Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Get ready for a nuclear Iran

Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council’s ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran’s progress.

In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran’s access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.

The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.

Speculating about regime change stopping Iran’s nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution’s iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.

We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.

There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being "on the table." That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran-thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

President Obama’s likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.

Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran’s nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union’s. Iran’s theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn’t stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.

We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel’s and America’s security interests, and also those of the Arab states.

Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.

 

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

 

Arsenal of roguery

Sixty years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced to the nation in one of his famous "fireside chats" that America must be "the great arsenal of democracy."  It was a visionary and, at the time, controversial declaration that a nation dead-set against becoming entangled in the war then-consuming Europe must nonetheless help arm democratic nations fighting for their survival.  This initiative proved critical to Britain’s defense in the run-up to Pearl Harbor, at which point the United States became decisively not just the Free World’s armory, but its savior.

Today, we find another country putting its formidable military-industrial complex in the service of others around the globe. The arsenal is Russia’s, the recipients are virtually without exception the world’s most dangerous enemies of freedom.  This practice is making a mockery of President Obama’s much-touted "reset" of relations with the Kremlin – including, notably, the new, bilateral START Treaty.  It also increases exponentially the dangers associated with his policy of "engaging" rogue states, a practice that is simply affording them time to buy ever-more-advanced and -deadly weapons from Moscow.

Consider just a few examples of the Arsenal for Roguery at work, and its implications for our security, and that of what’s left of the Free World:

  • Even as the President continues to claim that the Russians are willing to be more helpful in getting tougher UN sanctions on Iran, the Kremlin is allowing the nuclear reactor it previously sold Tehran to be brought on line.  It is pledging to complete the transfer of advanced S-300 air defense systems, which will greatly complicate – if not effectively preclude — aerial attacks by the Israelis or U.S. forces aimed at destroying that facility and others associated with the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
  • Russia is also selling the S-300 to Syria. This is important because the Syrians have justly been put on notice by Israel that they would be subjected to retaliatory strikes in the event Russian-designed (and perhaps -supplied?) Scud missiles transferred recently by Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon are used against the Jewish state.  Such Russian protection may embolden Syria to believe that it can unleash with impunity death and destruction on Israel (perhaps by using Scud-delivered biological or chemical weapons) via its terrorist proxies – and Iran’s.
  • The Russians have also been marketing to international customers a family of deadly sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles with air-, surface- and submarine-launched variants.  These Brahmos rocket/ramjet missiles were jointly developed with the Indians and can fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound.  The proliferation of such missiles constitutes a serious threat to American naval and other vessels given the difficulties of defending against a weapon with these flight characteristics.

 

  • Then, there is the up-to-$5 billion in arms sales that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin claims to have concluded with our hemisphere’s most dangerous dictator, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.  What exactly is on offer is unclear.  But the purchase reportedly includes T-72 tanks and S-300 missiles.  This comes on top of Chavez’s earlier acquisitions of 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles, helicopters, fighter jets and submarines. Evidently, a Russian nuclear reactor is also being promised.

But, not to worry.  According to the Associated Press, Putin declared during his most recent sales visit to Caracas earlier this month: "Our objective is to make the world more democratic, make it balanced and multi-polar.  The cooperation between Russia and Venezuela in this context has special importance."  Feel better?

If any further evidence were needed that the Russians are enabling through their arms sales a grave new threat to American interests and those of other freedom-loving peoples, there’s this:  The London Sunday Telegraph reported on the April 25th that Moscow was marketing a new "Club-K container missile system."  For just $10 million, one can acquire a launcher and four sea- or land-attack cruise missiles concealed in what otherwise appears to be a standard shipping container.

The newspaper reports that "Iran and Venezuela have already shown an interest in the Club-K…which could allow them to carry out pre-emptive strikes from behind an enemy’s missile defences."

As President Obama is fond of saying, let me be clear:  Vladimir Putin’s Russia – yes, he still runs the place – is cynically exploiting the U.S. administration’s fecklessness in blindly pursuing improved relations.  So far, this has gotten Moscow, among other things: the cancelation of a near-term deployment of U.S. missile defenses in Europe; American acquiescence to increasing Russian aggressiveness in reestablishing a sphere of influence in the "near-abroad"; and no objection to the Kremlin’s acquisition of a French amphibious assault ship well-suited for that purpose.

Worse yet, Russia has pledged it will abrogate the START accord should the United States improve "qualitatively or quantitatively" the sorts of missile defenses Moscow’s arms sales to rogue states (and perhaps others) are making ever-more-necessary.

History will show that the metastasizing danger of the Russian arsenal for roguery’s world-wide operations has been greatly compounded – if not fundamentally enabled – by the assiduous application of the Obama Doctrine:  "Embolden our enemies.  Undermine our allies. Diminish our country."  If the latter doctrine is not swiftly corrected, and the former not effectively thwarted, America and the rest of the Free World may soon find themselves confronting threats even greater than those at large when first we rose to the challenge of being the indispensable arsenal for democracy.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program "Secure Freedom Radio" heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 on WTNT 570 AM.

Experts warn of escalating Chavez threat

Latin America experts are warning about the growing threat from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, citing new evidence of Chavez’s expanding ties with Iran and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

The Venezuelan president also has demonstrated his willingness to buy elections throughout the hemisphere to empower enemies of the United States, several experts said in presentations Thursday during a conference that the Center for Security Policy sponsored on Capitol Hill.

“Today, Venezuela airports are being freely used by drug cartels to export drugs to Europe and the United States,” said Luis Fleischman, senior adviser for the center’s Menges Hemispheric Security Project. “Chavez has helped the FARC fight against Colombia, [while] Hezbollah cells have increased their fund-raising and other activities in the area.”

What’s more, Fleischman said, “Young Venezuelans are being trained in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon . . . and Venezuela has reportedly produced uranium for Iran.”

Because of the close ties between Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “there is a real possibility” that Chavez could get a nuclear weapon from Iran after Iran acquires that capability itself, he said.

Obama’s “friendly interaction” with Chavez at last year’s Summit of the Americas has only emboldened the Venezuelan strongman in thinking that the United States will do nothing to oppose his regime or his anti-American activities, Fleischman said.

Also hammering that point was Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who blasted the Obama administration for helping to bring back to power a communist dictator in Honduras and for empowering a return of Sandinista thugs to Nicaragua.

The Cuba-born Floridian also warned of the “growing Iranian influence throughout the hemisphere.”

“The flights that take place all the time between Tehran and Caracas should be a worry to anyone who cares deeply about our national security,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Norman Bailey, a senior Latin America intelligence analyst whom National Intelligence Director Admiral Mike McConnell fired for warning about the Chavez threat, said Tehran-to-Caracas flights by Iran Air and the Venezuelan national carrier “are permanently full,” although ordinary citizens are not allowed to use them.

“The people on those flights don’t go through customs,” he said. “But the cargo area is always full.”

He alleged that Iranian-built factories in Venezuela are being used for nefarious purposes.

“The tractor factory doesn’t make tractors, and the cement factory doesn’t make cement,” Bailey said. “The tractor factory makes weapons, and the cement factory is used for the export of cocaine.”

Bailey believes that Iran has cultivated Chavez in part “to make it possible for Iran to retaliate against the United States in the event Iran is attacked by Israel or the U.S.”

Iranian experts have mined Venezuela’s main port and refineries, and have trained Venezuelan state oil workers to trigger the bombs in the event of a conflict, Bailey said.

“For all practical purposes, Venezuela is on a war footing,” he said.

He also noted the ability of drug traffickers tied to Venezuela to weld special compartments onto the outside of ships to carry drugs to Europe.

“They could just as easily put cylinders of high explosives on those ships instead of drugs, and blow them up in the Panama Canal,” he said.

Chavez’s strategy was to build allies in the United States by offering low-cost heating oil to lower-income Americans through Joseph Kennedy Jr. and his Citizens Energy nonprofit, in the hopes that security-conscious voices would be drowned out.

“My favorite Chavez quote is, ‘I will put my enemy to sleep, so that one day he will wake up dead,’” said Jon Perdue, Latin American programs director at the Fund for American Studies.

The Venezuelan-funded Telesur network sent a reporter and cameraman to the conference, and attempted to take over the meeting by making long speeches and challenging the evidence the experts cited about the ties between Chavez and the FARC guerillas.

At one point, former Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich accused the Telesur reporters of “harassment,” and threatened to call the sergeant at arms to get them tossed out of the House meeting room.

“You are not reporters,” he said. “You are probably in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, because you work for a foreign government.”

Reich called Chavez the “head of the snake” of a revolutionary movement aimed at subverting his neighbors. “The brain is in Havana, but the head of the snake is in Caracas,” he said.

Several years ago, the Colombian armed forces seized a computer during a raid on a FARC compound that included documents detailing the financial ties between Chavez to the FARC.

Since then, Chavez has sought the overthrow of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who has spearheaded the crackdown on the FARC.

Tensions between the two presidents flared during a “Unity Summit" near Cancun, Mexico, in February, when Chavez shouted that Uribe should “go to hell.”

Reich said the evidence of Venezuela’s support for the FARC and other terrorist groups is so overwhelming that the United States “should declare Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. The evidence is there. The Defense Department has it. The Congress has it. The political will is missing.”

The United States should revoke the visas of Chavez’s business partners, the “Bolivarian billionaires . . . who own homes in the United States and travel back and forth and who are the ones who carry those bags of money to the Daniel Ortega’s” and other Chavez political allies in the region, Reich said.

“This is a subversion of democracy under our noses and the United States is saying nothing,” he said.

The third measure Reich advocated is to end U.S. dependence on Venezuelan oil.

“People say we can’t do this. Of course we can do this. We import 6 percent of our consumption from Venezuela.” But two years ago, with rising oil prices, “we reduced our consumption by 8 percent . . . Of course we can replace Venezuela.”

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, blasted the State Department for what he described as its “malign neglect” of Chavez’s misdeeds, and warned of the peril if the United States doesn’t take action.

“We don’t have the luxury of ignoring this,” he said. “We will be hurt badly by it . . . We have enemy armies now operating from safe havens in our hemisphere that we know have the capacity to bring weapons of mass destruction” into the United States. “So the cost of waiting could be high.”

 

Originally posted at Newsmax

The perils of peripheral warfare: Iran & Venezuela share the tactics of asymmetric war

When Epifanio Flores Quispe, the mayor of Requena, Peru received an invitation recently to visit Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, he wondered to himself what had made him so important. Requena is a very small city in the Upper Amazon region of Peru (population 25,000), near a tri-border area with Colombia and Brazil. Although Flores Quispe refused the invitation, he said that he knew other mayors in the region that had accepted.

Requena is just downriver from Leticia, Colombia and Tabatinga, Brazil, two port cities that are the gateways to enter the remote corners of both countries. Analysts in the region speculate that Chávez is searching for friends on the border with Colombia because he considers Colombian President Alvaro Uribe an enemy and a threat.

Peruvian President Alan Garcia actually won the 2006 presidential race against the Chavez-backed candidate, Ollanta Humala, by aggressively denouncing Chavez’s meddling in Peruvian politics and by properly portraying his opponent as a Chavez proxy. Prior to the election, Chavez had been infiltrating parts of Peru by opening "ALBA houses" – supposed medical centers for the poor that also serve as propaganda mills and recruiting centers for budding left wing revolutionaries. [1]

A more recent incident in the Amazon town of Bagua, Peru ended in a blood bath last June, when members and supporters of a far-left "indigenous rights" group slit the throats of police officers that had been sent to end the group’s roadblock that had closed the city’s only highway for over a month. Leaders of the group AIDESEP (Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest), had ties to Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, and had previously traveled to Caracas to participate in a meeting of radical indigenous groups. [2]

This method of utilizing proxies and perimeter footholds has also been the modus operandi of Iran in its arms-length war with Israel. Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, he has consolidated power in Iran by utilizing the Basij militia to suppress opposition while embedding the Revolutionary Guard Corps in positions within the government and the bureaucracies. This was part of the basis for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent comments that Iran is "becoming a military dictatorship." [3]

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran decided not to develop a conventional force structure, but to focus instead on missile capacity to harass its neighbors and naval capacity to be able to cause problems in the Persian Gulf. More importantly, Iran has invested heavily in supplying and training its international subversive forces via Hezbollah.

Similarly, after narrowly surviving a coup in 2002, Chávez first purged his military of any soldiers that appeared supportive of the coup, and soon after began to indoctrinate his military in "asymmetric warfare." At the "1st Military Forum on Fourth Generation War and Asymmetric War" in 2004, Chavez instructed his soldiers to change their tactical thinking from a conventional style to a "people’s war," which glorified the tactics used by revolutionary Islamists. [4]

Chávez then had a special edition of La Guerra Periferica y Islam Revolucionaria (Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetric Warfare by Jorge Verstrynge) printed in Spanish and distributed to the Venezuelan Army to replace the U.S. Army training manual.

