas. It was one of 1.3m files given to the Germany newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung by an anonymous source. The registry is public but details of individual directors are typically incomplete or missing entirely.

Though there is nothing untoward about this directorship, it has not been reported before and is likely to raise fresh questions over Tillerson’s relationship with Russia ahead of a potentially stormy confirmation hearing by the US senate foreign relations committee. Exxon said on Sunday that Tillerson was no longer a director after becoming the company’s CEO in 2006.

ExxonMobil’s use of offshore regimes – while legal – may also jar with Trump’s avowal to put “America first”.

Tillerson’s critics say he is too close to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and that his appointment could raise potential conflicts of interest.

ExxonMobil is the world’s largest oil company and has for a long time been eyeing Russia’s vast oil and gas deposits. Tillerson currently has Exxon stock worth more than $200m.

Since his nomination, Tillerson’s Russia ties have become a source of bipartisan concern. In 2013, Putin awarded him the Russian Order of Friendship. Tillerson is close to Igor Sechin, the head of Russian state oil company Rosneft and the de facto second most powerful figure inside the Kremlin. A hardliner, Sechin is ex-KGB.

Tillerson’s award followed a 2011 deal between ExxonMobil and Rosneft to explore the Kara Sea, in Russia’s Arctic.

It was put on hold in 2014 after the Obama administration imposed wide-ranging sanctions against Russia. The sanctions were punishment for Putin’s Crimea annexation that spring and Russia’s undercover invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The ban covers the US sharing of sophisticated offshore and shale oil technology. Exxon was supposed to halt its drilling with Rosneft. The firm successfully pleaded with the US Treasury department to delay the ban by a few weeks, with the Kremlin threatening to seize its rig. In this brief window Exxon discovered a major Arctic field with some 750m barrels of new oil.

Tillerson has criticised the US government’s policy on Russia. In 2014 he told Exxon’s annual meeting that “we do not support sanctions”. He added: “We always encourage the people who are making those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage of who they are really harming.”

It is widely assumed by investors that the new Trump administration will drop sanctions. This would allow the Kara joint venture to resume, boosting Exxon’s share price and yielding potential profits in the tens of billions of dollars. According to company records, Tillerson currently owns $218m of stock. His Exxon pension is worth about $70m. The complete summary is here from the Guardian.

 

Due to Russian Aggression, U.S. Troops Being Deployed

Posted on by

The matter of Crimea is for the most part settle, it is part of Russia but such is not the case for Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland or Romania. Russia continues the hybrid warfare game there. The Pentagon has signed off on orders to deploy U.S. troops to the region in January.

Per an inquiry by NBC news, it appears intelligence officials have more information on Russian interference into the U.S. election cycle than is being reported.

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

There is in fact a clandestine spy and diplomatic network of relationships and collaboration of information. Such is likely the case as well when it comes to planned 2017 military and propaganda objectives of Russia in the region of Eastern Europe.

The U.S. Army told The Associated Press that the deployment was not accelerated and is taking place as had always been scheduled.

Hodges said the troops will arrive in the German port of Bremerhaven on Jan. 6 and will be immediately deployed to Poland, the Baltic states and Romania. Their transfer will be timed and treated as a test of “how fast the force can move from port to field,” he said.

“I’m confident in the very powerful signal, the message it will send (that) the United States, along with the rest of NATO, is committed to deterrence,” Hodges said.

He said the armored brigade has already moved out of its Colorado base and is loading on ships.

“I’m excited about what my country is doing and I’m excited about continuing to work with our ally, Poland,” Hodges said.

In a separate decision, the members of NATO at a July summit in Warsaw approved the deployment of four multinational battalions to Poland and the Baltic states to deter Russia. Germany will lead a multinational battalion in Lithuania, with similar battalions to be led by the United States in Poland, Britain in Estonia and Canada in Latvia.

Poland and the Baltic nations have been uneasy about increased Russian military operations in the region, especially after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, and have requested U.S. and NATO troops on their soil as a deterrent. The alliance and the U.S. insist the troop presence is not aimed against anyone, but Russia has threatened measures in response.   

