Category Archives: Energy Agenda

Tunisia, Revolution Then and Now and Again

Posted on by

The new normal is here and it suggests that protests, aggressions, hostilities and war is part of the every day future unless a multi-track cure is introduced.

In 2013, it was said ‘North Africa is the next frontier in the War on Terror’….

From a 2011 summary on the Arab Revolution:

A year ago, 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi was getting ready to sell fruits and vegetables in the rural town of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. Bouazizi was the breadwinner for his widowed mother and six siblings, but he didn’t have a permit to sell the goods. When the police asked Bouazizi to hand over his wooden cart, he refused and a policewoman allegedly slapped him. Angered after being publicly humiliated, Bouazizi marched in front of a government building and set himself on fire. His act of desperation resonated immediately with others in the town. Protests began that day in Sidi Bouzid, captured by cellphone cameras and shared on the Internet. Within days, protests started popping up across the country, calling upon President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his regime to step down. About a month later, he fled.

The revolution begins…

Predictions are important and are based on historical facts, current conditions, tracking people, policy, money and weapons. To see into the future, analysts must form dynamic summaries and then work to give credibility to them or alter them daily as new ground conditions dictate. Is there another Arab Spring, Summer or Fall coming? All clues and symptoms point to yes.

In part from Reuters, Africa:

“We exhausted all our options,” said Zied Salem, who graduated in mathematics nine years ago but made a living from smuggling until a government clampdown ended even that. “After the revolution we had a dream but now they stole our dream.” Salem warned Tunisia’s democratically-elected leaders that they risked suffering the same fate as autocrat Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, who fell in the 2011 revolution. “If they do not provide us jobs quickly, their lives will be darker. We will revolt and expel them like Ben Ali,” said Salem, who pitched his tent in front of the phosphate company’s office. Despair is not new. In late 2010, a young man burned himself to death in protest, setting off the revolution that swept Tunisia to democracy and the region into uprisings.

Between the Islamic State and al Qaeda in Tunisia

by Aaron Zelin

If al-Qaeda and IS operatives in Tunisia decide to challenge each other for local jihadist supremacy, the result could be more high-profile attacks that threaten the country’s summer tourist industry. Over the past month, there are increasing signs that The Islamic State (IS) intends to build a base and set up a new wilayah (province) in Tunisia in the near future named Wilayat Ifriqiya, a medieval name for the region of Tunisia (as well as northwest Libya and northeast Algeria). This would challenge al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghrib’s (AQIM) Tunisian branch Katibat ‘Uqba ibn Nafi’s (KUIN) monopoly on insurgency and terrorism since their campaign in Jebel Chambi began in December 2012, opening another front in the broader AQ-IS war. As a consequence, outbidding between these two adversaries could lead to an escalation in violence, with Bardo National Museum style attacks becoming more common.

THE ISLAMIC STATE SIGNALING IN TUNISIA

In mid-December last year, IS directed its first overt message to the Tunisian state and its people. Aboubaker el-Hakim (who went by Abu al-Muqatil in the video) claimed responsibility for the assassination of Tunisia’s secular leftist politicians in 2013 — “Yes, tyrants, we’re the ones who killed Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi” — thus confirming the Ennahda-led government’s suspicions that he was involved. Beyond calling for more violence and for Tunisians to remember its imprisoned brothers and sisters, he also called upon the Tunisian people to pledge bay’a to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to raise the banner of tawhid (pure monotheism) and to rip down the flags of Charles de Gaulle and Napoleon (alluding to the historically close relations between Tunisia and France). This was followed on April 7th by Abu Yahya al-Tunisi of IS’s Wilayat Tarabulus in Libya, who urged Tunisians to travel to Libya for training in order to establish and extend the writ of IS back at home. Only two days later, a new media account, Ajnad al-Khilafah bi-Ifriqiya (Soldiers of the Caliphate in Ifriqiya) Media Foundation, was created. While unofficial, it foreshadowed the targeting of Tunisia in much the same way the establishment of al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqa (The Indissoluble Link) Media foreshadowed the pledge of bay’a given by Boko Haram to IS in March 2015. Besides IS’s claim of responsibility for the Bardo National Museum attack (which the government actually believes KUIN was responsible for), Ajnad al-Khilafah bi-Ifriqiya Media announced IS’s first claim of responsibility for an insurgent attack in Jebel al-Meghila, near the town of Sbeitla. Additionally, Ajnad al-Khilafah bi-Ifriqiya Media claimed responsibility on April 22 for a separate attack in Jebel Salloum, in which one of its Algerian fighters was killed (signaling to Tunisians as well that other nationalities were within its ranks.) This was followed by IS official media disseminators, including Ajnad al-Khilafah bi-Ifriqiya Media, claiming responsibility for attacks in Tunisia on May 2, also in Jebel Salloum. This increasingly formalized approach suggests that the official announcement of a new wilayah may be imminent.