Verstrynge’s book idolizes Islamic terrorism, calling it, "the ultimate and preferred method of asymmetric warfare because it involves fighters willing to sacrifice their lives to kill the enemy." [5] The manual also contains instructions for making and deploying a "dirty bomb." Verstrynge, a Spanish socialist, is now a hired consultant to Chavez’s army, whose members must also now recite the Cuban-style pledge "Fatherland, Socialism or Death." [6]

"Peripheral Warfare" strategy was recently tested by Iran in its proxy war with Israel, when two of its surrogate forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, utilized specialized missile crews to bomb Israeli civilians, as well as to cause a distraction while it fired upon Israeli border patrols in 2006 to start the Israel-Hezbollah War. Even prior to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran was perfecting the use of peripheral warfare by supplying and training Shiite groups in Iraq. [7]

Iran also used this strategy against Egypt when it built up a presence just south of its border with Sudan in order to support terrorist operations against President Hosni Mubarak’s government, and it supported subversive groups in Yemen that could threaten Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.

In April of 2009, Egypt arrested members of a Hezbollah cell consisting of Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians that were smuggling arms to Hamas. The charges were verified by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. [8] A few weeks later, Egypt arrested four agents from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that had been sent to Egypt to set up an intelligence network. [9] Egypt, a long time foe of Iran, has to contend with its own potential insurgency via the Muslim Brotherhood, which has close ties with Hamas.

The major difference between Iran’s use of peripheral warfare in the Middle East and Venezuela’s is that the latter can much more easily find allies in the region willing to overtly offer support. Whereas Iran must maintain some semblance of plausible deniability in its subversive activities, the correspondingly lesser scrutiny and import given to Latin America allows Chavez to openly tout his "Bolivarian Socialism" throughout the region. 

Aside from the use of "ALBA houses," peripheral warfare conducted by Hugo Chávez has included setting up the "Venezuela Information Office" in Washington, DC, and hiring PR firms to improve his image in the U.S. [10] One of the propaganda tools that has emerged is the notorious campaign with Joseph Kennedy to supply cheap heating oil to down-and-out New Englanders who enjoy a standard of living only dreamed about by poor Venezuelans who suffer constant electricity and food shortages on top of a newly devalued currency.

The exclusivity of Chavez’s access to oil has also allowed him to subvert corrupt politicians in the region, as well as to offer a sanctions-busting 20,000 barrel a week deal to Iran. But it is the "benign neglect" policy of the United States toward Venezuela that may also end up enticing Chavez to overstep.

Although Chavez has been implicated in supporting terrorists in the region, he has managed to avoid being declared a state sponsor of terror because of his perceived relative unimportance when compared to Iran and Al Qaeda, and because of the possible disruption in oil markets that could occur. However, the closer Iran gets to a deployable nuclear weapon, any assistance from Chavez will edge ever so closer to a sanctions trigger.

 

Jon Perdue is a founder of the Latin America Research Group and serves as the Director of Latin America Programs for the Fund for American Studies

 

 

Notes

1. Pleno del Congreso amplía plazo para investigar a las llamadas Casas de Alba, September 4, 2008, ANDINA Agencia Peruana de Noticias.

2. Chavez’s War On Free Trade In Peru, Investors Business Daily, June 10, 2009.

3. Clinton: Iran Is Becoming a Military Dictatorship, Associated Press, February 15, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/15/clinton-iran-military-dictatorship/

3. Suspicions link Chavez to Peru revolt, Kelly Hearn, The Washington Times, Monday, June 8, 2009

4. Latin America’s New Security Reality: Irregular Asymmetric Conflict and Hugo Chávez, Max G. Manwaring, August 2007, published by Strategic Studies Institute, pp. 23-24.

5. "Jorge Verstrynge: The Guru of Bolivarian Asymmetric Warfare," Joe Sweeny, http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509091152

6. Chávez Seeks Tighter Grip on Military, New York Times, May 29, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/world/americas/30venez.html

7. Egypt-Hezbollah standoff dents Egypt-Iran relations by Amr Emam, April 13, 2009, Xinhua, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180887.htm

8. Israel praises Egypt for counter-terror ops – Security forces in Sinai reportedly seize weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, ‘destined for Gaza’, Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=142414

9. Friends of Hugo: Venezuela’s Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters, John J. Miller, National Review, December 27, 2004.

10. Iran: Ready to Defy, Human Events, by Robert Maginnis September 29, 2009.

A lesson from South Dakota

South Dakota is the latest state to have adopted terror-free investment policies that target companies doing business with Iran. It joins some 18 other states and the District of Columbia. Observers say these states can teach the UN Security Council a thing or two when it comes to punishing Iran. The South Dakota law will force its state controlled pension fund to divest itself from companies doing business in Iran.

The bill’s original sponsor is Republican State Representative Dan Lederman who says the bill will affect nine million dollars of stocks owned by the state pension fund. Those equities will be divested over the next fifteen months. Hardest hit companies include Royal Dutch Shell and Total S.A. Lederman says "if Iran loses these partners the financial impact would be massive."

While Shell would not comment on the new South Dakota law, it announced Wednesday in a publicly released letter to the group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) that it’s ending all gasoline sales to Iran. United Against Nuclear Iran welcomed the news and its President Ambassador Mark Wallace said more is still needed, and that "Shell must end its hydrocarbon development business in Iran."

David Williams, Shell’s spokesman, told Fox News that if a new international agreement can be agreed upon concerning "additional trade sanctions against Iran, we will of course comply as we would in the case of any country." The French multi-national, Total S.A. did not respond to Fox News questions.

Christopher Holton is the director of the Center for Security Policy’s Divest Terror Initiative, the group credited with bringing the disinvestment campaign to the state level. Holton says companies such as Siemens, Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have either chosen to end or wind down operations in Iran, "at least partly as a result of the divestment initiatives."

Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a group that lobbies against disinvestment campaign’s told Fox News in a written statement, that "public pension fund divestment is a clumsy and ineffective tool." Reinsch says his organization doesn’t support governments that engage in "objectionable behavior"; however, he does not believe that "state or local government action that may harm retired firefighters, teachers and police officers and is highly unlikely to achieve its intended purpose is a wise policy choice."

As a former Under-Secretary during the Clinton Administration, Reinsch says "foreign policy sanctions laws by states conflict with the constitution’s assignment of primacy in foreign affairs to the President."

Holton disagrees with Reinsch’s assertions and says that "billions of dollars of state pension system money has exited shares of companies that do business in, or with Iran since this initiative started back in 2005."

Right now there are three other states with similar bills to that of South Dakota; Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. While the other two are gaining traction, Holton says he is particularly frustrated with the effort in Mississippi where one state representative, Johnny Stringer has refused to even give the bill a hearing. A request for comment to Stringer’s office was not returned.

South Dakota representative Dan Lederman wants more states to join his effort and says that divestment "only works on a macro-economic scale." he explains, "the more dollars we divest the bigger impact we will have on these companies helping Iran’s leaders." Lederman believes this sort of legislation sends a strong message to the Iranians and "lets it be known that Americans are not interested in their tax dollars going toward investments in companies which partner with our enemies who arm, train and sponsor the terrorists that our troops are locked in combat against every day."

Mike Rounds, South Dakota’s republican governor , who supported the bill from early on is scheduled to sign the bill into law on March 29th.

As for any imminent UN Security Council action, that appears far off according to Fox News’ UN producer, Jonathan Wachtel. He says that’s because Iran’s major trading partner China continues to stymie efforts by the US and allies to punish the Islamic Republic. In addition, Lebanon, under increasing Iranian-Hezbollah political pressure, takes over the Presidency of the Security Council in May, and is expected to resist any efforts to put pressure on Tehran. Wachtel says a "resolution is weeks away at best."

The permanent campaign: How politics can help America’s reputation in the world

Testimony of J Michael Waller, PhD. Vice President for Information Operations, Center for Security Policy

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight

March 4, 2010

 

Introduction

Chairman Carnahan, Congressman Rohrabacher and other members of the panel, I appreciate Chairman Berman’s invitation to testify to you today about how public opinion of the US abroad can be leveraged to promote national security. Given the general consensus out there about the problems, I will try to discuss practical, actionable solutions. My testimony will address four themes that Chairman Berman asked me to discuss:

  1. How public opinion of the US abroad can be leveraged to promote national security;
  2. How strategic communications can be used to enhance our strategic global influence;
  3. Challenges in America’s public diplomacy apparatus; and
  4. Practical steps to improve interagency coordination and effectiveness.

To begin, I would like to ask anybody who has run for public office to stop and think, “Would I run my political campaign the way the United States government runs its strategic communication?”

Next, it would be effective to ask, “What does my campaign committee do in my district or state that our nation should do in the world at large?”

By taking the principles and techniques of the permanent political campaign that form the circulatory system of American democracy, and adapting those principles and techniques to serve the national interest as instruments of American global power, we can get a better idea of how we as a nation should orient our strategic global influence efforts.

This proposal might be heresy from a classical diplomatic perspective, or even from the viewpoint of a public diplomacy professional. But it is crucial for the United States to prevail in the global political battlespace.

 

How public opinion of the US abroad can be leveraged to promote national security

Influencing public opinion abroad is the most effective, adaptable, cost-effective and humane means of leveraging tax dollars to promote national security. We don’t need to use threats or force, intimidation or coercion, or reduce ourselves to self-defeating bluster when our other tools fail.

We have soft power, the policies of attraction that Professor Nye has so elegantly crystallized: long-term, positive, appealing aspects of American culture and society that aren’t necessarily calibrated to promote a particular policy or initiative, but are always working for us in the background. Then we have the evolution of that idea to “smart power,” as Professor Nye and his colleagues have done.

I would take that approach a bit further still, adding a hard edge to soft power when attraction fails, but giving our nation extra tools to use instead of military force. This edge takes two forms. The first is political action – the same type of political action that other countries use against us when they hire lobbyists, fund grass-roots front organizations, and channel money through political action committees and similar organizations. If other countries can use the American system to apply pressure on Members of Congress and the executive branch – and even further their agendas by helping elect or defeat candidates and incumbents – then is the United States not compelled to do the same around the world to promote its own interests?  So we need a political action instrument of US national security policy to influence public opinion and decisionmaking in other countries.

And when softer, more genteel persuasive methods and political actions fail, will need another instrument of statecraft: political warfare. Political warfare differs from political action in that it is inherently aggressive, usually very negative and unpleasant, yet it stays within the confines of civilized political conflict and can avoid the need to use military force. We like to think that our intelligence agencies are adequately equipped, staffed and authorized to wage political warfare in the dark shadows of black operations around the world, but this is wishful thinking. We need to include political warfare as a means of influencing public opinion and the policies of leaders around the world to promote our national security. By doing this, we can avoid the perceived need to resort to economic sanctions and military force that needlessly harm human life.

Here’s an example. The United States is close to exhausting its non-military options to prevent Iran from building a nuclear missile. It has failed completely to deter or prevent Iran from killing hundreds of American and allied servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan by supplying IEDs and EFPs to insurgents. It is wringing its hands about what next steps to take, and whether our inaction will force Israel to act on its own and perhaps cause a wider conflict in the region. We seem to have run out of options short of attacking Iran.

By taking a strategic global influence approach, however, we automatically have more options. First, there is Iranian public opinion – which is overwhelmingly against the regime. Second, there is world population in countries that matter; not only our military allies, but countries like Brazil, where we are being rebuffed in large part because we lack a strategy to influence public opinion in that country. Third, there is the leadership of Iran, which cares obsessively about its image. We don’t even know whom to target, obsessing over President Ahmadinejad when in fact he does not control the things that concern us most: the Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, support for the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our people, the ballistic missile program or the nuclear warhead program.

The proper target is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni. Khameni likes to portray himself as a modest, humble, honest leader, the arbiter of morality in his country. In reality he is the corrupt ruler of a corrupt regime, amassing a personal fortune estimated at $30 billion. If we target his corruption, the corruption of his family, and the corruption of his inner circle, we can tear away his moral legitimacy and cripple his decisionmaking. We can help fuel Iranian public opinion against him – at a time when the people have started to turn against their once-sacrosanct Supreme Leader. What we need is an intelligence collection effort to document the corruption of the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Khameni and the Revolutionary Guard in particular, and to disseminate that information, accurately and truthfully, to the Iranian people and to the world. That simple effort alone would go a long way toward helping the Green Revolution, promoting regime change, and avoiding a regional war.

 

How strategic communication can be used to enhance our strategic global influence

Addressing “strategic global influence” is an extremely important point that Chairman Berman raised in his invitation, because many communicators in the US government shy away from the term “strategic influence.”

One of the difficulties the US has had with strategic influence is that it has been subject to the approval of, or even under the control of, public affairs. And public affairs practitioners generally shun the role of influencer. It hasn’t been part of their training and, though things are changing, is not usually part of the public affairs ethos.

Strategic communication is worthless without influence as the objective. The Department of Defense definition of strategic communication is instructive here: “Focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.”

This is an excellent definition. And it doesn’t necessarily require expensive, cumbersome, time-consuming bureaucratic changes in our government. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, summed it up best last summer, when he said this about strategic communication:

“Frankly, I don’t care for the term. We get too hung up on that word, strategic. . . the lines between strategic, operational, and tactical are blurred beyond distinction. . . . By organizing to it-creating whole structures around it-we have allowed strategic communication to become a thing instead of a process, an abstract thought instead of a way of thinking.”

Strategic communication isn’t a thing. It’s a state of mind. If our diplomats, public diplomats and other message-makers thought as strategic communicators – as strategic influencers – we would go a long way toward solving the problem.