Russia has sided with the Assad regime and Iran for several years and most recently has provided troops and bombing aircraft to take back Aleppo, Syria from the anti-Assad forces. The human atrocities and death toll in Aleppo and other parts of Syria can be described as none other than a modern day genocide while the West has sidelined itself. In recent talks for alleged evacuation of Syrians from Aleppo to Idlib, the United States was not invited to participate. Meanwhile, Islamic State maintains it’s own capital in Raqqa, Syria operates with impunity.

ISIS is currently manufacturing advanced weapons on an industrial scale and currently is in possession of surface to air missiles in the region of Palmyra, a historical site once liberated by anti-Assad forces.

It cannot be overlooked that a few months ago, Russia sold Iran S-300’s while the United States under Barack Obama and John Kerry infused the Iranian financial system with an estimated $1.7 billion.

The fall of Aleppo now puts Syria into the expanded hands of the Shiite Crescent of Iran which was fully accommodated by Russia. While Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has had a major military operation in Syria since 2014, it must be noted that the top most elite specialized unit of Iran known as the Saberin Unit will continue to operate in the Syria/Iraq region.

One cannot determine what President Trump will do to address the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia or Yemen if anything. As Trump has said he will re-do the Iran nuclear deal, such is already being challenged by Tehran which is setting up a wider base of military threats and hostilities.

President Trump would do well to attend the intelligence daily briefings as conditions do change in the region on a daily basis. Meanwhile, the Trump team has dispatched on Monday Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston to Moscow on the matter of lifting sanctions on Russia.

The Western sanctions that were imposed on Russia because of its armed intervention in Ukraine has become the top priority not only for the Kremlin but for foreign companies working in Moscow.

During the campaign, Trump indicated he would reconsider those sanctions and suggested he would get along fine with Russian President Vladimir Putin. More here.

In closing it should also be noted that diplomatic operations by Trump’s team are running parallel operations with existing Obama operations causing confusion and angst. It is apparent that due to Barack Obama’s disdain for the soon to be Trump administration, certain decisions and administrative international relations by the White House and the State Department are being applied before Obama transfers power and such is the case with the troops deployments in several regions of the globe including Afghanistan, Iraq and Eastern Europe.

Lastly, the Ukraine Defense Ministry was hit by a cyber attack by those pesky pro-Russian (old Soviets) forces.

 

 

Secretary of State Tillson: Kremlin Order of Friendship

Posted on by

In 1994, Boris Yeltsin ordered by decree an award known as the ‘Order of Friendship’. Yeltsin emerged to power under the perestroika movement and under his reign, he terminated the Russian Constitution, the Parliament and widespread corruption spread through his term due mostly on industries dealing with oil commodities.

In 1989, Yeltsin visited Texas to better understand the fossil fuel industry and return to his motherland to stop the country from falling into economic collapse yet failed. Crime, protests and prices of basic needs saw inflationary prices such that the Soviet Union soon fell.

With the country in chaos and corruption spreading Yeltsin forged a relationship with Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobile, the top candidate for Secretary of State in the new Trump administration. Yeltsin bestowed an award to Tillerson known as the ‘Order of Friendship’. Then came the deployment of the business partnerships.

Exxon’s landmark 2011 joint venture with Kremlin-controlled Rosneft calls for upwards of $500 billion in investment over the coming decades. The companies are planning an offshore drilling campaign in Russia’s frozen Chukchi Sea, Laptev Sea and Kara Sea, as well as the Black Sea. They’ll also be drilling onshore in western Siberia, where the Bazhenov and Achimov formations are thought to be many times bigger than the Bakken shale of North Dakota. In addition, Exxon and Rosneft are working to finalize designs for an LNG project in Russia’s far east.

As in any good bromance, they hang out in each others’ neighborhoods. To balance out the geographic breadth of the partnership, Rosneft has joined with Exxon to invest in 20 deepwater exploration blocks in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as onshore projects in Texas and Alberta, Canada. Exxon has also given Rosneft the option to acquire a 25% stake in the Port Thomson Unit, which is estimated to hold a quarter of the natural gas and condensate reserves on Alaska’s North Slope. Back in 2007, amid Putin’s moves to reassert state control over Russia’s energy industry, Exxon’s Sakhalin-1 JV with Gazprom was thought to be a target. But CEO Rex Tillerson made it clear back then that he wouldn’t be pushed around and that he expected Russia to abide by contracts. As the Financial Times reported at the time:

Mr Tillerson said Russia had moved past its phase of trying to regain control of resources. “They want foreign participation because they know there’s technology capability that they need access to and there’s know-how that they need access to.”