AL-QAEDA IN THE ISLAMIC MAGHRIB’S TUNISIAN GAMBIT

Although KUIN was first identified as a Tunisian cut-out for AQIM in December 2012 by then Tunisian Interior Minister Ali Larayedh, it was not until mid-January 2015 that the battalion publicly acknowledged the association. This pledge was reaffirmed by KUIN following the death of its leader Khalid Shaaib (Abu Sakhr Lukman) in late March and was an attempt to consolidate strength following false rumours that the KUIN might switch sides to IS. These rumors emanated in part from a statement by KUIN showing support for IS though there was no indication of bay’a. The need to distinguish between general support and a religiously-binding pledge of allegiance is vital — AQAP released a statement in support of IS in Iraq after the fall of Mosul last year. KUIN has also identified with Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia (AST) when announcing martyrs, highlighting how some of its fighters are former members. AST has become largely defunct however, with members either being arrested, going abroad to fight and train in Syria and Libya, or joining up with KUIN followings its designation by the Tunisian government as a terrorist organization in late August 2013. Since it first entered the public gaze, KUIN has remained obscure, maintaining a low-level insurgency with the Tunisian military for 2.5 years in Jebel Chambi. Members have also been arrested for attempted attacks in different cities of Tunisia as well as for weapons smuggling. More recently it has increased its online profile, at first through the Fajr al-Qayrawan Facebook and Twitter account and then Ifriqiya Media, a well-known non-partisan aggregator of online jihadi releases from all African-based jihadi organizations. Only this past weekend, KUIN created an official media outlet for itself called al-Fatih (the conqueror). Up until then, the main content it released showed pictures of its fighters, martyrs, training camps, graphics with quotes from the Qur’an and ghana’im (spoils of war) from its past operation in Hanchir Ettala.

WHAT NOW?

While KUIN has been involved in a low-level insurgency for 2.5 years, it has not altered the status quo in Tunisia. Therefore, if IS attempts a full-scale terrorist or insurgent campaign in Tunisia, pressure on KUIN could mount and an outbidding scenario of escalating violence could ensue. It could also put more pressure on the Tunisian state, which has up to now been able to maintain control against jihadis since the revolution. That said it is possible one or both organizations might attempt a large-scale attack that would gain a huge media audience, given the onset of tourist season. Moreover, in the aftermath of the Bardo National Museum attack, supporters of IS flipped the popular meme #IWillComeToTunisiaThisSummer in support of the Tunisian tourism industry on its head by showing off with bullets and weapons, intimating that they too would be coming to Tunisia this summer. Vigilance from both the state and the public, then, will be vital in maintaining order and diminishing the effects of violence.