For the short-term, the problem is as simple as that to solve: Change the mindset among our public servants to make them aware that everything they say or do, and everything they don’t say or don’t do, sends a message. And that in this time of instantaneous communication where the smallest act can have strategic consequences, everything we say or do, or don’t say or don’t do, can have strategic effects for better or for worse.

 

Challenges in America’s public diplomacy apparatus

America’s public diplomacy apparatus is slow, cumbersome, reactive, under-resourced, and lacking in strategic vision and depth. Perhaps the greatest challenge in the apparatus is the absence of long-term, global strategic planning – a problem endemic in the entire State Department.

Since 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified problem areas in the nation’s strategic communications system, and of the four non-intelligence agencies specified – State Department, Broadcasting Board of Governors, US Agency for International Development, and Department of Defense – only DoD has responded positively and comprehensively.

The State Department remains antiquated in structure, staffing and process. It lacks an internal strategic planning center. Even so, it remains at the lead of the nation’s strategic communications efforts. While this is proper in many ways, State has yet to ask Congress for the necessary resources and authority. State has also failed to reform itself as called for by the GAO.

Public diplomacy and public affairs need to be put in their proper places, subservient to – and not superior to – strategic communication. Their collective mission must be similar to the mission of the armed forces: to project American power and influence and provide a permanent system through which to ensure the national interest globally. The mission must not be communication for communication’s sake, or simply to make the United States a player in the “global marketplace of ideas.” The mission must be to dominate that market. It must be to fight to win. It must be run strategically, like a permanent political campaign. To do so, it must be run not only by diplomats and public affairs pros, but by real strategists and practitioners in the art of political action.

Why, after all these years, do bipartisan majorities in Congress and mainstream public diplomacy advocates insist that the State Department be the nexus of the nation’s strategic communication effort? The George W. Bush Administration hobbled itself from the beginning by re-wiring the federal government’s tangled public diplomacy circuitry, and routing virtually all international communications efforts-including military psychological operations and information operations-through the office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Yet for 40 percent of the time since 9/11, the post of under secretary has stood vacant. And when the position was filled, did it really matter? Even though that post is filled today, the Obama administration has basically maintained the general approach of the Bush administration when it comes to strategic communication. This must change. People who can run hugely successful political campaigns at home are ideally suited to design a permanent global campaign for US interests worldwide.

 

Public diplomacy and political warfare

Imagine, then, if our brilliant political campaign strategists put their visionary, calculating, often deviously cynical genius to work to promote the national interest globally. What would they do for a strategic global influence effort? First, they would map the world country by country and take an inventory of existing friends, allies, neutrals, opponents and enemies. Then they would map the world by transnational issues, as one would with trans-state or trans-regional issues at home: ethnic, racial, linguistic, cultural, religious, business, labor, women, family, generational, environmental, and so forth. They could constantly conduct polls, surveys, in-depth interviews and focus groups, dialoguing with every imaginable slice of society in every place of importance, to discern and monitor people’s perceptions, moods, aspirations, fears and ideas. This would be followed by a strategic message for each and a constellation of surrogate spokespersons, both overt and covert; and the political ground troops of activists, donors, protesters, letter-writers, and arm-twisters. Like a good political campaign, the leaders would frame the issues and entrust the activists and precinct walkers to tailor the messages on their own, and to empower third-party surrogates and sympathizers.

By running strategic communication and its elements-public diplomacy, public affairs, international broadcasting, information operations, psychological operations and the like-in the same fashion as a perpetual global campaign on behalf of American strategic interests worldwide, the United States would be permanently conducting the “engagement” that so many advocate but so few actually practice. Like the permanent campaign of the American presidency and Congress, cadres of seasoned strategists and operatives would spend their time building alliances and keeping them-or at least maintaining a grassroots presence in reserve to be deployed as circumstances require them. But, unlike the permanent campaign, a real strategic influence capability for the United States as a whole would not be driven by domestic political issues. Much like standard diplomacy, or military or intelligence capabilities, the strategic influence capacity of the U.S. would be subject to domestic politics, but driven by trained professional civil servants and not partisan activists.

 

Practical steps to improve interagency coordination and effectiveness

The US can take several practical steps to improve interagency coordination and effectiveness. First, the effort needs an independent leader. It would be instructive to look at how the Reagan Administration coordinated an ideological warfare campaign to counter Soviet international propaganda or “active measures” in the 1980s. The US Information Agency (USIA) still existed at the time, and did a magnificent job. But the inter-agency effort was based from the White House, with an Active Measures Working Group run by the National Security Council staff under the personal direction of the White House Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff’s role helped give greater power to the NSC staff to bring the other agencies together and coordinate an effective global campaign across the entire government. The Obama Administration should adapt that model in support of the current war efforts and of strategic global communication in general. It can do so without need of legislation.

Second, the State Department should study what the Defense Department is doing in the area of strategic communication. DoD is doing an amazing thing. It is sending warfighters into battle as strategic influencers. Our military people know that the actions of each soldier or Marine can have strategic consequences. The military is stressing dialogue, engagement, and trust-building with the local people in various areas of operations. We can see the fruits of that approach in the course of the current offensive against the Taliban in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

The military has also flattened the decisionmaking process to allow lower-ranking officers to make strategic communications decisions that previously required the approval of generals and civilian leaders in the Pentagon. This new approach has made for better warfighters, and has reduced the need for our military to kill people as it has enhanced our ability to persuade and build trust.

State should also streamline its message-making processes, flatten them so that lower-ranking diplomats can take more initiative, be rewarded for taking well-considered risks and not be penalized for making mistakes.

I concur with nearly all of the GAO’s findings and recommendations of the past seven years. In addition, I’d like to provide some practical near-term and long-term steps to improve interagency coordination and effectiveness.

  1. First, all policymakers, diplomats and warfighters should know inherently that they are strategic influencers. They must all be aware, as part of their professional ethos, that everything they say and don’t do, and don’t say and don’t do, can have strategic consequences.
  2. Encourage the White House to establish an interagency group run out of the NSC and chaired by the White House chief of Staff to coordinate global strategic communication among government agencies and with non-governmental organizations.
  3. Abolish obsolete Cold War legislation, such as the line in the Smith-Mundt Act that bars the State Department from certain message-making in the United States. That provision was driven by a suspicion that the State Department was infiltrated by Soviet agents, and to prevent the State Department from spreading Communist propaganda to the American people. Let’s throw that antiquated law out the window and free up our public diplomats and strategic communicators.
  4. Create a new international strategic communications agency, somewhat along the lines of the hugely successful United States Information Agency. This agency, or a parallel organization, should have a political warfare component outside the intelligence community that can be used when soft power isn’t enough and military force is too much.
  5. Order a total overhaul of the State Department and how America communicates with the world. Congress should impose a Goldwater-Nickles type set of reforms on the State Department, just as it did on the Department of Defense. The post-9/11 congressional mandates on the intelligence community, such as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, are also good models to drive reform in the State Department.
  6. Support the new House Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus. This new group will provide an important congressional constituency to discuss problems, provide solutions and drive the changes our nation needs to improve its strategic global influence.

 

 

J Michael Waller is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school of national security and international affairs in Washington, DC. He is also Vice President for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy.

Dr Waller holds a PhD in international security affairs from Boston University. He is a strategic communications instructor for the US Army as a member of the faculty of the Leader Development Education for a Sustained Peace (LDESP) program of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He first took part in public diplomacy activity as a high school student in the 1970s, and later developed and participated in public diplomacy activities under the US Information Agency and as a member of the State Department Speakers Bureau. He has worked with the State Department and the Department of Defense since the 9/11 attacks in various public diplomacy and strategic influence initiatives.

He is author of Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War (Institute of World Politics Press, 2007), editor of The Public Diplomacy Reader (Institute of World Politics Press, 2008), and Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda and Political Warfare (Institute of World Politics Press, 2008).

 

 

CAIR and the Foreign Agents Registration Act

Introduction

This analysis is a work-in-progress and we will continue to update it.  We include it here in order to provide our best effort to date in assessing whether the Council on American Islamic Relations should be registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

We argue that CAIR qualifies under FARA as a foreign agent because it has taken cash, loans, pledges of donations and real property from foreign principals; has held numerous meetings, conducted correspondence and received direction from foreign principals; and in return has sought to influence domestic and foreign policy through political activities and public information activities directed at elected officials, government employees, law enforcement employees at all levels of government, the media, businesses large and small, civil society organizations, and individuals.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with CAIR’s political activities is irrelevant as to whether or not CAIR should be registered as a foreign agent under FARA.  CAIR’s activities fit all definitions of a foreign agent under FARA.

(Download a PDF copy of CAIR and the Foreign Agents Registration Act here: 03-22-10_v1.0 [PDF 501KB])

Documentation

A variety of documents were used in this analysis.  The case as presented here is fully referenced with public domain sources.  Other passages have been redacted because they are based on documents that are involved in pending litigation and cannot be revealed to the public at this time.

CAIR Prior Claims Concerning Receipt of Monies from Foreign Donors

CAIR’s public statements about receiving foreign funds have changed over time from flat denials to carefully-worded admissions. They are useful as a comparison to the actual facts and as a comparison to the wording in the FARA law.  According to FARA 611 (b) a foreign principal is defined as “a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party… a person outside of the United States… a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country…”

In a press release issued after 9-11, CAIR officials flatly asserted: “We do not support directly or indirectly or receive support from any overseas group or government.”

In 2008, in response to an appeal of a dismissed lawsuit by radio host Michael Savage, CAIR issued a statement saying “CAIR is proud to receive support of every individual, as long as they are not an official of any foreign government and there are no strings attached to the bequest.”

In January 2009, in a public statement made by CAIR in response to a decision in the Michael Savage lawsuit, they stated: “There is nothing criminal or immoral about accepting donations from foreign nationals…The U.S. government, corporations and non-profit organizations routinely receive money from foreign nationals.”  This statement was meant to counter allegations of impropriety at CAIR’s receiving $500,000 from Saudi billionaire Prince Al-Walid Bin Talal.  “Bin Talal is not a member of the Saudi Arabian government,” CAIR added. “He is a private entrepreneur and international investor.”

At their current (February 2010) website, in a document titled “Dispelling Rumors about CAIR”, they state: “CAIR’s operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims.  While the majority of CAIR’s financial support comes from American Muslims, CAIR is proud to receive the support of every individual–whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or of another faith background–who supports the organization’s mission of promoting justice and mutual understanding. This willingness to accept support from foreign nationals exists as long as there are no ‘strings’ attached to the bequest.”

Whether CAIR is willing to accept these funds (and conduct political and public information activities to support the interests and goals of their donors) is not the point as far as FARA is concerned; the question is whether that acceptance requires them to register as a foreign agent.  As to the equivocal phrase “as long as there are no ‘strings’ attached to the bequest,” the Department of Justice established in the Holy Land Foundation trial that CAIR was created as an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine.  As a Muslim Brotherhood affiliated organization, CAIR’s actual mission is in alignment with the political agendas of its foreign funders.  CAIR is a willing foreign agent in these transactions, and certainly not some kind of unwilling contractor compelled by “strings” of obligations they would not otherwise undertake.

CAIR and Shrinking Member Support

CAIR has been consistent in its statements that “American Muslims” provide the bulk of its support.  In order to understand the importance of CAIR’s receipt of foreign funding, it is necessary to understand their lack of support from member dues.

CAIR has consistently claimed apparently inflated membership numbers in their 15 years of existence. For example, a document released January 19, 2007 claimed that CAIR had “some 50,000 members.” The facts of CAIR’s shrinking support were presented on June 11, 2007, when Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times published an article based on tax documents showing that CAIR’s membership had dropped from a high of 29,000 in 2000 to a mere 1,700 in 2006.  And we know from their 2004, 2005 and 2006 IRS 990 tax forms that their reported membership revenue fell from $119,029 in 2004 to $41,383 in 2006.

Even more disturbing, as CAIR’s membership dues from their Muslim American supporters have fallen drastically, their reported total revenue has increased. Not that membership dues were ever a significant part of their support – between 2004 and 2006, Muslim American membership dues fell from an already tiny 5% of CAIR’s total revenue, to a miniscule 1%.

And that falling support from Muslim American members was reported before 2007 – that is, before CAIR had been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, before CAIR had been sued in 2008 by Muslim, African-American and Hispanic families for fraud in a case now on appeal, and before CAIR had ties severed by the FBI, as announced in 2009. So it’s possible the support has fallen even more in the last three years, perhaps well below 1%.

Member pledges of support at CAIR annual fundraisers – another legitimate means of gathering Muslim American funding – has not been profitable for CAIR.  For example, CAIR’s three most recent publicly available IRS 990 tax returns show a large net loss of $107,216 in “special events revenue” for “annual dinner” in 2004, a similar loss of $59,494 in 2005, and incomplete information for 2006.

Furthermore, according to the 2009 event registration form and printed programs from 2006, 2008 and 2009, a significant source of donations for these events comes from foreign donors including foreign embassies and governments.

Non-Profit Status Not An Exemption

The Council on American Relations is a network of related non-profit corporations, including 501c4 and 501c3 corporations, as well as the for-profit corporations Greater Washington LLC of Delaware and the Zahara Corporation.  The fact that this network of corporations includes non-profit corporations should not qualify as an exemption under the FARA statute, which only allows for an exemption under 613(e): “Any person engaging or agreeing to engage only in activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts.”