Future investment by Exxon would depend on that contract being honoured, he said. “As long as they say, ‘We don’t like that deal we signed back then, but we’ll honour it’, that doesn’t stand in the way of our investments – we can proceed.”

Although Exxon did eventually accede to Gazprom’s wishes that it, not Exxon, control the destination of gas from Sakhalin-1 (Exxon wanted to sell directly to China), what Exxon got in return for its flexibility was an even bigger deal with Rosneft — that big new LNG project being engineered now, which could end up costing $15 billion or more.

In signing agreements with Rosneft last June, Tillerson remarked, “Experience tells us that a good foundation is critical for success in the Arctic and elsewhere. ExxonMobil’s Sakhalin-1 project with Rosneft is an example where we have put this experience to work.”

Last summer Putin made it official; he awarded Tillerson Russia’s Order of Friendship. Friends, joined in their shared respect for just how hard it is to keep their oil and gas empires humming. Commiserating in the challenge of figuring out how to find growth when you’re already the biggest in the world.

Just as Putin is unlikely to give back Crimea, you can forget about a company as growth-hungry as Exxon willingly backing away from its Kremlin connections out of some perceived patriotic American duty. As Tillerson’s predecessor Lee Raymond famously said (quoted in Steve Coll’s book Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power): “I’m not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.” More here from Forbes.

The U.S. military is quite concerned about Russia’s aggression in the Artic as the Russians are using the oil exploration as a dual use mission, the other being espionage while it appears Tillerson and Putin have come to an accommodation on joint operations. Will this affect national security? Already has and includes China.

The U.S. intelligence focus is chiefly aimed at Russia’s military buildup in the far north under President Vladimir Putin. The country’s Northern Fleet is based above the Arctic Circle at Murmansk.

The Russian government announced plans in March 2014 to reopen 10 former Soviet-era military bases along the Arctic seaboard, including 14 airfields, that were closed after the end of the Cold War. A shipyard in northern Russia also is constructing four nuclear-powered submarines.

Alaska Gov. Bill Walker complained that the Pentagon is closing bases and shedding troops while Moscow has begun rebuilding a military force that was eviscerated after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“It’s the biggest buildup of the Russian military since the Cold War,” Walker told reporters during Obama’s visit to his state. “They’re reopening 10 bases and building four more, and they’re all in the Arctic, so here we are in the middle of the pond, feeling a little bit uncomfortable with the military drawdown.” More here from the LATimes.

In 2014: Russia’s state-run OAO Rosneft said a well drilled in the Kara Sea region of the Arctic Ocean with Exxon Mobil Corp. struck oil, showing the region has the potential to become one of the world’s most important crude-producing areas. The discovery sharpens the dispute between Russia and the U.S. over President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine. The well was drilled before the Oct. 10 deadline Exxon was granted by the U.S. government under sanctions barring American companies from working in Russia’s Arctic offshore. Rosneft and Exxon won’t be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold despite the find announced today. More here from Bloomberg.

Related reading: For Putin and Russia it is Articulus (Crisis)

In summary, going back to perestroika, perhaps Tillerson and Trump need to apply it beginning now. The implications going forward are huge and no one can predict the consequences due to all the moving parts. We do know the U.S. sanctions and those of Europe applied to the Russian oil company Rosneft have had some affect and should in part due to Crimea and Ukraine. The balance of the Baltic States stability remain in question due to the continued aggression by Russia in the region. Russia has sold off some ownership in Rosneft to raise capital, $11 billion worth of capital. It is most interesting Qatar is a financial player now in Rosneft. Qatar is the satellite Taliban headquarters and it was where the Taliban 5 were shipped to from Guantanamo Bay. A Qatari official said of the Gitmo detainees:

A Qatar official said the Taliban men, who have been granted Qatari residency permits, will not be treated like prisoners while in Doha and no U.S. officials will be involved in monitoring their movement while in the country.

