Category Archives: Whistleblower

Hat Tip Delta Force, Capture of Islamic State CW Expert

Posted on by

Update: He was captured last month: Sleiman Daoud al-Afari, Iraqi dictator’s chemical and biological arms specialist, captured by Delta Forces. He worked directly for Saddam Hussein.

(CNN) The U.S. military has conducted airstrikes against targets it believes are crucial to ISIS’ chemical weapons program based on information provided by a senior ISIS operative involved in chemical weapons, several U.S. officials told CNN.

The information he provided to interrogators has given the U.S. enough information to begin striking ISIS areas in Iraq associated with the group’s chemical weapons program. One U.S. official said the goal is to locate, target and carry out strikes that will result in the destruction of ISIS’s entire chemical weapons enterprise — mainly mustard agent ISIS produces itself.

It was not immediately clear if the U.S. was able to strike all of the necessary targets. Intelligence and surveillance of the targets had indicated in some Iraqi locations that civilians were present at prospective sites, officials told CNN.

While the goal is to end ISIS’ capability to manufacture and use mustard agent, the actual targets being struck include people, facilities and vehicles. The agent itself is made in relatively small quantities and has a fairly short shelf life, the U.S. government believes. Since the weekend, the U.S. has struck what it is calling “improvised weapons facilities” and other targets near Mosul, Iraq, but officials would not say if these were chemical weapons sites.

The operative was captured in one of the first missions of the so-called Expeditionary Targeting Forces. It is a group of some 200 Special Operations troops assembled in northern Iraq to gather intelligence and pursue ISIS operatives on the ground by either capturing or killing them in Iraq, and eventually in Syria. Carter recently acknowledged the ETF is “having an effect and operating.

U.S. Captures, Interrogates Top Islamic State Chemical Weapons Expert

Capture is among recent U.S. advances in ongoing effort to counter terror network

WSJ: WASHINGTON—The U.S. military captured one of Islamic State’s top chemical weapons experts in a recent raid—and has spent several weeks interrogating him about the terror network’s capabilities and planning, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The detainee, who wasn’t named by U.S. officials, is expected to be released to the Iraqi government at the end of this week, the officials said.

Iraqi military spokesmen declined to comment on his capture. A spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The capture was among recent U.S. advances in an ongoing, though uneven, effort to counter Islamic State, which has maintained a foothold in Iraq and Syria while also recently expanding into parts of Libya as well.

In one airstrike last week in Syria, Pentagon officials believe they killed Abu Umar al-Shishani, a top Islamic State commander known fairly widely by the nickname “Omar the Chechen.”

The chemical weapons expert was captured in recent raid the Pentagon acknowledged last week. However, officials at the time said they had captured a high-ranking operative, without providing further detail. His actual role in the organization was disclosed on Wednesday.

The move came as U.S. and Western officials have grown increasingly concerned about the terror network’s plans to use chemical weapons against enemies and in the U.S.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress last month that Islamic State already has used chemical weapons “numerous times” in Iraq and Syria, adding that “aspirationally, they would like to do more.”

It was at least the second time that the U.S. military was able to capture and interrogate a person with valuable intelligence about Islamic State’s operations. In May, U.S. special-operations forces conducted a raid in Syria that killed Abu Sayyaf, considered to be one of the group’s financial chiefs. His wife, Umm Sayyaf, was detained and interrogated by the U.S. military. The intelligence from that raid helped U.S. officials run numerous operations and crack down on the group’s access to money, officials have said.

*****

In part from ToI: The two Iraqi officials identified the man as Sleiman Daoud al-Afari, who worked for Saddam Hussein’s now-dissolved Military Industrialization Authority where he specialized in chemical and biological weapons. They said al-Afari, who is about 50 years old, heads the Islamic State group’s recently established branch for the research and development of chemical weapons.

He was captured in a raid near the northern Iraqi town of Tal Afar, the officials said. They would not give further details.

The officials, who both have first-hand knowledge of the individual and of the IS chemical program, spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to talk to the media. No confirmation was available from US officials.

Airstrikes are targeting laboratories and equipment, and further special forces raids targeting chemical weapons experts are planned, the intelligence officials said. They and the Western official also spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

IS has been making a determined effort to develop chemical weapons, Iraqi and American officials have said. The militant group, which emerged out of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is believed to have set up a special unit for chemical weapons research, made up of Iraqi scientists from the Saddam-era weapons program as well as foreign experts.