Because the CAIR network of corporations are engaged in public education on political policy issues, political advocacy and lobbying activities, they do not qualify under any of those categories.  Furthermore, other non-profit corporations have set a precedent by complying with FARA registration requirements.  In a cross-search of both the FARA online database of active registrants for the years 2005-2009, and the Guidestar.org online database of non-profit organizations, we found that the following organizations are both FARA registrants and non-profit corporations (See documentation here):

  • Business Council for International Understanding, Inc. (BCIU) (501c3)
  • Hong Kong Trade Development Council Inc (501c6)
  • International Relief Fund Inc. (DBA International Forum Institute in Jacksonville, FL) ( 501c3)
  • Korea-United States Exchange Council (501c3)
  • Korea Economic Institute of America (501c6)
  • World Zionist Organization – American Section (501c3)

A more comprehensive search that includes earlier years may find additional organizations that were both FARA active registrants, and non-profit corporations.

Lobbying Under Lobbying Disclosure Act Not an Exemption

The CAIR network of corporations is not registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, in whole or in part, based on our online searches for all variants of the corporate name.  Therefore they are not exempt under the Lobbying Disclosure Act provision in 613 (h) of the FARA statute.

Summary of Contributions, Income, Money or Things of Value

The FARA foreign agent registry is organized by country categories, whether the actual foreign principals are persons, organizations, businesses, political parties or sovereign governments.

CAIR has been a foreign agent for various entities based in four foreign countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Iran.  (They also received a donation from the Holy Land Foundation, based in the U.S. but convicted of funding foreign terrorist groups – we include that because of the foreign association and the donation).

A Prefatory Note on the OIC Special Case: CAIR received at least $325,000 from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a special case in terms of FARA categories.  For purposes of FARA categories, we suggest treating the OIC-CAIR relationship as a Saudi Arabian-based organization, since the OIC Headquarters office is based in that country.  But the OIC is more importantly an international organization of 57 Islamic states, and we suggest that their political leadership reflects common goals of the four states funding CAIR directly as well (indeed that is the very raison d’être of the OIC, to define and achieve common goals).  The OIC’s legitimacy as an international institution is enhanced by its recognition by the U.N., and a portion of the OIC UN mission is worth noting here, because it is relevant to understanding the importance and indeed primacy (shared with Saudi Arabia) of the OIC as a foreign principal to CAIR, and CAIR’s role as a foreign agent for the OIC:

The Permanent Observer Mission of the OIC to the UN in New York was established following the adoption of the Resolution 3369 on October 10, 1975 by the 30th UN General Assembly (UNGA) Session granting the OIC an observer status. Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of the OIC Secretary General who has made it his priority to activate the OIC’s relationship with the United Nations, the US Government, the OIC Groups in New York and Washington DC, the US-based think tanks, opinion and policy makers, academics, media and mainstream Muslim communities in the US, the OIC Mission enjoys very high profile as a crucial bridge between the Muslim world and the UN as well as the United States. These initiatives of the Secretary General are in line with the goals outlined in the OIC’s new Charter, New Vision and the Ten Year Program of Action (TYPOA)…. (Source: OIC Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations in New York)

We emphasize the OIC Ten Year Plan of Action because that document defines (in article VII) the Islamophobia campaign which is a centerpiece of OIC political activities in the United States, and of CAIR’s representation of the OIC as a foreign agent.  The OIC relationship, and the Islamophobia campaign, is treated as a special case later.

FARA Statute on Contributions: Every person who becomes an agent of a foreign principal shall file with the Attorney General within ten days thereafter.  The registration must include a statement regarding “the nature and amount of contributions, income, money, or thing of value, if any, that the registrant has received within the preceding sixty days from each such foreign principal, either as compensation or for disbursement or otherwise, and the form and time of each such payment and from whom received.” The foreign agent must supply a supplemental statement of such monies received for each 6 month period thereafter.

CAIR, while acting as a foreign agent, has failed to report the following information:

FOREIGN FUNDING TRANSACTIONS:

  1. On June 13, 1994, CAIR received a $5,000 check from the International (Islamic) Relief Organization (IIRO), a group founded by Saudi royal decree and affiliated with the Muslim World League.
  2. On October 5, 1994, CAIR received a $5,000 check from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a group shut down by the U.S. government in 2001 and convicted in 2008 of funding the terrorist group HAMAS.
  3. On October 31, 1994, CAIR received another $5,000 from the Holy Land Foundation via wire transfer.
  4. In 1995, CAIR received an additional $2,172 from the IIRO.
  5. In 1997, CAIR received another $10,000 from the IIRO.
  6. In 1999 the United Bank of Kuwait, the same bank used by the Kuwaiti Embassy, provided a mortgage loan of $2,106,251.00 for CAIR’s New Jersey Avenue headquarters just three blocks from the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.
  7. On August 15, 1999, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), a financing organ of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, made a $250,000 contribution toward the future headquarters of a CAIR-run education and research center in Washington, D.C.
  8. On December 23, 1999 Arab News reported that that the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a Riyadh-based organization founded by Saudi King Fahd, was extending financial support to CAIR for a $3.5 million Washington, D.C. headquarters.
  9. On September 12, 2002, the UAE-based Al-Maktoum Foundation bought out the United Bank of Kuwait “lease to purchase agreement” with a $978,031.34 “deed of trust” granting CAIR the title to its New Jersey Ave headquarters while Al-Maktoum reserved the right to sell, manage or collect rents from the property.
  10. In November 2002, CAIR received a $500,000 donation from Prince Al-Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia.
  11. On November 9, 2002, The Muslim World newspaper reported that CAIR and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) would collaborate on a $1.04 million public relations campaign.
  12. On May 22, 2006 a delegation of CAIR officials met with Al Habtoor group chairman Khalaf Al Habtoor and other businessmen in Dubai about funding a $50-million public relations campaign to change alleged “negative public perceptions about Islam.”  During this meeting, CAIR Chairman Parvez Ahmad stated, “Do not think about your contributions as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years.”
  13. On May 26, 2006, the Minister of Finance of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, personally approved the building of an endowment property for CAIR in the United States.
  14. In January 2007, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organization of the Islamic conference promised to contribute $325,000 to CAIR for the purpose of organizing a conference on Islamophobia at Georgetown University.
  15. On May 19, 2007, Saudi Prince Abdulla bin Mosa’ad, Chairman of Saudi Paper Manufacturing Group and nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia, transferred $112,000 to CAIR.

Summary of Foreign Principals For Whom CAIR has Acted as a Foreign Agent, Including Meetings and Political Coordination and Direction

 

FARA Statute on Foreign Principals: The term “foreign principal” encompasses not only the government of a foreign country, but also:

  • a foreign political party
  • a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country
  • a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States

CAIR has acted as a foreign agent of the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an association of 57 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity in economic, social, and political affairs.  CAIR has also acted as a foreign agent for and received contributions from member states of the OIC, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and the UAE.  CAIR’s initiatives in the United States have aimed to further the OIC’s global vision, which is succinctly articulated in the OIC’s 2005 communiqué known as the “Ten-Year Program of Action” for the Muslim Ummah.  In some cases CAIR has coordinated directly with the OIC, or the OIC financing institution (originated by the OIC), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB).  At other times government officials and wealthy members of ruling royal families of OIC member states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and others have acted as mediators or as the primary actor in the foreign principal role.  The following is a selection of cases in which CAIR has coordinated with such foreign principals and failed to report these interactions as a registered foreign agent to the Department of Justice in contravention of the requirements of FARA:

FOREIGN MEETINGS AND COORDINATION:

  1. On July 3, 1998 the Saudi Gazette reported that CAIR’s Executive Director Nihad Awad addressed a press conference at the WAMY headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  According to the report, “He [Awad] said CAIR needed funds to fight discrimination against Muslims, to promote the true image of Islam and to combat the anti-Islamic propaganda.”
  2. According to a December 23, 1999 Arab News article, WAMY would “introduce CAIR to Saudi philanthropists and recommend their financial support for the headquarters project.”
  3. On October 1, 2001 Arab News reported that CAIR Chairman Omar Ahmad was visiting Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to “meet Islamic scholars and senior government officials.”
  4. On July 8, 2002 Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulmohsin Al-Turki visited CAIR headquarters in Washington, D.C.
  5. On November 9, 2002, The Muslim World newspaper reported that CAIR and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) would collaborate on a $1.04 million public relations campaign.
  6. The same article noted that CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad had already met with leading Saudi businessmen at the Riyadh Chamber of Commerce and Industries on November 12, 2002 to brief them about projects and raise funds. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal was among the top businessmen he was scheduled to meet during his trip.
  7. On October 27, 2003 CAIR-Maryland Executive Director Seyed Rizwan Mowlana enlisted the help of the Pakistani Ambassador Ashraf Jehangir Qazi in taking punitive action against Bank of America for alleged “Islamophobic” behavior.
  8. On April 20, 2006 CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab sat on a Mosque Foundation-sponsored panel with Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal during his visit to Chicago.
  9. On May 22, 2006 a delegation of CAIR officials met with Al Habtoor group chairman Khalaf Al Habtoor and other businessmen in Dubai about a $50-million public relations campaign to change negative public perceptions about Islam.  This was immediately after the Dubai Ports controversy.  During this meeting, CAIR leader Parvez Ahmad stated, “Do not think about your contributions as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years.”
  10. During the same trip the CAIR delegation met with the Minister of Finance of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, securing a pledge for an endowment property for CAIR in the U.S..
  11. On June 21, 2006 a CAIR delegation addressed a press conference regarding CAIR’s $50 million media campaign at the headquarters of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  12. At the same press conference Arab News quoted CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.  Commenting on the aforementioned $50 million media campaign he said: “We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project. He has been generous in the past.”
  13. A June 22, 2006 unclassified U.S. State Department memo documents a CAIR delegation’s “courtesy call” to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  The delegation had already visited Mecca and Jeddah.  CAIR told embassy personnel that “‘King Adbullah knows CAIR very well’ and receives regular updates on the group’s projects.”  They recalled the success of a CAIR visit to the UAE in May and they predicted they would be back in the region by fall to visit Kuwait and Qatar.
  14. On September 8, 2006 national CAIR leaders including Executive Director Nihad Awad and Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper hosted Former Iranian President Mohamed Khatami at a private dinner .
  15. On September 23, 2006 CAIR-Chicago and the OIC held a joint press conference on Islam/West relations at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.  The conference addressed the Pope’s “Islamophobic” comments of 11 days earlier in which he quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor’s views on Islam; comments which were labeled a “smear campaign” by the OIC.
  16. In October 2006 CAIR hosted an Iftar with the Pakistani ambassador.  The Ambassador praised CAIR’s work and then joined 30 guests and CAIR staff for prayer, dinner and discussion.
  17. At the October 28-29, 2006 CAIR national board meeting in Chicago, the board mentioned that it was reviewing the plans of DC public relations firm Hill and Knowlton and that they would then be passed on to the UAE Ambassador for further analysis.  The UAE Ambassador would then gather all the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ambassadors and have them listen to a presentation so that “in return, hopefully they will write to their respective people to ask for support of the initiative.”
  18. It was noted at the same board meeting that a CAIR representative had met the Lebanese ambassador to the United States about the 2006 Lebanon War.
  19. Foreign attendees at CAIR’s 12th Annual Banquet on November 18, 2006 included representatives of the Embassy of Egypt, the Embassy of Jordan, the Embassy of Malaysia, the Embassy of Pakistan, the Embassy of Qatar, the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, the Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran and delegates from the Kuwait Ministry of Awqaf.
  20. In 2007 CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad collaborated with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for the purpose of organizing a conference on Islamophobia at Georgetown University.
  21. In 2007 Nihad Awad, Khalid Iqbal, and Mohammed Nimer of CAIR helped to formulate an “American Muslim Peace Initiative for Iraq” (AMIPI) which included plans to “Lobby Transnational Islamic/Arab Agencies (OIC, Arab League) to commit to peacekeeping forces in Iraq” in an effort to replace U.S. troops with those from Muslim-majority countries.
  22. In 2007, the OIC published online a draft version of the “First Annual Report on Islamophobia.” This draft, still available online, included a passage describing a meeting with CAIR, removed in the final version of the report (see Case Study #1 below).
  23. On July 3, 2007 CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad attended a meeting with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Awad told Arab News he was “pleased to meet with Ihsanoglu to discuss the situation of Muslims in the United States and to work on future projects.”
  24. In early June 2008 CAIR representatives including Nihad Awad and Larry Shaw traveled to a three-day Muslim-only conference in Mecca attended by hundreds of scholars and religious leaders.   The conference was organized by the Muslim World League (MWL) on an initiative of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.  This was a precursor to the “interfaith” Madrid Summit that took place a month later.  In addressing the conference King Abdullah called Islam “the greatest of all the religions” and emphasized that “Muslim countries also need to protect their resources from Zionism to foil their designs.”
  25. On July 16, 2008 CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, CAIR Board Member Larry Shaw and CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper took part in the World Conference on Dialogue, organized by the Muslim World League (MWL) under the patronage of Saudi King Abdullah in Madrid, Spain.  The Madrid Declaration affirmed by all participants emphasized “respecting heavenly religions, preserving their high status, condemning any insult to their symbols” and encouraged “governmental and non-governmental organizations to issue a document that stipulates respect for religions and their symbols, the prohibition of their denigration and the repudiation of those who commit such acts.”  These pronouncements are in accord with  the “deterrent punishments” for “Islamophobia” prescribed by the OIC Ten Year Plan.
  26. Foreign attendees at CAIR’s 14th Annual Banquet on November 23, 2008 included representatives of the Embassy of Bahrain, the Embassy of Jordan, the Embassy of Kuwait, the Embassy of Qatar, the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, the Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the League of Arab States.
  27. Foreign attendees at CAIR’s 15th Annual Banquet on October 24, 2009 included representatives of the Embassy of Bahrain, the Embassy of Libya, the Embassy of Qatar and the Embassy of Saudi Arabia.