“Under the deal they have to stay in Qatar for a year and then they will be allowed to travel outside the country… They can go back to Afghanistan if they want to,” the official said. More from Reuters in 2014.

It all got complicated real fast eh? Order of Friendship could take on a wider definition beginning in 2017 if Tillerson is confirmed as Secretary of State. What say you?

 

General Kelly Pegged to Head DHS

Posted on by

This is going to take another waiver…. I hope that early on in the Trump administration there will be a final act to list and designate drug cartels as terror organizations. Fair warning however, the economies of Latin American countries could financially collapse.

 FreeBeacon

It is also notable that General Kelly lost a son to the enemy known as the Taliban in 2010 in Afghanistan.

WaPo: Donald Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly to run the Department of Homeland Security, turning to a blunt-spoken border security hawk who clashed with the Obama administration over women in combat and plans to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to people familiar with the decision.

Kelly, who retired in February as chief of U.S. Southern Command, would inherit a massive and often troubled department responsible for overseeing perhaps the most controversial part of Trump’s agenda: his proposed crackdown on illegal immigration. DHS is the third-largest Cabinet department, with more than 240,000 employees who do everything from fight terrorism to protect the president and enforce immigration laws.

Kelly, 66, is a widely respected military officer who served for more than 40 years, and he is not expected to face difficulty winning Senate confirmation. Trump’s team was drawn to him because of his southwest border expertise, people familiar with the transition said. Like the president-elect Kelly has sounded the alarm about drugs, terrorism and other cross-border threats he seems as emanating from Mexico and Central and South America.

Yet Kelly’s nomination could raise questions about what critics see as Trump’s tendency to surround himself with too many military figures. Trump has also selected retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis for defense secretary and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn as national security adviser, while retired Army Gen. David Petraeus is under consideration for secretary of state.

Kelly, a Boston native, was chosen over an array of other candidates who also met with Trump after his surprise election victory last month. Those in contention included Frances Townsend, a top homeland security and counterterrorism official in the George W. Bush administration; Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Clarke and Kobach are vocal Trump backers, with Kobach being nationally known for his strong views on restricting illegal immigration. More here.

 MilitaryTimes

**** Why is General Kelly a stellar choice for the Department of Homeland Security? In 2015, in part his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee gives us a huge clue:

Last year, almost half a million migrants1 from Central America and Mexico—including over 50,000 unaccompanied children (UAC) and families—were apprehended on our border, many fleeing violence, poverty, and the spreading influence of criminal networks and gangs. Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson testified that the “UAC migration serves as a warning sign that the serious and longstanding challenges in Central America are worsening.”2 In my opinion, the relative ease with which human smugglers moved tens of thousands of people to our nation’s doorstep also serves as another warning sign: these smuggling routes are a potential vulnerability to our homeland. As I stated last year, terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States. Mr. Chairman, Members, addressing the root causes of insecurity and instability is not just in the region’s interests, but ours as well, which is why I support President Obama’s commitment to increase assistance to Central America.

These and other challenges underscore the enduring importance of U.S. Southern Command’s mission to protect our southern approaches. We do not and cannot do this mission alone. Our strong partnerships with the U.S. interagency—especially with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Departments of Treasury and State—are integral to our efforts to ensure the forward defense of the U.S. homeland. We are also fortunate to have strong, capable partners like Colombia, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, and Panama, regional

leaders and outstanding contributors to hemispheric and international security. Given our limited intelligence assets, interagency relationships and bilateral cooperation are critical to identifying and monitoring threats to U.S. national security and regional stability.

I am also troubled by the financial and operational overlap between criminal and terrorist networks in the region. Although the extent of criminal-terrorist cooperation is unclear, what is clear is that terrorists and militant organizations easily tap into the international illicit marketplace to underwrite their activities and obtain arms and funding to conduct operations.4 It’s easy to see why: illicit trafficking is estimated to be a $650 billion industry—larger than the GDP of all but 20 countries in the world—and less than 1 percent of global illicit financial flows is currently being seized or frozen.5 The terrorist group Lebanese Hezbollah—which has long viewed the region as a potential attack venue against Israeli or other Western targets—has supporters and sympathizers in Lebanese diaspora communities in Latin America, some of whom are involved in lucrative illicit activities like money laundering and trafficking in counterfeit goods and drugs. These clan-based criminal networks exploit corruption and lax law enforcement in places like the Tri-Border Area of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina and the Colon Free Trade Zone in Panama and generate revenue, an unknown amount of which is transferred to Lebanese Hezbollah. Unfortunately, our limited intelligence capabilities make it difficult to fully assess the amount of terrorist financing generated in Latin America, or understand the scope of possible criminal-terrorist collaboration. You can read his presentation and testimony here.