California: Meet your Destiny, Outlook Grim

Posted on by

Finally, someone here has fully summarized the water and infrastructure, the farming and enterprise issues in the ‘now’ and immediate future. Survival matrix forecast…GRIM. The ‘green’ thing and the Delta smelt fish….are a protected agenda over humans thriving. Bring on the 3 minute showers, the dead lawns, cars that need washing and big fines for violations….$10,000? the Golden State is brown and broke. The Big Idea: California Is So Over by: Joel Kotkin

California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.
California has met the future, and it really doesn’t work. As the mounting panic surrounding the drought suggests, the Golden State, once renowned for meeting human and geographic challenges, is losing its ability to cope with crises. As a result, the great American land of opportunity is devolving into something that resembles feudalism, a society dominated by rich and poor, with little opportunity for upward mobility for the state’s middle- and working classes. The water situation reflects this breakdown in the starkest way. Everyone who follows California knew it was inevitable we would suffer a long-term drought. Most of the state—including the Bay Area as well as greater Los Angeles—is semi-arid, and could barely support more than a tiny fraction of its current population. California’s response to aridity has always been primarily an engineering one that followed the old Roman model of siphoning water from the high country to service cities and farms. But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant. Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream press are those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances. Not Meeting the Challenges. It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred, including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years. This, like the threat of earthquakes, is part of the price we pay to live in this most beautiful and usually temperate of states. The real issue is how to meet this challenge, and here the response has been slow and lacking in vision. Not all of this is to be blamed on the greens, who dominate the state politically. California agriculture, for example, was among the last in the nation to agree to monitoring of groundwater. Farmers have also been slow to adjust their crops toward less water-dependent varieties; they continue to plant alfalfa, cotton, and other crops that may be better grown in more water-rich areas. Many cities, too, have been slow to meet the challenge. Some long resisted metering of water use. Other places have been slow to encourage drought-resistant landscaping, which is already pretty de rigeur in more aridity-conscious desert cities like Tucson. This process may take time, but it is already showing value in places like Los Angeles where water agencies provide incentives. But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such as Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money. And there needs to be, at least for the short term, an end to dumping water into San Francisco Bay for the purpose of restoring a long-gone salmon run, or to the Delta, in order to save a bait-fish, the Delta smelt, which may already be close to extinct. This dumping of water has continued even as the state has faced a potentially crippling water shortage; nothing is too good for our fish, or to salve the hyper-heated consciousness of the environmental illuminati. The Political Equation The biggest reason California has been so slow, and uncharacteristically feckless, in meeting this existential challenge lies with psychology and ends with political power. The generation that built the sinews of modern California—most notably the late Governor Pat Brown Sr., the current governor’s father—sprang from the old progressive spirit which saw in infrastructure development a chance not only to create new wealth, but also provide opportunity to working- and middle-class Californians. Indeed, if you look at California’s greatest achievements as a society, the Pat Brown legacy stands at the core. The California Aqueduct turned vast stretches of the Central Valley into one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The freeway system, now in often shocking disrepair, allowed for the construction of mass suburbia that offered millions a quality of life never experienced by previous generations. At the same time the development of energy resources—California still boasts the nation’s third-largest oil production—helped create a huge industrial base that included aerospace, semiconductors, and a host of specialized industries, from logistics to garment manufacturing. In contrast, Jerry Brown has waged a kind of Oedipal struggle against his father’s legacy. Like many Californians, he recoiled against the sometimes haphazard and even ugly form of development that plowed through much of