NOTE: Private documents exist indicating hundreds of contacts between CAIR and foreign principals including representatives of foreign governments, businesses, NGO’s and individuals, all of which potentially come under FARA.  Due to ongoing litigation we cannot reproduce those documents here at this time.

Summary of CAIR Efforts to Act As a Foreign Agent, In Political Activity and Public Relations Activities

 

FARA Statute: The term “agent of a foreign principal” refers to any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal;

And who directly or through any other person:

  • represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States
  • engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal
  • acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal
  • within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal

The statute defines “political activities” as any activity whose intent is to influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.

POLITICAL INFLUENCE OPERATIONS:

CAIR has consistently acted in its role as a foreign agent to exert political influence upon agencies and officials of the United States government as well as  law enforcement, the media, corporations, academia and other sections of the American public.

Elected Officials/Government Agencies/U.S. Policy:

CAIR has curried favor with elected officials, publicly censured and criticized government representatives who have expressed opposition to their OIC-inspired activities in the United States, and generally interfered in electoral politics and policy debates in the public discourse on behalf of foreign principals.

A June 28, 2002 Semiannual Report prepared for the CAIR Governmental Affairs Department encapsulates CAIR’s modus operandi in seeking to influence many areas of government policy:

Objective 1: Influence the formulation and execution of American domestic and international policy based on the concerns and values of the American Muslim community.

The first six months of 2002 saw a rise in the number of meetings and contact with government agencies and congressional offices. In January CAIR delivered testimony on racial profiling at a ‘rump’ hearing called by Rep. John Conyers, and meetings and calls to offices of members of the House Judiciary Committee on this and related issues. We continued to highlight the concerns about the treatment of detainees and their due process rights and the effect of ‘voluntary’ interviews on the American Muslim community and its relation with government officials.

During this period we met with Frank Boyd, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Department, and Frank Mueller, Director of the FBI and the Inspector General of the Office of Inspector General for DOJ, an independent auditing body that is currently investigating charges of mistreatment of detainees at the Passaic and Brooklyn INS detention centers. We also met with members ofthe DOT Transportation Security Agency to discuss the issues of watch lists and racial profiling of American Muslims. Finally, we met with the head ofthe Civil Rights Unit and other staff in the USDA to discuss denial of food stamp privileges among a number of Somali grocery stores…

We met with a number of congressional offices, especially in the senate, to discuss the Treasury Department raids on American Muslim homes, businesses and institutions. In these meetings we argued that the targets ofthe raids had not been afforded basic due process protections, especially the right to learn the nature of accusations and suspicions leveled against them. We tied these raids into the pattern of due process denial for detainees, interviewees, and the three Muslim charities whose assets have been frozen and asked for greater congressional oversight of Administration actions against the American Muslim community. On international issues, CAIR weighed in heavily regarding American policy in the Middle East, meeting with representatives ofthe State Department on a number of occasions and corresponding with State, the White House Office and Congressional offices to argue for a more balanced US policy in the Middle East. This contact increased during the major Israeli offensive in the West Bank. We also began to develop ties and resources to begin a major effort to highlight the threat of fundamentalist Hindu nationalism in India, especially in the state of Gujarat. We compiled information and began contacting congressional offices, especially senators of the Foreign Relations subcomitte on South Asian affairs.

Perhaps most troubling, the report notes CAIR’s efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions on Iran (See Case Study #2 below):

Finally, CAIR was approached by Conoco Oil about working together on the issue of sanctions against Iran. Discussions were formal until the introduction of the Syrian Accountability Act of 2002, when a joint interest in opposing these sanctions helped CAIR and Conoco to begin consulting more regularly on the status of this bill and efforts to defeat it. This bill is an AIPAC inspired resolution that is part of a strategy that aims to keep Arab states off-balance and on the defensive, and thereby strengthen the position of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Other CAIR political operations involving government officials and government policy include the following:

 

  • On November 8, 2001 CAIR denounced what it called “an Islamophobic smear campaign against the American Muslim community and its leaders.” CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper warned “media professionals and elected officials” to back away from “the agenda of those who are making these false allegations” and asked people to “refrain from assisting anyone who would seek to silence the voice of an entire American religious minority”.
  • On September 26, 2006 CAIR hosted their 4th Annual Congressional Iftar (breaking of the Ramadan fast), attended by nine congressmen, dozens of staffers, military and law enforcement officials and community leaders.  Nine local and international media outlets reported on the event and over 130 people were in attendance.
  • On August 4, 2006 CAIR launched an online petition drive condemning Israeli military actions against Hezbollah entitled “Not in America’s Name.” CAIR asserted that American elected officials who rejected an immediate ceasefire were “out of step with the majority of Americans.”
  • In late August 2006, CAIR hosted a panel discussion on “The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Response to the War in Lebanon” at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The panel consisted of CAIR Director Nihad Awad and Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the controversial Harvard University study titled “The Israel Lobby.”
  • CAIR hosted an August 16, 2006 panel discussion at the Longworth House Office Building entitled “War in Lebanon and the War on Terror” featuring Professor Bassam Haddad.  Haddad attributed growing regional opposition to the U.S. to the “perceived American green light for Israeli aggression” and suggested that a U.S. attack on Iran “will have to be rethought.”  Haddad stated that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has sought to “establish loyal and compliant regimes, not democratic regimes” and “what [America] wants to accomplish in the region has nothing to do with what the people of the region want.”  Haddad argued that the “war on terror” would more appropriately be called the “war on the enemies of the U.S. government.”
  • Seven (7) members of Congress spoke at CAIR’s 12th Annual Banquet on November 18, 2006 including: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-MD).  A total of twenty-three (23) members of Congress printed “Proclamations” (letters of congratulation and endorsement) in the 12th Annual Banquet program including: Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), Rep. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr (D-NJ), Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Senator John Warner (R-VA), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-MD)
  • A January 13, 2007 “Strategy” document outlined CAIR’s priorities through December 31, 2010 including the long term goals of impacting “local congressional districts with each chapter influencing at least two legislators through strong grass roots responses” and “influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community. (For example congressmen on the judiciary, intelligence and homeland security committees.)  We will develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and placing Muslim interns in Congressional offices.”
  • In 2007 Nihad Awad, Khalid Iqbal, and Mohammed Nimer of CAIR helped to formulate an “American Muslim Iraq Peace Initiative” (AMIPI) which included plans to form an AMIPI Task Force “consisting of religious, civic and political leaders whose goal will be meet regularly and deliberate upon ways and means to influence both domestic policies and players in the region.”  CAIR also committed to “contacting their Congressional contacts to join the AMIPI Press Conference.”
  • Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) spoke at CAIR’s 14th Annual Banquet on November 23, 2008.  A total of nine (9) members of Congress printed “Proclamations” (letters of congratulation and endorsement) in the 14th Annual Banquet program including: Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. Tom Davis (D-CA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA), Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr (D-NJ) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).
  • A total of four (4) members of Congress printed “Proclamations” (letters of congratulation and endorsement) in the program for CAIR’s 15th Annual Banquet on October 24, 2009 including: Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr (D-NJ).

Law Enforcement Agencies/Military:

CAIR has had extensive relationships with law enforcement agencies; especially the FBI but also local police departments, including numerous education and “sensitivity training” programs on dealing with the Muslim community.

  • CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was among the Muslim leaders who met with FBI Director Robert Mueller on February 12, 2002.  The leaders stressed the importance of “cultural sensitivity by law enforcement when interviewing or otherwise dealing with members of the Arab and Muslim communities” to Mr. Mueller.
  • 2002 saw the case of U.S. Army Reserves nurse Captain Edwina (Tiger) McCall, in which she posted on an online bulletin board regarding possible responses to Islamic terrorism.  Her career was ruined.  The entire case deserves a quick read to understand CAIR’s ability to shape policy and intimidate personnel at that time at the Department of Defense.  The “political correctness” of the military response in the McCall case was an early indicator of the DoD culture that would enable Major Nidal Hasan to murder 13 people and an unborn child, and wound over 30 others in Fort Hood six years later in 2009.  Many similar cases involving CAIR are chronicled at various websites, particularly their own.
  • Page 88 of the book Muslim Mafia details a September 2004 episode in which CAIR-Maryland’s civil rights director coached a mosque leader in Western Maryland not to cooperate with an FBI investigation of suspicious activity.
  • Most recently published in 2005, CAIR’s Law Enforcement Official’s Guide attempts to limit the functions of law enforcement agencies in deference to Muslim sensibilities.  The document advises that Muslims are “fully engaged” at their five daily prayer times and should not be expected to respond to law enforcement during these times.  Municipal departments are advised never to schedule inspections or conduct other business with a mosque on Fridays between 10:00am and 3:00pm because this conflicts with required weekly congregational prayers.  CAIR acknowledges that a Quran may be holding contraband and thus that an officer may have to touch a Quran, but proceed to pre-judge the culpability of Islamic ideology in any criminal action by insisting that officers handle the Quran with as much respect as possible to “demonstrate that they separate the actions of suspects from a holy scripture cherished by all Muslims.”  CAIR advises the same deference be shown to prayer rugs.  The guide goes on to recommend physical separation between Muslims and non-Muslims, warns law enforcement that Muslims of the opposite sex may avoid eye contact for “modesty reasons” and that canine officers should keep their distance because Muslims may feel great discomfort or fear around dogs.  It also instructs officers that Muslim women home-alone should not be required to open the door and that officers should go to the trouble of removing their shoes when entering a Muslim house or other building.  The guide suggests that bias in American law enforcement discourages Muslims from joining their ranks, and claims that federal agents have visited Muslims at home and work based on unsubstantiated reports.
  • Muslim Afghan immigrant Sgt. Mohammad Weiss Rasool served as CAIR’s liaison and advocate within the Fairfax County (VA) Police Department.  He arranged meetings between CAIR and Fairfax County’s police chief to complain about surveillance of mosques and demand Muslim sensitivity training for officers.  In an email he was careful to warn CAIR leaders to refrain from deviating from their specific agenda so as not to raise tension between them and the police.  He visited Executive Director Nihad Awad at CAIR headquarters several times between 2005 and 2008.  Rasool breached the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database at least 15 times to alert fellow Muslims who may have been under surveillance.  In October 2007, Rasool was confronted by FBI agents for abusing his access to police databases.  On April 22, 2008 Weiss Rasool was sentenced to two years supervised probation and a $1,000 fine for his crimes.
  • On June 26, 2006 CAIR hosted a Capitol Hill panel entitled “Should the US Shut Down Gitmo” during which two speakers outlined reasons for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
  • At the 2006 CAIR Tampa Annual Banquet, FBI Tampa Special Agent in Charge Carl Whitehead spoke in praise of CAIR-Tampa and their Executive Director Ahmed Bedier.
  • In a July 1, 2009 online video Attorney Melanie Elturk of CAIR-Michigan advised Muslimsapproached by extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda to report the incident to their local mosque and CAIR first rather than the responsible law enforcement authorities.

In addition an October 28-29, 2006 CAIR National Board Meeting Report documents the following law enforcement-related influence operations carried out by CAIR in 2006:

  • Met with Assistant Director in Charge Joe Persichini and Special Agent Jim McJunkin of the FBI.
  • Sat on the FBI AMSA (Arab Muslim Sikh Advisory) Committee.
  • Held a joint press conference with the FBI on the alleged plot to bomb airlines in U.K. and U.S.
  • Met with the Fairfax police chief to discuss issues pertaining to Muslims and mutual cooperation.
  • Filed an affidavit advocating the presence of a Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay at the urging of former Gitmo Muslim chaplain James Yee.
  • Intervened on behalf of four imams from Egypt and one imam from South Africa who were barred from entering the United States.  They sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the State Department requesting a meeting.

Media Figures/Corporations:

By means of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, boycotts and threats of boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, and other tactics CAIR has chilled open debate in the media about Sharia-compliance.  CAIR has intimidated authors, radio hosts and television hosts who speak out against their agenda.  CAIR has also intimidated corporations who violate OIC-approved conduct regarding Muslim employees and customers.