 

 

Is General Mattis on a Collision Course with Keith Ellison?

Posted on by

For Gen. Mattis as SecDef, Mission is Iran

Keith Ellison’s Life as NIAC Cheerleader

The would-be head of the DNC has a long, cozy history with the Tehran lobby

By Armin Rosen

July of 2009 was not the most obvious time to argue against sanctioning Iran. In June, the regime violently suppressed a widespread protest movement that emerged in response to the alleged rigging of the country’s presidential election. Mir Hossein Moussavi, who the regime had declared the election’s loser, was under house arrest, securing the belligerent Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office. Iran was also operating 3,800 uranium enrichment centrifuges and stonewalling international nuclear monitors, in violation of international law. As a result, even President Obama and members of his administration who favored dialogue were suggesting the need for more intensive U.S. sanctions against a country that leaders of both parties agreed posed a potential nuclear threat. 

But for Keith Ellison, then a freshman congressman from Minnesota, mid-2006 was an ideal time for the U.S. to try something radically different in its relations with Tehran. “I haven’t been persuaded that the best thing for us to do is to rush to crippling sanctions,” said Ellison during a July 22, 2009 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing covering recent developments in Iran. Although Ellison clarified he was “not in principle against sanctions,” he argued that Washington could not shape Iranian behavior without broader international cooperation: “We have sanctioned ourselves out of sanctions unilaterally,” Ellison said, years before many of the most restrictive U.S. measures had even been introduced.

Ellison also submitted an op/ed piece by Trita Parsi, the founder and president of what was then a little-known organization called the National Iranian American Council, and a strong proponent of closer U.S. ties with Iran, into the committee’s hearing record. (In a March 2011 speech at a NIAC event, Ellison thanks Trita Parsi for being “an indispensable partner” in helping to develop a 2009 bill that would have sanctioned individual human abusers in Iran while lifting U.S. restrictions on NGO work in the country, and refers to the NIAC founder as a “friend.”)

Ellison is now vying to be head of the Democratic National Committee, and his statements at the 2009 hearing are part of a larger pattern of taking views on Iran that put him in the minority of the party he hopes to lead. If Ellison does become DNC head, the Democrats will have elevated an outspoken proponent of a transformed U.S. policy towards Tehran who has taken a notably independent course, even in relation to other Democrats—including Obama, whose early outreach efforts were scuttled after the existence of Iran’s secret Fordow uranium enrichment facility was exposed in September of 2009. 

Ellison’s wariness of increased U.S. sanctions continued well beyond that point. During a March 2011 address at a National Iranian American Council event, Ellison voiced his support for the U.S. opening a diplomatic interest section or embassy in Tehran, something that the notably pro-engagement Obama has been careful not to publicly endorse. He also appeared to argue against sanctioning non-Iranian companies for doing business in Iran: “We have sanctioned Iran so much we have almost no levers to play on this,” said Ellison. “Now we’re at the point of sanctioning our economic partners who will then impose sanctions on them. Very sad, very not exactly a direct relationship.” 

In the same speech, Ellison cited the tear gas attacks against anti-regime Egyptian protesters as an example of when U.S. sanctions would be morally and strategically prudent. “You and I as Americans do not want any Egyptian who is fighting for civil or human rights to have to pick up a tear gas canister that says ‘made in America,’ said Ellison. “If that government’s going to oppress people they can’t do it with our participation. That’s a good reason for sanctions….” The Iranian nuclear program appeared to strike Ellison as a less deserving target.