the state. Cutting off water is arguably the most effective way to stop all development, and promote Brown’s stated goal of eliminating suburban “sprawl.” It is typical that his first target for cutbacks this year has been the “lawns” of the middle–class suburbanite, a species for which he has shown little interest or tolerance. But it’s not just water that exemplifies the current “era of limits” psychology. Energy development has always been in green crosshairs and their harassment has all but succeeded in helping drive much of the oil and gas industry, including corporate headquarters, out of the state. Not building roads—arguably to be replaced by trains—has not exactly reduced traffic but given California the honor of having eight of the top 20 cities nationally with poor roads; the percentage of Los Angeles-area residents who take transit has, if anything, declined slightly since train-building began. All we are left with are impossible freeways, crumbling streets, and ever more difficulty doing anything that requires traveling. The Road to Feudalism These policies have had numerous impacts, like weakening California’s industrial sector, which cannot afford energy prices that can be twice as high as in competing states. Some of those who might have worked in the factories, warehouses, and farms of California now help swell the numbers of the welfare recipients, who remarkably make up one-third of the nation’s total. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, the percentage of people living in poverty in California was below the national average; California today, based on cost of living, has the highest poverty rate in the country. Of course, the rich and entitled, particularly in Silicon Valley have achieved unprecedented riches, but those middle-class Californians once served by Pat have largely been abandoned by his son. California, long a relative beacon of equality and opportunity, now has the fourth-highest rate of inequality in the country. For those who, like me, bought their first home over 30 years ago, high housing prices, exacerbated by regulation, are a personal piggybank. But it’s doubtful either of my daughters will ever be able to buy a house here. What about “green jobs”? California leads in total number of green jobs, simply by dint of size, but on a per-capita basis, a recent Brookings study notes, California is about average. In wind energy, in fact, California is not even in first place; that honor goes to, of all places, Texas, which boasts twice California’s level of production. Today even  The New York Times has described Governor Jerry Brown’s promise about creating a half-million green jobs as something of a “pipe dream.” Even surviving solar firms, busy in part to meet the state’s strict renewable mandates, acknowledge that they won’t be doing much of the manufacturing here, anyway. The Cost of Narcissism Ultimately this is a story of a state that has gotten tired, having lost its “animal spirits” for the policy equivalent of a vegan diet. Increasingly it’s all about how the elites in the state—who cluster along the expensive coastal areas—feel about themselves. Even Brown knows that his environmental agenda will do little, or nothing, to combat climate change, given the already minimal impact of the state on carbon emissions compared to escalating fossil fuel use in China, India and elsewhere. But the cosmopolitan former Jesuit gives more priority to his spiritual service to Gaia than the needs of his non-affluent constituents. But progressive narcissism is, as some conservatives assert, not the main problem. California greens are, to be sure, active, articulate, well-organized, and well-financed. What they lack is an effective counterpoint from the business class, who would be expected to challenge some of their policies. But the business leadership often seems to be more concerned with how to adjust the status quo to serve privileged large businesses, including some in agriculture, than boosting the overall economy. The greens, and their public-sector allies, can dominate not because they are so effective as that their potential opposition is weak, intimidated, and self-obsessed. What we are witnessing the breakdown of a once-expansive, open society into one dominated by a small group of plutocrats, largely in Silicon Valley, with an “amen” crew among the low-information donors of Hollywood, the public unions, the green lobby, and wealthy real estate developers favored by Brown’s pro-density policies. This coalition backs Brown and helps maintain the state’s essentially one-party system. No one is more adamant about reducing people’s carbon footprint than the jet set of Silicon Valley or the state’s planning elite, even if they choose not to live in a manner that they instruct all others. This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass. So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too.