Iraqi officials expressed particular worry over the effort because IS militants gained so much room to operate and hide chemical laboratories after overrunning around a third of the country in the summer of 2014, territory which they then joined with territory they controlled in neighboring Syria. Full article here.

To Move the Gitmo Detainees Stateside, Change the Law

Posted on by

Cuba setting the early stage for Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba?

Reuters: Cuba said, in an editorial published Wednesday, it would welcome President Barack Obama to Havana later this month, but the Communist government had no intention of changing its policies in exchange for normal relations with the U.S. Nathan Frandino reports.

   Video including in this link.

They may be preparing to host U.S. President Obama in a new era of detente, but Cuba has a bristling message for its former Cold War foe. (SOUNDBITE) (Spanish) NEWS PRESENTER, RAUL ISIDRON, SAYING: “Working together does not mean that we have to renounce the ideas we believe in and which have brought us this far – our socialism, our history, our culture.” The editorial was issued by Cuba’s state-controlled media and comes 15 months after Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro agreed to end more than five decades of hostilities and try to normalize relations. But the editorial made clear, strong differences remain… chief among them the U.S. trade embargo, which congressional Republicans have refused to end, and U.S. support for dissidents on the island. Despite the tough words, ordinary Cubans say they’re hopeful that positive changes are on the way. (SOUNDBITE) (Spanish) ACCOUNTANT, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, SAYING: “This is the beginning, the beginning of a long deal, it is not all done now with a magic wand. We have a long road. We have to be conscious of that.” Obama’s visit on March 20 will be the first by a U.S. president since the 1959 revolution.

Lynch: No Gitmo transfers to US without change in law

TheHill: The Obama administration will not try to transfer detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States without a change in law, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday.

“The law currently prohibits a transfer to U.S. soil, and the president would have to work with Congress,” Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Congress would have to consider any relevant changes that could be made to the law before any transfers could be taken.”

The comments are perhaps the most explicit acknowledgment that the president’s goal of closing the detention facility will not be met while he is in office, given the overwhelming opposition in Congress.

The administration has repeatedly claimed it believes current prohibitions in defense policy law bar the Pentagon from bringing any of the 91 detainees at the camp to the U.S. But Wednesday’s comments, which follow the president’s unveiling of a general strategy for closing the facility last month, make clear that those restrictions will obstruct Obama from fulfilling his long-held promise to close the detention facility.

“The president’s policy indicates a desire to work with Congress to implement any necessary changes that would have to be taken before this could be taken,” Lynch said before the Senate panel on Wednesday. “I believe that is his plan.”

The White House proposal last month, which was demanded by Congress, would send 35 of the remaining Guantánamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to foreign countries.

Given this statement by U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, it is no surprise this report came out this week.

More former Gitmo detainees suspected of returning to battlefield

FNC: A dozen former detainees at Guantanamo Bay are suspected of returning to the battlefield on behalf of various militant groups, according to a report released by the Obama administration Monday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said that seven of the 144 detainees who have been freed since President Barack Obama took office in 2009 have been confirmed to have returned to fighting as of Jan. 15. The ODNI’s previous report, from this past July, said six detainees had gone back to battle.

The number of suspected recidivist detainees was double the number in this past July’s report. The increase is likely to spark new protests by Republicans opposed to President Obama’s plan to shut down the facility and transfer dozens of detainees to prisons in the U.S.

Under Obama’s plan, roughly 35 of the 91 current prisoners will be transferred to other countries in the coming months, leaving up to 60 detainees who are either facing trial by military commission or have been determined to be too dangerous to release but are not facing charges. Those detainees would be relocated to a U.S. facility.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said last month that Republicans are taking legal steps to stop Obama from closing the prison. Ryan told reporters that lawmakers have the votes to block Obama’s plan in Congress and enough votes to override any veto.

“These detainees cannot come to American soil,” Ryan said at the time.

The ODNI report does not specify where or for which groups the former detainees are confirmed or suspected to be fighting.

The report also found that 111 of 532 prisoners released by the George W. Bush administration had returned to the battlefield, while another 74 were suspected of doing so.

Should we be suspect of Barack Obama’s trip to Cuba this month?

The plane is full already:

NYT:  It wasn’t so long ago that a small congressional delegation’s trip to Cuba was a less-than-popular outing. But at least 20 lawmakers will accompany President Obama on his trip to Cuba this month, and many more asked for a seat aboard Air Force One. The group is bipartisan, demonstrating that some Republicans are coming around to the idea of ending a decades-old trade embargo, a policy Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba have pursued.