  • In 2003 CAIR MD threatened legal action against Bank of America for the treatment of Muslim employee Ms. Gul Naz Anwar.  For restitution CAIR demanded among other things that Bank of America “institute CAIR’s Diversity/Sensitivity Training to all employees.”    CAIR warned BOA that it had “resolved” a number of acts of discrimination and defamation with top American companies such as Nike, JC Penny, Sears, Burger King, Office Max, Office Depot, Delta Air Lines, Best Buy and Microsoft in the past.  CAIR MD Executive Director Seyed Rizwan Mowlana later threatened a Muslim boycott of Bank of America if a meeting with all interested parties was not held by Thursday November 6, 2003.  On October 28, 2003 Mowlana solicited the help of a foreign ambassador, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi of Pakistan, asking him to write a “strong letter” to Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.
  • A May 5, 2004 article by Michelle Malkin details CAIR’s intimidation tactics against American talk radio hosts including Jay Severin, Michael Graham, Paul Harvey and Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
  • On December 5, 2006 CAIR National Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar wrote the senior leadership of US Airways informing them that CAIR had been retained as legal counsel for the six “Flying Imams” who were ejected from a Minnesota flight after passengers reported suspicious behavior.  He also asked for a formal meeting with US Airways executives and legal counsel in Arizona, the scheduled destination of the imams’ flight.  Iftikhar notes that CAIR has “resolved” similar acts of discrimination and defamation involving Nike, the Los Angeles Times, JC Penney, Sears, Office Max, Office Depot and Delta Airlines.
  • A document outlining CAIR talking points for a public controversy between CAIR and Senator Barbara Boxer contains the blueprints for intimidating a long list of media figures.  Authors Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Joe Kaufman, David Horowitz, Stephen Schwartz and Andrew Whitehead are described as “staunchly pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim” individuals who “spew their bigoted conspiracy theories” and “create the bulk of anti-CAIR literature which is consumed and circulated by others.”  The document says that some of their “lies and conspiracy theories seep through right wing AM and Cable TV radio talk shows” conducted by media figures such as Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck.  Planned actions include releasing negative “Who Is” sheets on David Horowitz, Joe Kaufman and Front Page Magazine (which is described as an “online hate site”).
  • In a November 1, 2007 press release, CAIR “called on radio listeners of all faiths to contact companies that advertise on Michael Savage’s nationally-syndicated radio program to express their concerns” regarding comments he had recently made about Muslims, with the stated goal of persuading those companies to stop advertising on the Savage Nation.  On April 25, 2008 CAIR announced enthusiastically that many advertisers including Choice Hotels International, Sam’s Club, ITT Technical Institute, Chattem, Inc. (owners of Gold Bond, Icy Hot, and Selsun Blue), Union Bank of California, Intuit (parent company of TurboTax and QuickBooks), GEICO Insurance, US Cellular, Sprint Nextel, Sears, Universal Orlando Resorts, AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart, and AT&T had heeded their boycott call to date.  The book Muslim Mafia documents that the campaign against Michael Savage cost CAIR $160,000, and that Executive Director Nihad Awad estimated that it cost the Savage Nation “at least $1 million in advertising revenue.”  CAIR formed the non-profit group Hate Hurts America with its partners with the express purpose of opposing Savage.  CAIR’s attacks against Savage remain on their website as of February 2010.

Media Campaigns/Academia:

CAIR has participated in various media campaigns to influence U.S. public opinion on behalf of foreign principals, most prominently the 5-year $50 million campaign developed in the UAE in conjunction with the Al-Maktoum family and Hill and Knowlton in 2006:

  • CAIR Chairman Omar Ahmad called it “the most ambitious public relations campaign anywhere in the world that the Muslims have thought about to change perceptions about Islam,” soliciting Arab businesses to make contributions towards the campaign.  Ahmad continued “do not think about your contributions as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years.”

Other CAIR media initiatives to influence public opinion and academic discourse include:

  • In October 2001 CAIR Chairman Omar Ahmad said an important element of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States’ strategy should be the mounting of an aggressive public relations campaign in the U.S. to counter “anti-Islamic and anti-Arab propaganda by Zionists.”  Ahmad added that CAIR had placed 30 articles in the U.S. media explaining the Muslim community’s point of view.
  • In November 2002 CAIR and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) announced a joint $1.04 million public relations campaign in the form of a quarter-page advertisement every Friday for 52 weeks in the USA Today newspaper.  Executive Director Nihad Awad said CAIR was also planning the publication of advertisements in 10 other leading newspapers in America.
  • Riyadh U.S. embassy staff reported in a June 2006 State Department Memo that one of the projects a visiting CAIR delegation discussed was “the presentation of ‘accurate books about Islam’ to schools and libraries in the U.S.”
  • A January 13, 2007 “Strategy” document outlining CAIR’s priorities through December 31, 2010 included among its long-term goals that “In concert with local chapters we will sustain an ongoing media campaign to change hearts and minds of Americans… We will measure the effect of the media programs with the goal of significantly shifting public opinions:”
  • The same 2007 document identified midterm goals including tapping “into the ‘new media’ with contests for young potential film makers.  We will launch an formal educational initiative.  (We will look to educated 100 speakers, 50 writers, transofrm 50 Islamic centers to model outreach cultural centers, establish a scholarship for graduate students, publish points-of-reference material, initiate TV/radio shows, create deal presentations, a national forum and Amazon.com like source of all published material on Islam.)”

NOTE: This is an interim report and the political influence operations cited here are meant to be exemplary, not exhaustive.  We will continue to add influence operations to the list, and we encourage readers to send us open-source documentation of activities similar to those presented here so we may deepen the evidence in our case.

Case Study #1: CAIR and The Islamophobia Campaign of the Organization of the Islamic Conference

It is beyond the scope of this memo to describe the seemingly endless conferences and global ambitions of the OIC, or even the extensive and well-financed activities of their “Islamophobia Observatory.” A book needs to be written analyzing the OIC’s Islamophobia campaign and its results.  There are three key OIC websites.  The primary one hosts the “Ten Year Programme of Action,” an important document to understand the OIC political goals.  The other two OIC websites are directed at their U.N. activities; the Permanent Observer website for OIC at UN offices in New York City and the Permanent Observer site for OIC at UN offices in Geneva and Vienna.

The “Islamophobia” coinage was invented in the late 1990’s in the U.K., and is a continuation, using modern language, of traditional Shariah laws against defamation of Islam.  At the primary OIC website, Islamophobia campaign resources include (in addition to the 10 year plan Article VII, and the framework for implementation), the Islamophobia Observatory, with Annual reports and monthly bulletins on “Islamophobic” statements and actions across the West.

The “Ten-Year Programme of Action To Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah In the 21st Century” was submitted in 2005 to the 57 member states, and then approved in 2008.  Article VII in that document states:

VII.     Combating Islamophobia

1.            Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.

2.            Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia.

3.            Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.

4.            Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.”

We have emphasized the section in Article VII, item 3 – requiring laws to counter Islamophobia, including deterrent punishments – because that is, in a nutshell, the legislative and legal political agenda of the OIC for non-Muslim countries, and it defines their agenda as a foreign principal under FARA for foreign agents such as CAIR.  The OIC has stated that “Islamophobia” is the “worst form of terrorism” facing the world.  In the “Framework for the Implementation of the OIC Programme of Action” (p. 17) the document states:

(23) POA I.7.3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.  47. Have an international resolution issued by the UN to combat Islamophobia.  The Islamic Observatory at the OIC General Secretariat (Dawa Affairs Department).  53. H.E. the Secretary-General is making contacts to have an international resolution issued by the UN to counter Islamophobia (Medium term).

Page 18 of the “Framework” document notes among other planned actions, “55. The second symposium will be held in Washington in September 2006.”  CAIR would become intimately involved in planning that conference (a joint venture between CAIR, the OIC and Georgetown University) in Washington D.C., although the conference would take place almost a year later than planned.

At the CAIR National Board Meeting on October 28-29, 2006 in Chicago, the OIC Islamophobia Conference was the first item on the agenda (Note: The document refers to “Feb/March 06″ but as the meeting report was written in October 2006 it is likely that the author intended to reference the following February and March of 2007).

1-Islamophobia/OIC/Gtwn/CAIR conference
OIC agreed to fund the conference with up to $300,000 to be held in Feb/March 06 [sic].

a- Budget has to be adjusted by CAIR first, share it with GTWN, then submit it to OIC.
b- Committees be formed:

1. A steering committee: a rep. of OIC, CAIR and GTWN
2. A program committee
3. A logistic committee

These plans were further elucidated in a January 15, 2007 letter from OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and John Esposito of Georgetown University:

Dear Friends, I would like to extend my thanks for your letter of 11 January 2007 regarding the proposed conference to be organized at the Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. under our trilateral collaboration.  I am pleased that after some serious considerations and exchange of ideas which took a while, now we are at a point of concretize our joint desire.  This conference which will focus mainly on themes relevant to and various aspects of the phenomenon of Islamophobia, will be the first ever OIC sponsored event in the United States of America and comes at a most appropriate time when the issue is in the global agenda…

I am also pleased to inform you that the OIC General Secretariat will be contributing USD 325,000 for the organization of this conference.  The total amount will be transferred to CAIR as soon as we are informed of the details of the relevant bank account…

From now on, we will be looking forward to the establishment of three joint committees, speedy finalization of the conference program and the themes of the panels, as well as the participant list.  As for the speakers and general attendance from the OIC member states, the OIC General Secretariat will do its best for seeking commitment from some high level dignitaries and public figures.  In this regard I believe that high level and wide attendance form (sic) the US, including the attendance of Secretary of State Dr. Rice will must (sic) probably facilitate attracting a high profile participation from the OIC member states.  Ambassador Adbul Wahab and the OIC General Secretariat will be at your disposal to finalize the preparations of this landmark event.

However, this ambitious high-profile conference apparently never came to fruition.  Instead a smaller “Islamophobia and the Challenge of Pluralism” workshop was finally held at Georgetown University on September 20, 2007.  Note that the division of Georgetown hosting the event was the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (Bin Talal is another prominent CAIR donor from Saudi Arabia).  The following day, the OIC Secretary General gave a keynote address at Georgetown University, but CAIR was not mentioned.  The OIC Secretary General did say, “To this end appropriate legislation should be enacted to prevent the dissemination of illegal, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobia material in the media.”

The pivotal event that occurred between the time that CAIR was in charge of the OIC’s Islamophobia conference, and when they were essentially cut out from visible participation, was the naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

CAIR has served as a foreign agent of the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since at least 1999 when they received “monetary contributions” from the OIC’s international financial institution, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB):

  • An August 15, 1999 press release from the Saudi Embassy announced that the IDB made a $250,000 contribution toward the establishment of a CAIR-run education and research center in Washington, DC.
  • On September 23, 2006 CAIR-Chicago and the OIC held a joint press conference on Islam/West relations at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.  The conference addressed the Pope’s “Islamophobic” comments of 11 days earlier in which he quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor’s views on Islam; comments which were labeled a “smear campaign” by the OIC.
  • In January 2007, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organization of the Islamic conference promised to contribute $325,000 to CAIR for the purpose of organizing the conference on Islamophobia at Georgetown University.
  • On July 3, 2007 CAIR’s Nihad Awad attended a meeting with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Jeddah.  Awad told Arab News he was “pleased to meet with Ihsanoglu to discuss the situation of Muslims in the United States and to work on future projects.”

And as noted above, a meeting in Washington DC between the OIC Secretary General and CAIR’s leadership was summarized in the Draft (but not final) 1st Annual Report on Islamophobia:

2.9.3. Meeting with CAIR Officials

The Secretary General visited the headquarters of CAIR in Washington DC and held a meeting with the leadership of the Council. The meeting touched on ways and means to enhance cooperation and coordination on issues of mutual concerns. The Secretary General commended CAIR for upholding Islamic principles and its efforts in countering Islamophobia. In this regard the Executive Director of CAIR Dr. Nihad Awad briefed the Secretary General on the activities of CAIR in different fields. He stated that CAIR is providing training to the US government’s agencies and departments including the State Department and the Department of Home Security Ministry. . He also briefed the Secretary General on the expansion plan of CAIR in terms of expanding its infrastructure and, programs in helping Muslim Communities in the US through its network across the US and Canada..  He emphasized the need for partnership with the OIC to counter the phenomenon of Isalmophobia [sic], in this connection; he stated the readiness of CAIR to extend all possible assistance to the OIC including sharing their report on Islmophobia [sic].  The Executive Director also gave an account on the journalist’s Guide prepared by CAIR to understand Islam and Muslims. CAIR officials briefed the Secretary General on the issue related to the Holy land Foundation which had collected money for charity for the Palestinians and accused of funding terror cells in Palestine in the name of Charity. They said that while they are expecting the accused to be exonerated of the charges, a guilty verdict might have serious implications for the Muslim Communities in America. The CAIR’S officials pointed finger at the Jewish organizations accusing them of building a theory that Muslim Americans are engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the US constitution. He cited this false allegation as an act of Islamophobia.

CAIR’s activities against “Islamophobia” have been extensive.  In its role as a representative of the OIC in the U.S., CAIR has consistently used the theme of “Islamophobia” as a potent tool to condition (i.e. sensitize) the U.S. government, media, and public to the OIC’s political agenda:

The OIC introduces resolutions against the defamation of religion annually at the United Nations.  In 2009, a watered-down version of that resolution was introduced by the United States and Egypt as co-sponsors, and subject to widespread criticism by NGOs, and European and U.S. legal experts and legislators for its possible threat to freedom of speech.  The resolution was described as follows (in a section detailing bilateral US-OIC discussions with Secretary Clinton) in the OIC Newsletter for October 7, 2009: “She [ie, Secretary Clinton] expressed satisfaction over the adoption of a joint US-OIC resolution concerning the freedom of expression at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. This resolution was jointly drafted by the American and Egyptian delegations.”  The strong version of the resolution (outlawing defamation, introducing deterrent punishments) was introduced at the U.N. subsequently, and for the first time, as a binding resolution, rather than a non-binding one.  Based on the U.S. co-sponsorship (with either the OIC or Egypt) of the weaker resolution and the introduction of a binding version of the stronger resolution, the OIC’s Islamophobia campaign, aided by CAIR’s efforts as a foreign agent, appears to be succeeding in achieving the goals set forth in the 10 Year Programme of Action.