 

Proof the Feds are Extorting

Posted on by

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.

In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”

FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.

Then there is ObamaCare or lack thereof:

ObamaCare extortion? Why Fla. Gov. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration

Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.

RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.

GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.

SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.

GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?

SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.

SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.

SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.

GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.

(Crosstalk)

SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….

SCOTT: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.

SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.

GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.

SCOTT: Nice talking to you, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right.

SCOTT: Have a great evening.

Obama/Kerry Omit Iran Violations

Posted on by

No single country is a more destabilizing force globally than Iran. Iran is a proven funder of terrorism, has militant armies deployed in several corners of the globe and is building a nuclear weapons program unfettered.

The Obama administration declared they will have full access to all military locations in Iran for inspections when that has never before been the case. Simply put, Iran lies and obstructs. All parties involved in the talks have the historical evidence on Iran’s program(s) while there is no real reason to be in the talks at all.

Per an SME that has tracked funding and transactions:

“Iran is the lead sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism throughout the world today. At the same time, President Obama and his administration are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Iran that would end current economic sanctions, allowing an estimated $50 billion to enter their economy. “These funds will be nearly impossible to keep out of the hands of terrorist groups. This administration must not strike a deal with Iran that allows them to contribute more financial resources to radical Islamic terrorists across the globe.”

Iran’s foreign minister Zarif declared that nothing was sacrosanct with regard to the deal, the sanctions or the timelines.

UN Report: Iran Trying To Buy Nuclear Technology Through Blacklisted Firms

ran is actively trying to buy nuclear technology through blacklisted companies, according to a confidential UN report that surfaced April 30.

The allegations were reported to the UN by Britain. If confirmed, they would violate UN sanctions and add to concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to any negotiated agreement to restrict sensitive nuclear work.

The report comes just weeks after world powers reached a framework deal with Iran on curbing its nuclear program.

Britain informed the UN sanctions panel on April 20 that it “is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company and Kalay Electric Company,” according to the report, which was shown to AFP and Reuters on April 30.

Both Iranian companies have been blacklisted because of their nuclear activities. The UN panel said it has not as yet investigated the allegations, which it received on April 21.

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the panel said in the report. Both TESA and KEC have been hit with international sanctions because they are believed to have ties with Iran’s nuclear program. In order to evade tight international trade sanctions, Iran typically uses businesses as fronts in order to procure needed materials on the sly.

Iran Steps Up Covert Action in Latin America

U.S., Latin American leaders meet to discuss threat
The Iranian government is significantly boosting its presence and resources in Latin America, posing a national security threat to the region, according to a group of U.S. and Latin American officials who met earlier this week in Florida to discuss Iran’s covert actions.While Iran has long had a foothold in the Western hemisphere, these officials warned that the Islamic Republic has invested significant resources into its Latin American operations in a bid to increase its sway in the region.

Iran’s growing influence in the region—and its effort to exert influence over governments there—has fostered pressing security concerns as the Iranians inch closer to the United States’ southern border, according to these U.S. officials and Latin American leaders, who met for several days this week at a summit organized by the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF).

“It is troubling in some of the briefings we get, particularly on the classified side, to see Iranian influence in Latin America,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview. “A lot of these [Latin American officials] share the concern.”

“It’s a security risk for all of us,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis was one of several members of Congress and 20 Latin American lawmakers from 14 different countries who met during the IAF summit, which began on Sunday and ran until Tuesday morning.

Iran is becoming increasingly open about its presence in Latin America and providing its officials with passports from Venezuela and other countries, giving them free rein to travel throughout South America.

Iran has forged close ties with countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, among others.

Luis Heber, a member of the Uruguayan senate, said that Iranian agents—who some suspect are members of the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—have been spotted in his country holding Venezuelan passports.

Officials have determined that there is “a clear penetration of Iran in our country,” Heber said during remarks Sunday before U.S. lawmakers and other Latin American officials.

“We’ve also seen Venezuelan passports in the hands of Iranians,” he revealed. “The penetration of Venezuela by Iran is clear. There is overwhelming information on this.”

Heber said Uruguayan officials have spotted at least 10 Iranians carrying Venezuelan passports.

They “can enter anywhere in Latin America because the passports are legal,” he explained.

Iran’s goal, in part, is to establish deep ties in these countries in order to influence their policies toward America, Israel, and other Western allies, officials said.

“The threat level has increased, it’s more open,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), vice-chair of the House’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

“The Iranian threat comes not from espionage as much, but from influencing the ideology of their host country,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “That’s what they’re aiming for and penetrating [these countries] so they have a presence in Latin America right at the foothold of the U.S.”

Iran establishes consulates in these countries and then uses them as a base to conduct espionage and other covert activities, Ros-Lehtinen said.

“How is it they have Iranian consulates in Latin America?” she asked. “It’s ridiculous to think all of sudden Latin Americans want to travel to Iran. They’re not using it to issue their visas. Something is happening that Iran is penetrating the Western Hemisphere and it’s not for cultural exchanges or approval of travel docs.”