“We’re getting there,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has been an early and strong ally of Mr. Obama on the issue and is a sponsor of legislation that would end prohibitions on travel to Cuba. “If we put that bill on the floor tomorrow,” he said, “we’d have north of 60 votes.” Mr. Flake will travel with the White House contingent, as will Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

The thaw between the United States and Cuba has divided Republicans and become an issue in the race for the White House. Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, both Republicans, have been sharply critical of the trip as well as Mr. Obama’s use of executive authority to end some economic restrictions on Cuba.

 

 

Yikes, the IMF is Sounding the Alarm

Posted on by

Deja Vu? Imagine what a new president of the United States is about to inherit? Terrifying…

The IMF Is Sounding the Alarm. Is Anyone Listening?

WSJ: The International Monetary Fund is sounding louder and louder alarms about the state of the global economy. The problem is, few major economies seem to be hearing them.

“The IMF’s latest reading of the global economy shows once again a weakening baseline,” the fund’s No. 2 official, David Lipton, warned Tuesday in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics.

While the world economy is still expanding, he said, “we are clearly at a delicate juncture, where risk of economic derailment has grown.”

The IMF alerted finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 largest economies gathered in Shanghai late last month, signaling it would likely downgrade its outlook for the global economy in April.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said a coordinated effort was needed, urging governments with room in their budgets to ramp up spending and all countries to accelerate delivery of long-promised economic overhauls.

Unlike the G-20’s massive joint-stimulus effort in 2009 to combat the financial meltdown wreaking havoc across the globe, IMF members are at odds about the severity of the problem and how to fix it.

“We are strictly against announcing publicly that the G-20 is preparing a stimulus program,” German officials privately told other countries as the group drafted its joint communiqué.

The IMF fears such an attitude risks jeopardizing the global economic expansion.

Mr. Lipton, at his speech Tuesday, cited a World War II-era quote by Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Part of the problem is a growing concern that policy makers are running out of ammunition or have lost the resolve to deploy growth-reviving measures.

“For the sake of the global economy, it is imperative that advanced and developing countries dispel this dangerous notion by reviving the bold spirit of action and cooperation that characterized the early years of the recovery effort,” Mr. Lipton said.

The IMF calls come as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said leading indicators already suggest global growth will slow in the coming months. And the Bank for International Settlements cautioned against diminishing returns for central banks as they keep pushing easy-money policies to boost growth, including “great uncertainty” about navigating deeper into uncharted waters of negative interest rates.

There are few signs policy makers are shifting into higher gear. “There’s a great deal of economic uncertainty in the world, but there’s not a crisis and it would not be reasonable to expect a crisis response,” a senior U.S. Treasury official said during the recent meeting.

While the IMF is pushing the G-20 to boost spending, it is not a call to do so at the expense of monetary policy. The fund has long pushed the Federal Reserve to delay its planned rate increases and asked the European Central Bank to rev up its stimulus efforts.

Mr. Lipton worries premature withdrawal of central bank support could pitch the global economy into a deflationary death trap.

Then, “vicious and self-reinforcing dynamics” would plague the world in the form of higher real interest rates, falling output, building debt and higher unemployment, he said.  Such effects are “notoriously difficult to combat once they become entrenched.”

If recent history is any guide, the IMF may once again have to turn its downside scenario for the global economy into its baseline.

 
****
This was also the major topic at DAVOS in January.
Fear, Uncertainty Causing Market Chaos and Davos Isn’t Helping

The trouble with the World Economic Forum is that it has a propensity to become something of an echo chamber. Rather than promoting a plurality of different views, ideas and sentiments, the mood tends to get focused on a single, self-reinforcing consensus which is endlessly repeated and passed around, as if trending on social media. So it is with financial panics, which have an unnerving tendency to coincide with the annual conference in Davos. I’ve seen it happen on a number of occasions, most memorably in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when the sense of fear for the future among financiers and policymakers was palpable.

It happened again in early 2009, in the depths of the banking crisis, when an end-of-days mentality hung over the conference. Somehow or the other, Davos amplifies these panics rather than calming them. This year threatens to be little different. Nobody here knows quite what to make of the latest stock market sell-off, and that, indeed, is part of the problem, for uncertainty breeds fear of loss and can easily degenerate into a collective dash for the exit. The danger is that we talk ourselves into something a good deal more serious than it should be.