Case Study #2: CAIR lobbies with Conoco, for Iran, against the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003

In March 1995 energy giant ConocoPhillips (through a Dutch subsidiary Conoco Iran, B.V.) signed a controversial $1 billion deal to develop two Iranian oil fields.  Though not technically illegal, the move was opposed by the Clinton administration and Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) as “unhelpful” to U.S. policy which sought to “bring pressure to bear on Iran and get them to behave in the world community.”  In the words of the Oklahoma Journal-Record, President Clinton dealt a “death blow” to the deal on March 15, 1995 when he announced he would issue an executive order to block it.  Conoco was reportedly “happy the accord was dead” after a week of bad publicity.  On May 8, 1995 President Clinton issued an executive order banning all U.S. trade with Iran.  By November 1999 even Conoco Chief Executive Archie Dunham had reportedly “resigned” himself to the fact that U.S. Companies may have to wait until after President Clinton’s term finishes being able to invest in Iran’s oil development.

The Syria Accountability Act (SAA) was first introduced by Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) in the form of H.R.4483 on April 18, 2002, with the goal of imposing economic and political sanctions until Syria ended support for terrorist groups, withdrew from Lebanon and complied with United Nations resolutions against Iraq.  A Senate version (S.2215) was introduced the same day by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).  On June 20, 2002 the Washington Post reported that President Bush opposed the bill “citing Syria’s cooperation” recently in the fight against Al Qaeda.  On the same day CAIR sent out an Action Alert email urging “Muslims and other people of conscience to… contact their elected representatives in opposition to a new counterproductive bill being considered by Congress” with sanctions that would “harm Americans and Syrians.”

The primary evidence for CAIR’s FARA violations in this case is based on a single document, and no evidence of any financial transactions with Conoco was found in documents obtained from public sources.  However, the description of the activity is explicit and the document is a straightforward report of government affairs activities for the year.  The CAIR Governmental Affairs Department report released June 28, 2002 states:

CAIR was approached by Conoco Oil about working together on the issue of sanctions against Iran. Discussions were formal until the introduction of the Syrian Accountability Act of 2002, when a joint interest in opposing these sanctions helped CAIR and Conoco to begin consulting more regularly on the status of this bill and efforts to defeat it.  This bill is an AIPAC inspired resolution that is part of a strategy that aims to keep Arab states off-balance and on the defensive, and thereby strengthen the position of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

An additional statement on the same page of that document describes further CAIR lobbying efforts on behalf of Syria and Palestine:

In the first three months of this year CAIR, AMC and MPAC governmental relations staff regularly met or spoke by phone about issues and priorities, in an effort to better coordinate the activities of these organizations. These meetings ended when Ray Busch left AMC and Mahdi Bray left MPAC. We plan to revive these conversations, but have not yet done so. I also frequently talked with Majed Jafari of AAI on lobbying issues, and we have coordinated our lobbying efforts on Palestine and Syria, shared information and consulted each other frequently. CAIR also organized three meetings of governmental relations staff from American Muslim and Arab organizations in order to share information and establish better working relationships between the organizations.

The House International Relations Subcommittee held hearings on the Syrian Accountability Act on September 18, 2002, the last major action on the 2002 version. In an article published on the day those hearings took place, Hiromi Hayashi of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote that “Some pundits believe that the Syria sanctions principal target is not Syria, but Iran.”  Hayashi noted that “In his opening statement of the hearing, House Committee on International Relations Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman put Iran on notice, stating that ‘Working closely with Iran, Syria has facilitated the transfer of thousands of rockets and other weaponry to Hezbollah, boosting their arsenal and significantly improving their ability to carry out terror attacks against Israel.’”  ConocoPhillips was a founder of NIAC, and CAIR and NIAC cooperate in lobbying against economic sanctions against Iran according to counterterrorism expert Clare Lopez.

In January 2003 officials who manage pensions for public employees in New York City urged shareholders of ConocoPhillips and other companies to pass resolutions requiring they disclose their contracts with Iran and Syria, saying such trade deals “violate the spirit of the law.”  In a document entitled “Review and Report on Operations in Iran and Syria” (PDF) (HTML) Conoco shareholders requested that the Board of Directors “establish a committee of the Board to review ConocoPhillips’ operations in Iran and Syria,” and noted the following:

According to the U.S. State Department, the Iranian and Syrian governments have actively supported and funded terrorist operations against innocent civilians outside their own borders. These activities led to the imposition of government sanctions that provide that virtually all trade and investment activities by U.S. corporations with Iranian and Syrian government entities, are prohibited. ConocoPhillips’ use of it’s UK subsidiary to do business with state companies in Iran and Syria clearly violates the spirit of the law. It also exposes the company to the prospect of negative publicity, public protests, and a loss of consumer confidence, all of which can have a negative impact on shareholder value.

In 2001, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stated that a company’s involvement with states that sponsor terrorism is a legitimate shareholder concern, that is “substantially likely to be significant to a reasonable investors decision about whether to invest in that company”.  The New York City Police and Fire Department Pension Funds urge you to vote FOR this resolution.

ConocoPhillips agreed to review both Iranian and Syrian operations to avoid a potentially embarrassing shareholder vote.  On April 4, 2003 ConocoPhillips agreed to a proposal by New York City’s comptroller to ensure oversight of its business in Iran and Syria, the third such promise it had made.

The Syria Accountability Act was reintroduced in the House as H.R.1828 by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) on April 12, 2003.  The U.S. Senate passed the Syria Accountability Act (S.982) on November 11, 2003.  The U.S. House passed the Senate version of the Syria Accountability Act on November 20, 2003.  President Bush signed the bill into law on December 12, 2003.

Yet Conoco and its subsidiaries continued to transact business with Syria and Iran.  In January 2004 CBS reported that ConocoPhilips still had a gas production business in Syria.  Conoco told CBS they were “breaking no laws, and like Halliburton, make no apologies for their business dealings with states that sponsor terrorism.”  However, in the wake of the CBS report Conoco announced that “it will not accept any new business in any country that sponsors terrorism.”  ConocoPhillips announced it would wind down its Iranian ties in February 2004.  On May 11, 2004 President Bush signed an Executive Order (PDF) implementing sanctions on Syria pursuant to the law.

CAIR’s lobbying activities with Conoco on behalf of Syria and Iran in this case would appear to fit the legal definitions of FARA, requiring registration as a foreign agent.

Case Study #3: CAIR and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

In 2006 CAIR acted as a foreign agent, as defined by FARA, when they solicited “contributions, money and things of value” from foreign principals Khalaf Al Habtoor and Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai.  In exchange for the solicited $50 million and endowment property, CAIR promised a return on investment in political influence and public relations in opposition to the specific policy position taken by Senator Charles Schumer and other congressional opponents of the controversial Dubai Ports decision.  In February 2006 the Bush administration approved Dubai Ports World, a government-owned UAE corporation controlled by brothers Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum (Ruler of Dubai, UAE Prime Minister and Vice President) and Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum (Deputy Ruler of Dubai, UAE Finance Minister), to operate terminals at 22 U.S. seaports.  In March 2006 the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block the deal, reportedly damaging the reputation of the UAE and Arab/Muslim business interests in general.

CAIR reported the event as a victory, at least for CAIR.  They proclaimed the following in their 2007 Civil Rights Report:

In February 2006, the Dubai Ports World controversy began and quickly rose to become one of the most widely-covered debates in American media and politics.  At issue was the sale of a port management business to a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and whether such a sale would compromise America’s national security.  In addition to appearances on CNN and MSNBC, CAIR representatives were called on by national and international news networks to debate the issue. While politicians on both sides of the political aisle cited security concerns, CAIR officials were among the few voices to point out that in reality, bigotry and fear were driving the debates.

CAIR board chariman Parvez Ahmed offered the following commentary in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle:

The recent hysteria surrounding the approval of a Dubai firm to manage parts of several American ports demonstrates how fear of Islam, or “Islamophobia,” can overpower rational discourse and harm our nation’s true interests….What would normally have been a routine business deal with a stable ally turned into a political fiasco that sent a “no Arabs or Muslims need apply” message to our partners in the Middle East and beyond….Indications of how politicians from both major parties were able to exploit the Dubai ports deal appear in two new polls on attitudes toward Islam. These troubling poll results should serve as a wake-up call for all Americans who value our nation’s traditions of religious tolerance and who seek to improve our sagging image in the Muslim world.

“What’s important to understand here is that all this is doing is demonizing the entire world Muslim population,” CAIR Spokesman Arsalan Iftikhar complained on MSNBC.

When CAIR listed their top ten accomplishments for 2006, number two was “CAIR Influences Public Debate on Dubai Ports, Profiling.”

Within two months, Al Habtoor and Al Maktoum were assisting CAIR in fundraising, with the specifically and publicly stated purpose to act in the interest of UAE businesses as a foreign agent within the United States:

  • In May 2006 construction mogul Khalaf Al Habtoor hosted a senior CAIR delegation in Dubai, including Executive Director Nihad Awad, Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper and Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed.  As Ahmed solicited contributions from Al Habtoor and other wealthy UAE businessmen to fund a $50 million U.S. public relations campaign, he warned that “If the image of Islam and Muslims is not repaired in America, Muslim and Arab business interests will continue to be on a downward slide in the US.” Ahmed reassured the donors, “Do not think about your contributions as donations.  Think about it from the perspective of rate of return.  The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years.”
  • On May 21, 2006 the UAE’s official website announced that Minister of Finance Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum met with the CAIR delegation and endorsed a proposal to build an endowment property for CAIR in the United States.  Executive Director Nihad Awad said that “the endowment will serve as a source of income and will further allow us to reinvigorate our media campaign.”

Over the next four months CAIR purchased two Washington, DC properties under the name of their holding company Greater Washington LLC.  On July 11, 2006 they bought a $500,000 property at 919 2nd St NE, and on September 7, 2006 they bought a $410,000 property on the same square block at 208 Parker St NE.

In 2002 CAIR had received a previous “contribution of value” in real-estate from the Dubai-based Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation:

  • CAIR was released from prior mortgage obligations for its Washington, DC headquarters on September 12, 2002 when it signed a “deed of trust” with the state-run Al Maktoum Foundation of Dubai.  The foundation paid “purchase money to the extent of $978,031.34” for which CAIR granted the ruling Al Maktoum family the right to sell, manage, and/or collect rents from the property.

CAIR continues to use the property in question as its headquarters for lobbying operations.

Case Study #4: CAIR and Iran

CAIR annual fundraisers for 2006 and 2008 show a possible donation from the “Interests Section of Iran” which could be in violation of 31 CFR 535, the “Iranian Assets Control Regulations,”  which forbid any transaction with Iran involving gifts, donations or a thing of financial value. See the “Thanks to” page from the 2006 and 2008 CAIR Annual fundraisers listing the Interests Section of Iran, and the registration page for the 2009 CAIR Annual fundraiser showing the cost of purchasing an embassy table.  For more background see the article “Has CAIR Violated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations?”

Therefore, on November 6, 2009, the Center for Security Policy sent a letter to  Mr. Adam J. Szubin, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury in which we suggested there is reasonable cause to believe the Council on American Islamic Relations violated the Iranian Assets Control Regulations in 2006 and 2008.

CAIR lobbies Congress, executive agencies and seeks to influence media and public opinion on behalf of Iran, by opposing economic sanctions, and by opposing any limits or criticism of the regime.

On September 8, 2006 national CAIR leaders including Executive Director Nihad Awad and Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper welcomed Former Iranian President Mohamed Khatami to a gala private dinner attended by 400 invited guests.  As the Khomeini regime’s Minister of Culture and Islamic Propagation in 1984, Khatami presided over the creation of Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah, and just one year into his term as president in 1998 his intelligence service brutally murdered opposition reform leaders Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar of the Iran Nation’s Party.  At that same 2006 CAIR dinner, Khatami was served papers for a legal suit by several Persian-Jewish families for the arrest and disappearance of twelve Persian Jews during his administration.

According to a 2009 report by intelligence and national security expert Claire Lopez, CAIR partners with the National Iranian American Council in opposing economic sanctions on the regime.  In December 1997, CAIR condemned the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance for a display that featured Adolf Hitler juxtaposed with the Ayatollah Khomeini.  In March 1999, CAIR attacked an article by Elaine Sciolino that had appeared in the New York Times the previous month because the piece had criticized Iranian discrimination against women.

A June 28, 2002 Semiannual Report prepared for the CAIR Governmental Affairs Department explicitly states that CAIR engaged in lobbying against the sanctions on Iran, and that this activity increased when CAIR found common cause with the Conoco corporation in opposing the Syrian Accountability Act of 2002.

In addition, CAIR and Iran share a common interest in the support of Hamas, the parent organization of the Islamic Association of Palestine from which CAIR evolved in the early 1990′s.  Iran’s support of Hamas is summarized in this fact sheet from The Israel Project.  Since 1992, Hamas has received donations from Iran ranging from $30 million (PDF p.2) to $120 million annually, according to multiple sources.  After western donations to Hamas were cut off in 2006, Iran reportedly donated $250 million, and in May 2008, Khamenei reportedly increased immediate aid to $150 million in the second half of 2008.