“This makes no sense … other than espionage, subterfuge, and illicit activities,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

This activity has intensified of late, several officials said.

“There’s no question we’re seeing an uptick in Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), a House Foreign Affairs Committee member, said during a meeting with the Latin American leaders in attendance.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. administration, our administration, seems to be willing to turn a blind eye towards what’s happening,” he said.

“There have been instances where Iranian agents have crossed the U.S. border,” Salmon claimed, referring to past reports by members of Hezbollah being arrested attempting to cross the Mexican border.

Iran currently hosts at least 80 so-called cultural centers in the region and has doubled the number of embassies in the region since 2005.

Ros-Lehtinen warned that this activity has become “more pronounced and open” in the past few years.

“Now they’re in the open, above board, advertising and letting the world know, ‘We’re right in your front and back yard,’” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Globetrotters: Who Flew With Hillary’s Planes

Posted on by

Citizens United has filed yet more lawsuits against the U.S. State Department for being non-responsive on Freedom of Information Act requests to determine who rode with Hillary on her planes during her stint as Secretary of State. The passengers would add puzzle pieces giving clues to Foundation donations, lobbying efforts and backroom deals.

The Clintons are powerbrokers and they work with other domestic and foreign power leaders demonstrating more collusion.

Firm Co-Founded By Hillary’s Campaign Chair Lobbies For Russia’s Uranium One

Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.

Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.

And according to a disclosure filed April 20, Uranium One spent $20,000 lobbying the Senate and State Department on the same issue.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers Tony and John Podesta. Tony Podesta now heads the group while John Podesta, who has not worked for the family business for years but has been involved in plenty of other projects, leads Hillary Clinton toward a Democratic nomination.

Uranium One is significant because it fell under the corporate control of Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One effectively gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium in the U.S.

How all of that came to pass has fostered questions about how the Clintons operate their charity, the Clinton Foundation.

The Uranium One story starts in 2005 when Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra and several business partners came to own a small mining company called UrAsia Energy. Clinton flew with Giustra in September 2005 on a private jet to Kazakhstan. There, the mining tycoon negotiated with that nation’s mining agency, Kazataprom, for rights to three mines. After Clinton appeared publicly in support of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had just allegedly won an election with more than 90 percent of the vote, the mining deal was approved.

Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a pledge of $100 million more.

In 2007, UrAsia Energy, with its access to Kazakhstan’s lucrative mines, merged with South Africa’s Uranium One in a $3.5 billion deal. Giustra sold his stake in the company soon after, pocketing a tidy profit. But other investors and executives with close ties to Giustra maintained their interests and donated millions more to the Clinton group. As money was flowing to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, which came under the control of Hillary Clinton in January 2009, approved a series of transactions that allowed Russia’s Rosatom to buy up shares in Uranium One. By June 2009, Rosatom had a 51 percent stake in the company.

With that majority hold, the Russian energy company effectively gained control of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S.

Rosatom has since taken complete control of Uranium One. And while there is little risk that the metal being pulled out of U.S. soil poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, it does give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of a major source of energy amid cooling diplomatic relations.

Though Uranium One’s corporate progression has the appearance of pay-for-play, the Clintons and Giustra have denied doing anything wrong. In his capacity as Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta has gone on the offensive, dismissing the notion that the Clintons have done anything illegal or unethical as a conspiracy theory.

But as evidence of just how complex the Clinton Foundation’s activities are, the website Vox.com published an exhaustive list of 181 Clinton Foundation donors who also lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.

Uranium One is not on the list. Neither is Giustra. Nor is Ian Telfer, one of Giustra’s Canadian associates who is the former chairman of Uranium One. He donated $2.35 million through his Fernwood Foundation to the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation, which is set up as a partnership with Giustra.

After it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had not disclosed some of its foreign donations — such as Telfer’s — the organization announced it would be refiling some of its tax forms.