There is no particular trigger for the latest panic. Most of, if not all, the concerns that underlie it have been with us for some time now — the apparent incompetence of once omnipotent Chinese policymakers in the face of a slowing economy, the collapsing oil price and the growing sense of geo-political instability that accompanies it. As for the rise in American interest rates, that happened a month ago, and had been widely signalled by the Federal Reserve for more than a year beforehand. Yet it is only now that this slight tweak to monetary policy has transmogrified in the eyes of investors from a benign and well-flagged response to an accelerating US economy into a grievous policy mistake that threatens to destabilise the world economy.

So what are we dealing with here; a long-overdue adjustment to asset prices unduly inflated by years of central bank money-printing, or a signal of tough times ahead for the real economy? It’s not hard to make the case for financial Armageddon; certainly, there are plenty of people here only too willing to imagine the worst. Start with the plunging oil price, which ought to be positive for the big consumer economies of the West — given that it puts more money in people’s pockets for spending on other things.

One worry, though, is that it is already causing such a hiatus in oil industry investment that today’s glut will in short order turn to famine, causing the price to surge anew. Back in the late Nineties, the Economist ran a cover on why the oil price would remain at $5 a barrel “for ever”. But as everyone knows, nothing is for ever and little more than 10 years later, it had risen to nearly $150.

The same cycle is being repeated today, with investment cut to a level that, in the long term, will leave supply more than a third lower than present demand. Markets are now anticipating the cooling effect of these higher prices to come. Another worry is that the low oil price will end up bankrupting Saudi Arabia, causing further chaos in an unstable region. Isil taking control of some of the world’s biggest oil reserves scarcely bears thinking about.

Meanwhile, a strong dollar in combination with collapsing commodity prices is threatening a wave of corporate bankruptcies in a world awash with dollar debt. To this list of woes must be added continued worries over China’s transition from to a consumer-led economy. Since the financial crisis, China has been the key source of growth in an otherwise stagnant global economy, but now this progress seems to have stalled. Stories abound of extreme unhappiness within the notoriously secretive Chinese high command. There is even talk of attempted coups. These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but what is undeniable is that all these concerns play into a world of extreme flux. Investors may crave stability and predictability. But for now, these are in lamentably short supply.

Whistleblowers, Watch Your Back

Posted on by

This tells me it is official cover for Hillary. What are your thoughts?

U.S. Government Seeking New Top Secret Classification Czar

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration is seeking to hire a new information security director who will be responsible for overseeing the classification and declassification on all sensitive U.S. government information, according to a posting on the government’s jobs website.

The administration wants to fill the post of director in the National Archive’s Information Security Oversight Office. The previous director, John Fitzpatrick, left the job in January.

The director holds one of the most powerful and sensitive national security jobs in the U.S. government. The official has authority over many classification and declassification matters, meaning that he or she could potentially remove classification if it is deemed in violation of policies.

The post is not subject to confirmation by Congress.

The new director can make up to $185,000 a year.

***** Implications already realized?

 

Intel Whistle-Blowers Fear Government Won’t Protect Them

By

Bloomberg: Nearly three years after Edward Snowden bypassed the intelligence community’s own process for reporting wrongdoing and leaked troves of classified documents to Glenn Greenwald, the system for protecting whistle-blowers inside the national security state remains broken.

This is the view of current and former intelligence officials, national security lawyers and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Their message is simple: Whistle-blowers are often too intimidated to take their case to the inspectors general and Congress.

“There is a systemic problem with the whistle-blower process,” Representative Devin Nunes told me. “There is no easy way for them to come forward that doesn’t jeopardize their careers, across the whole defense and intelligence community enterprise.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in the past two years tried to address this problem, with mixed results at best. Dan Meyer, the executive director of the Intelligence Community’s Whistle-Blowing & Source Protection program, said in a statement that more whistle-blowers were coming forward in the last two years since the intelligence community began implementing a 2012 executive order from President Barack Obama that gave them additional protections. He said his office was also doing more, for example, to educate agencies on the new law and regulation.

Meyer conceded, however, there were holes in the process. “Protections are imperfect given their differences, the most notable being the lack of equivalent laws protecting intelligence community contractors from reprisal actions by the private companies employing them,” he said. He also acknowledged: “There will likely be some reluctance on the part of whistle-blowers to come forward. In our experience, this is understandably a very emotional event in someone’s career given what’s at stake.”

Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who has represented dozens of whistle-blowers over the last two decades, went further. “I have not seen any noticeable improvement in the ability of a national security whistle-blower to come forward and be confident they will be protected,” he told me.