CAIR continues to promote the cause of Hamas and oppose any and all efforts on behalf of Israel, with specific statements against Jews in the U.S.  CAIR’s political activities, lobbying and influence operations in opposition to Israel and indeed, against Jews, are summarized in this fact sheet from the Anti-Defamation League.

Conclusion

We argue that a strong case can be made that CAIR has been acting as a foreign agent for various foreign principals, conducting political activity on their behalf that has had a significant impact on U.S. domestic and foreign policies, for sums of money, loans and real property that are sizeable – in the millions over the last several years.  As we noted in the beginning of this memorandum, whether one agrees or disagrees with CAIR’s policies, and the policies of the foreign principles they represent, is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that they have acted in the past and continue to act as a foreign agent for Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran, and arguably have also acted in the past for Kuwait and Syria in individual instances.  We request that an investigation be pursued into the facts of CAIR’s actions as a foreign agent, with appropriate actions taken if it is concluded that they indeed would be obligated under FARA to register.

Time to get tough with Iran and the IRGC

The Obama administration, clearly exasperated that Iran’s terrorist state hasn’t reciprocated its public and private engagement overtures, took a new tack during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Mideast tour. The secretary declared that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is supplanting the country’s clerical and political leadership and moving the nation toward a “military dictatorship.” And it seeks another U.N. Security Council resolution as a remedy.

Newsflash to Team Obama: Iran’s theocratic rulers, president and their IRGC protectors share the same nuclear weapons and terrorism goals and are the driving force behind the regime’s 31-year one-sided “Death to America” war. Collectively they have managed to successfully thwart all previous economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations.

There are plenty of reasons why the Iranian regime (dating back to Reagan administration) and the IRGC (during George W. Bush administration) have been labeled “terrorists” by the United States. With the consent of the Iranian regime, IRGC members participated in seizing the American embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and centuries of diplomatic protocols. Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to target and bomb the U.S. embassy and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, bomb U.S. residences in Saudi Arabia, and kidnapp and murder American captives (such as William Buckley and USMC Lt. Col. William Higgins). The Quds Force now manufactures and supplies lethal roadside bombs (IEDs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan that kill and maim American troops.

If that isn’t bad enough, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) recently said the regime, with IRGC leading the way, may be on the verge of producing a nuclear warhead, to go along with their long-range missiles, which many believe will further threaten regional and global peace and security. Others believe Iran already possesses a nuclear capability and is in the process of achieving the capability of matching warheads to missiles.

Surprisingly, many Americans know little about the IRGC although it wields considerable security, political and economic clout in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideal of his Shi’ite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign enemies, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism, influence and terrorism to neighboring states.

The IRGC operates independently from Iran’s regular military – reporting directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special army, air force, navy and intelligence units in all 30 of Iran’s provinces. At the behest of the Supreme Leader during the past year, the IRGC cracked down on innocent Iranians protesting the questionable reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s 31st anniversary celebration.

The IRGC exports the revolution through their notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force. This force has about 20,000 highly trained personnel specializing in international terrorism, armed conflict and support of proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. 

Former and current IRGC members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, about 90 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayor ships and council seats. Past and present IRGC members include President Ahmadinejad, ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and parliament speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC is also a business conglomerate controlling some 500 companies active in a wide range of industries including nuclear power, banking, insurance, and recreation.

IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy. The IRGC oversees at least seven nuclear facilities including those at Isfahan, Natanz, and Qom. And the IRGC/Quds Force operates at least 20 terrorist training centers including the Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tehran; Bahonar Garrison near Karaj Dam; and the Abouzar Garrison, Ahwaz, Khuzestan Province. Lethal roadside bombs are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.

The IRGC and Quds Force are currently led by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari. He was appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2007. His portfolio includes command of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, relations with countries like Venezuela and terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, and liaison with intelligence organ Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

One cannot fault Secretary Clinton for putting the well-deserved spotlight on the IRGC. However, her declaration about it becoming an emerging “military dictatorship” misses the mark. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is ruled by clerics, if the country has a card-carrying IRGC member as president, or if the IRGC it will still continue developing nuclear weapons, engaging in terrorism, oppressing millions of freedom-seeking Iranians, ignoring Team Obama’s rapprochement overtures and economic sanction threats, and dismissing another worthless U.N. Security Council resolutions watered down by Iran’s security council veto-wielding friends in Russia and China.

The time has come for Team Obama to shelve its idealistic, naïve and dangerous “open-hand” diplomacy in favor of “bold and aggressive” action against Iran and to support the Iranian opposition organizations. The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities, IRGC and Quds Force headquarters if Iran doesn’t cease its nuclear weapons program and supporting radical Islamic/global caliphate activities; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change.

Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it.

Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army Maj. Gen., retired, is chairman of Stand Up America, an Iran Policy Committee member, and a co-author of “Endgame.” Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the Departments of State and Defense.

Time to get tough with Iran and the IRGC

The Obama administration, clearly exasperated that Iran’s terrorist state hasn’t reciprocated its public and private engagement overtures, took a new tack during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Mideast tour. The secretary declared that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is supplanting the country’s clerical and political leadership and moving the nation toward a “military dictatorship.” And it seeks another U.N. Security Council resolution as a remedy.

Newsflash to Team Obama: Iran’s theocratic rulers, president and their IRGC protectors share the same nuclear weapons and terrorism goals and are the driving force behind the regime’s 31-year one-sided “Death to America” war. Collectively they have managed to successfully thwart all previous economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations.

There are plenty of reasons why the Iranian regime (dating back to Reagan administration) and the IRGC (during George W. Bush administration) have been labeled “terrorists” by the United States. With the consent of the Iranian regime, IRGC members participated in seizing the American embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and centuries of diplomatic protocols. Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to target and bomb the U.S. embassy and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, bomb U.S. residences in Saudi Arabia, and kidnapp and murder American captives (such as William Buckley and USMC Lt. Col. William Higgins). The Quds Force now manufactures and supplies lethal roadside bombs (IEDs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan that kill and maim American troops.

If that isn’t bad enough, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) recently said the regime, with IRGC leading the way, may be on the verge of producing a nuclear warhead, to go along with their long-range missiles, which many believe will further threaten regional and global peace and security. Others believe Iran already possesses a nuclear capability and is in the process of achieving the capability of matching warheads to missiles.

Surprisingly, many Americans know little about the IRGC although it wields considerable security, political and economic clout in Iran. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideal of his Shi’ite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign enemies, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism, influence and terrorism to neighboring states.

The IRGC operates independently from Iran’s regular military – reporting directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special army, air force, navy and intelligence units in all 30 of Iran’s provinces. At the behest of the Supreme Leader during the past year, the IRGC cracked down on innocent Iranians protesting the questionable reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s 31st anniversary celebration.

The IRGC exports the revolution through their notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force. This force has about 20,000 highly trained personnel specializing in international terrorism, armed conflict and support of proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. 

Former and current IRGC members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, about 90 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayor ships and council seats. Past and present IRGC members include President Ahmadinejad, ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and parliament speaker Ali Larijani. IRGC is also a business conglomerate controlling some 500 companies active in a wide range of industries including nuclear power, banking, insurance, and recreation.

IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy. The IRGC oversees at least seven nuclear facilities including those at Isfahan, Natanz, and Qom. And the IRGC/Quds Force operates at least 20 terrorist training centers including the Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tehran; Bahonar Garrison near Karaj Dam; and the Abouzar Garrison, Ahwaz, Khuzestan Province. Lethal roadside bombs are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.

The IRGC and Quds Force are currently led by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari. He was appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2007. His portfolio includes command of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, relations with countries like Venezuela and terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, and liaison with intelligence organ Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

One cannot fault Secretary Clinton for putting the well-deserved spotlight on the IRGC. However, her declaration about it becoming an emerging “military dictatorship” misses the mark. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is ruled by clerics, if the country has a card-carrying IRGC member as president, or if the IRGC it will still continue developing nuclear weapons, engaging in terrorism, oppressing millions of freedom-seeking Iranians, ignoring Team Obama’s rapprochement overtures and economic sanction threats, and dismissing another worthless U.N. Security Council resolutions watered down by Iran’s security council veto-wielding friends in Russia and China.

The time has come for Team Obama to shelve its idealistic, naïve and dangerous “open-hand” diplomacy in favor of “bold and aggressive” action against Iran and to support the Iranian opposition organizations. The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities, IRGC and Quds Force headquarters if Iran doesn’t cease its nuclear weapons program and supporting radical Islamic/global caliphate activities; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change.

Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it.

Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army Maj. Gen., retired, is chairman of Stand Up America, an Iran Policy Committee member, and a co-author of “Endgame.” Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the Departments of State and Defense.

Flirting with disaster

Does Barack Obama really want to be the president who let Iran get the nuclear bomb?

Outside the White House bubble, signs keep multiplying that this could be the year. Iran continues to defy U.S. and United Nations sanctions, buy time with on-again off-again haggling over its growing hoard of enriched uranium, and hone its missile delivery systems–firing off yet another rocket test just this week.

Meanwhile, the voices of the Obama administration sound like the White Queen lecturing Alice in Through the Looking Glass: "The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday–but never jam today." Except instead of jam, think Iranian nuclear projects. In the looking glass world of current U.S. foreign policy, the received wisdom is that Iran might have bombs tomorrow, and was working toward them yesterday–but in the eternal sunshine of the present moment, it is never quite clear to the White House that Iran is actually building the bomb.

The latest sample of such thinking came Tuesday from the director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, presenting his annual threat assessment to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The neon headline that came out of Blair’s testimony was his prediction that al-Qaida will try to attack America again within the next six months. But the section of Blair’s written testimony on "Iranian WMD and Missile Program" deserves a spotlight all its own–both for what Blair said and what he tried to un-say.

Blair noted that since late 2007 Iran has more than doubled the number of centrifuges at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, to more than 8,000 from 3,000. But that’s more or less OK, it seems, because only about half these centrifuges are operating. Translation: uranium enrichment continues apace.

Blair went on to note the discovery last year of a secret, second uranium enrichment plant "deep under a mountain near the city of Qom" (and on a military base of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps–though Blair did not spell that out). Speaking of this plant in the Teflon lingo of Washington officialdom, Blair informed the senators that "some of its design features raise our concerns." Namely, it is too small to produce a regular fuel supply for civilian nuclear power plants but big enough for producing weapons, at least–and here comes the weird Washington qualifier–"if Iran opts" to do so.

If Iran opts?

Blair went on: "The small size of the facility and the security afforded the site by its construction under a mountain fit nicely with the strategy of keeping the option open to build a nuclear weapon at some future date, if Tehran ever decides to do so."

If Tehran ever decides to do so?

Blair further assessed that Iran would likely use missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. Why? Because "Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East," and continues to "expand the scale, reach and sophistication" of these missiles, many of them "inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload."

According to Blair, the big question is not whether Iran can bring all this to the fruition of a full, deliverable nuclear arsenal, but whether Iran’s rulers have the "political will to do so."

That’s backward. Iran’s rulers have displayed a driving will to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The real question is whether the U.S. has the will to stop them. On that score, Blair laid out the tired approach in which Iran’s messianic and tyrannical ruling clique–soaked in the blood of its own people and wrapped in visions of a grand caliphate–is treated like the corner grocer calculating his next cabbage order. "We continue to judge that Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Iran."

That has been tried for years. It is not working. In the cost-benefit calculus, Iran’s rulers have already judged it worth building the secret enrichment plant near Qom, worth doing sanctions-busting arms deals with nuclear-testing North Korea and worth continuing to support and train terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s regime has judged it worth having a defense minister, Ahmad Vahidi, who is on Interpol’s "wanted" list in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina.

Iran’s tyrants have judged it worth backing terrorist carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan; worth exploiting major international banks to get around U.S. sanctions; and worth threatening repeatedly to wipe Israel off the map. Just last month, as can be seen in a video clip translated by the MEMRI Foundation, senior Iranian official Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, who serves Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, declared on Hezbollah’s terrorist TV station, Al Manar, "We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary, to replace Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust."

For Americans to leave this threat to Israel, a beleaguered democracy of 7 million, is a feckless non-policy. It signals that America will not defend its allies and flashes a green light to the world’s would-be proliferators.

If the deus ex machina is to be regime change in Iran, it is time for America to go all out to speed that along. There need not be either-or choices among preparing for U.S. military action, supporting Iranian dissidents, imposing yet more targeted sanctions and broadly imposing sanctions on Iran’s gasoline imports. Congress has given broad bipartisan support to gas sanctions. Obama should be calling in chits and twisting arms in all possible directions, beefing up U.S. penalties on those who help Iran’s regime, and urgently rallying a coalition to do the same.

While Obama dithers, let us consider the effects of a nuclear detonation in downtown Washington. A bomb about the size of that dropped 65 years ago on Hiroshima would eradicate the White House and Treasury, and reduce the Capitol and congressional office buildings to radioactive rubble. Damage would extend into Virginia, out beyond National airport. Transpose that to whatever location you most care about. Should the ayatollahs of Iran be allowed anywhere near that option?

 

Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.