It is unusual to hear even dovish Democrats talk about dramatically upgrading relations with a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States without exacting any changes in behavior from the country: As Ellison said in his NIAC talk, “When we put up an embassy or an interest section in another country, it’s not a gift to them… You’re not doing something for the other country by having someone to look after our interests there, and by withdrawing it, it’s not a punishment.” Along with the idiosyncratic Dennis Kucinich and Justin Amash, Ellison was one of only 11 members of Congress to vote against the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act in December of 2011, which expanded sanctions against Iran’s energy sector.

In August of 2013, NIAC lauded Ellison for being one of 20 members of the House of Representatives to “stand up to the war lobby” by opposing additional sanctions in a House vote that occurred three months before the start of serious, publicly acknowledged nuclear negotiations with Iran. In May of 2015, Ellison was one of only five Democratic members of Congress to vote against the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which submitted the July 2015 nuclear deal to a potential vote and compelled the White House to disclose documents relevant to the agreement to Congress. (A number of hawkish Republicans, including incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo, also voted against the bill, but because they felt its oversight mechanisms weren’t rigorous enough). 

Keith Ellison’s long-term relationship with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam may be in his past, while leading Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer continue to vouch for his present status as a “friend” of Israel—even despite his embrace of clerics who fund Hamas and his public positions against funding missile defense programs for the Jewish State. Yet if Ellison does become DNC chair, it would bring enthusiastic and often uncritical supporters of the U.S.-Iran relationship closer to the center of power of the Democratic Party. It would also create an unavoidable contrast with the incoming Republican president, who has stocked his administration with national security figures who are deeply skeptical of Tehran—thereby cementing the Iran Deal as a defining feature of America’s partisan divide. 

**** Keith Ellison seems void of this information or he conveniently ignores it. Does the DNC really want him as Chairman?

Declassified IDF Map Shows Hezbollah Installations Embedded in Civilian Areas

Tower: A map released Tuesday by the Israel Defense Forces shows the degree to which Hezbollah has embedded itself into the Lebanese civilian population. The map shows hundreds of military emplacements, including weapons depots, rocket launchers, and terror tunnels, that Hezbollah has constructed in preparation for its next war against Israel.

2016-12-06_idf_hezbollah_map

Hezbollah’s deliberate positioning of military infrastructure in Lebanese villages, a tactic that the IDF has called a “war crime,” is consistent with the Iran-backed terror organization’s history of exploiting civilians to launch wars against Israel.

It was reported in 2013 that Hezbollah was paying poor Shi’ite families in southern Lebanon to allow them to store weapons in their homes, effectively making them human shields.

An Israeli defense official told The New York Times in May 2015 that Hezbollah’s buildup in southern Lebanese villages meant that “civilians are living in a military compound….We will hit Hezbollah hard, while making every effort to limit civilian casualties as much as we can…[but] we do not intend to stand by helplessly in the face of rocket attacks.” A few days later, a newspaper linked to Hezbollah confirmed the Israeli assessment.

Hezbollah has “turned the Shiite villages…into essentially missile silos,” Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in July.

Noting the threat posed by Hezbollah’s extensive rocket arsenal and its placement among civilians, Geoff Corn, an international military law expert at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, observed earlier this year that the resulting devastation from a war with these conditions would “both legally and morally…lie solely at the feet of Hezbollah.”

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed unanimously to end the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, forbids countries from transferring weapons to the terror organization. However, Iran has continued to arm Hezbollah, and the Security Council has refused to act to enforce the resolution.

The IDF released a similar map two years ago showing that Hamas—also an Iranian client—had used a civilian neighborhood in Gaza to house its terrorist infrastructure.

**** There is more:

Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East, with thousands of short and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles capable of striking as far as Israel and southeast Europe.These weapon systems have become a central tool of Iranian power projection and anti-access/area-denial capabilities in the face of superior U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Council naval and air power in the Arabian Gulf region. While Iran has not yet tested or deployed a missile capable of striking the United States, it continues to hone longer-range missile technologies under the auspices of its space-launch program. In addition to increasing the quantity of its missile arsenal, Iran is investing in qualitative improvements to in its missile’s accuracy and lethality. Iran has also become a center for missile proliferation, supplying proxies such as Hezbollah and Syria’s al-Assad regime with a steady supply of missiles rockets, as well as local production capability. Furthermore, Iran is likely supplying Houthi rebel groups with short-range missiles in the ongoing conflict in Yemen.

Iranian Missiles