Snowden himself has said that he went to the press because of the experience of whistle-blowers before him. Specifically, he has talked about Thomas Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Drake tried to warn his superiors and other oversight bodies of what he saw as a wasteful and illegal NSA program, known as “Trailblazer,” to collect personal data from digital networks.

For Drake, the system didn’t work. Out of frustration, he eventually leaked what he has says was unclassified information about the program to the Baltimore Sun. The Justice Department prosecuted him in 2010, but dropped his case the following year. His career was ruined.

A staff member on the House Intelligence Committee who took Drake seriously, Diane Rourke, soon found she too was under investigation. She told me that because of her interest in Drake’s complaints, and lobbying within the system on his behalf, the Justice Department and eventually her own committee put her under the microscope.

“They wanted to ruin our lives and make an example out of us to anyone else in the intelligence community,” she told me, even though she said she never took Drake’s complaints to the press.

Speaking anonymously, other U.S. intelligence officials told me analysts often face milder forms of intimidation if they are suspected of talking to Congress. This includes threats to suspend one’s security clearance, or being deliberately kept out of loop on important programs.

At issue is anonymity. The inspector general for the intelligence community is required by law to tell the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the identities of whistle-blowers that seek to speak with Congress. The DNI office has also bolstered its monitoring of intelligence professionals and their browsing habits on classified computer systems since the first mass disclosures by WikiLeaks in 2010.

Congress and others have adjusted. Nunes told me he has found creative ways for intelligence professionals to get him information. One was through an annual survey provided to intelligence analysts on the integrity of their product.

At a hearing last month Nunes disclosed that 40 percent of analysts at U.S. Central Command, or CentCom, who responded to the survey complained their reports on the Islamic State were skewed by higher-ups to make the U.S.-led campaign seem more effective than it really was. (The Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Glenn Fine, is also looking into these claims).

Nunes said analysts filled out extensive comments in response to the survey describing how their work was politicized, with the intention of getting them to the committee. Yet Nunes is still trying to get those in-depth comments from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

While some analysts at Central Command have gone directly to the inspector general at the Pentagon (who declined to comment for this column), Nunes said there were many more at CentCom who did not want to risk potential retribution and file a formal complaint.

Nunes also said intelligence officials who have helped his investigation into cost-padding for the construction of a new Joint Intelligence Analysis Center in Europe have been too intimidated to go through the formal whistle-blower process.

It’s understandable that lawmakers like Nunes would raise concerns about weak protections for whistle-blowers. His committee is supposed to perform oversight, even though his predecessors have not made this an issue.

But fixing the system is also in the interest of the national security state itself. In the last five years, the intelligence community has invested great resources to protect its secrets from the next mega-leaker. But if whistle-blowers inside the system see no recourse to address legitimate grievances, then the intelligence community should brace itself for more Snowdens.

IAEA Obstructed from Reporting Iran Violations

Posted on by

 Hey  you have a call holding on line 3.

IAEA: Iran Nuke Deal Limits Public Reporting on Possible Violations

Nuclear watchdog says deal limits agency oversight

FreeBeacon: The head of the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed Monday that certain agreements reached under the Iran nuclear deal limit inspectors from publicly reporting on potential violations by the Islamic Republic.

Yukiya Amano, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, which is responsible for ensuring Iran complies with the agreement, told reporters that his agency is no longer permitted to release details about Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the deal.

Amano’s remarks come on the heels of a February IAEA oversight report that omitted many details and figures related to Iran’s nuclear program. The report sparked questions from outside nuclear experts and accusations from critics that the IAEA was not being transparent with its findings.

Amano disclosed in response to questions from reporters that the last report was intentionally vague because the nuclear agreement prohibits the IAEA from publishing critical data about Iran’s program that had been disclosed by the agency in the past.

“The misunderstanding is that the basis of reporting is different,” Amano said. “In the previous reports, the bases were the previous [United Nations] Security Council Resolutions and Board of Governors. But now they are terminated. They are gone.”

Most U.N. measures pertaining to Iran—including its military buildup and illicit work on nuclear technology—were removed following the nuclear agreement, which essentially rewrote the organization’s overall approach to the country.

The IAEA, which operates under the U.N. umbrella, must now follow the new resolutions governing the implementation of the nuclear pact, Amano said.

“These two resolutions and the other resolutions of the Security Council and Board are very different,” he said. “And as the basis is different, the consequences are different.”

Amano said that going forward, the agency would only release reports that are consistent with the most recent Security Council resolutions on Iran, meaning that future reports are likely to impact the international community’s ability to determine if Iran is fully complying with its end of the agreement.

Last month’s report was viewed as particularly significant because it allowed the nuclear agreement to proceed to its implementation stage. However, the dearth of information in it has angered some experts.

The latest report “provides insufficient details on important verification and monitoring issues,” Olli Heinonen, the IAEA’s former deputy director general, stated in a policy brief.

“The report does not list inventories of nuclear materials and equipment or the status of key sites and facilities,” Heinonen said in his analysis, which was published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Without detailed reporting, the international community cannot be sure that Iran is upholding its commitments under the nuclear deal.”

The IAEA’s latest report also failed to disclose information about Iran’s stockpiles of low-enriched uranium, which is supposed to be significantly reduced as part of the nuclear deal.

Additional information about Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, the machines responsible for enriching uranium, also was withheld by the IAEA.

Other critics accused the Obama administration of misleading Congress during negotiations over the deal. White House officials maintained at the time that the agreement would provide increased transparency into Iran’s nuclear endeavors.

“When nuclear negotiations began in late 2013, the administration asked Congress to stand down on pressuring the Iranians, and promised to force the Iranians to dismantle significant parts of their nuclear program if Congress gave negotiators space,” Omri Ceren, an official with The Israel Project, which works with Congress on the Iran issue, wrote in an analysis sent to reporters on Monday.

“U.S. negotiators eventually caved on any demands that would have required the destruction of Iran’s uranium infrastructure, and instead went all-in on verification and transparency: Yes, the Iranians would get to keep what they’d built, and yes, their program would eventually be fully legal, but the international community would have full transparency into everything from uranium mining to centrifuge production to enriched stockpiles,” Ceren explained.

However, “now Amano has revealed that the nuclear deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight into Iran’s nuclear activities,” he said. “In critical areas, it’s not even clear that the IAEA has been granted the promised access.”

****

What else does Kerry know about Iran and their history?

Fresh evidence emerging of Iran’s deadly nuclear and terror ties to Argentina

Amb. Noriega: Last week, an Argentine intelligence official testified that Iran sought nuclear technology from that South American country and that a prosecutor investigating suspected Hezbollah bombings in Buenos Aires had been murdered for attempting to expose Tehran’s dangerous plot.

This fresh testimony supports reports I published in July 2011 regarding suspicious nuclear diplomacy in 2007 and a massive cash transfer in 2010 involving then Iranian and Argentine leaders, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nestor Kirchner, respectively. Despite congressional inquiries and mounting evidence, the State Department has chosen to ignore this blind spot in strategy for containing Iran’s illicit nuclear program.

According to the Argentine daily newspaper, Clarin, a former Argentine senior intelligence official, Antonio Stiuso, confirmed in two days of testimony before a judge that the former president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, interceded with Nestor Kirchner to resume nuclear cooperation with Iran, which had been suspended in 1991. Also, according to Stiuso’s testimony, Ahmadinejad was interested in using Argentina’s technology to produce plutonium bombs, which he characterized as more sophisticated than the ones Iran was trying to make with enriched uranium.

Stiuso noted that Venezuela did not possess the technical knowledge to make use of the nuclear technology sought by Chávez from Argentina. Instead, because Iran’s nuclear plans were designed by Argentines in the 1960s, Stiuso’s theory is that Tehran was the ultimate beneficiary of such nuclear cooperation.

 

Stiuso also testified that the former prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, was murdered for refusing an order from former president Cristina Kirchner to cease investigating Iran’s role in the 1992 and 1994 bombings and its corrupt dealings with Argentine officials. In a draft criminal complaint discovered after the prosecutor was found dead last year in an apparently staged suicide, Nisman accused Cristina Kirchner of covering up the involvement of five Iranians who have been charged with planning the 1994 terrorist attack against the Jewish Community Center in the heart of Argentina’s capital city.

In a separate development, last Thursday, Nisman’s family disclosed a written statement by a prosecutor from Argentina’s federal appeals court saying that scientific tests failed to find evidence that he fired the pistol found near his body. This is the first formal statement by a government official confirming suspicions that Nisman was the victim of a homicide.

From the US side, the Obama State Department has systematically neglected the dangerous liaisons among Venezuela, Argentina, and Iran. As dramatic evidence of Iran’s deadly provocations in our own neighborhood continues to come to light, it is fair to ask whether its cluelessness was by accident or design. … Much more here.