Kyle Shideler discusses the recent Islamic State attack on Iran with Liz Wheeler on OAN’s Tipping Point.
Tag Archives: Iran
Haley’s Speech on Failure of Human Rights Council
The United Nations Human Rights Council began its three-week session in Geneva this week as Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, warns the US may withdrawal if the council’s “Anti Israel” bias isn’t fixed. At June 6th, during a speech at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Ambassador Haley stated the US plans to work with the Council to improve its major weaknesses. Haley noted that the Council has managed in shedding light on human violations in nations such as North Korea and Syria, but criticized the Council for its members own human rights violations.
The Human Rights Council is made up of 47 countries, and The Council members serve three-year terms. The Council’s mission is to expose human rights violations and adopt resolutions against the violators; while the Council has no real authority it still plays an important diplomatic role.
U.S. concerns about the nature of the council is not new under the Trump Administration. President George W. Bush boycotted the Council during his presidency, but President Obama reversed that decision during his tenure. In 2013, the election of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Vietnam to the Council, all of which have extensive records of severe human rights violations, raised concerns among human rights organizations, but most groups have opposed U.S. withdrawal.
NGO Freedom House and six other groups expressed their concerns by writing to Haley and stating that the withdrawal of the US from the Council will make matters worse for the Israel and will weaken the Human Rights Council in holding violators accountable.
In her speech today, at the UN Human Rights Council, Haley declared that the Council has failed to address issues in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Russia. She specifically compared Venezuela to Israel by stating: “It’s hard to accept that this Council has never considered a resolution on Venezuela and yet it adopted five biased resolutions, in March, against a single country, Israel,” she added. “It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to have any credibility.”
Haley challenged the Council by stating that by turning a blind eye to human rights violations, the Council undermines its credibility. She remarked that the US has been a supporter of human rights from before the Council’s inception and will continue to be an advocate for it around the world. She challenged the Council to act with clarity and integrity instead of using the Council for political agendas.
The US Ambassador to the UN is determined to work with other like-minded states to change the Council and improve its effectiveness. Haley made several recommendations on how to improve the Council including requiring states nominated to become Council members show proof of meeting human rights standards before the Council can take a vote on them.
Haley also urged an end to the HRC’s policy of secret ballots for determining council membership. Haley stressed that the world should know which nations were supporting each other in council membership.
She stated that Agenda Item 7 should be removed, which causes Israel to be the subject of the human rights debate in each session yet the Council ignores the violations committed by nations such as Iran and Cuba. She argued that all nations should be held accountable to the same expectations under Agenda item 4, and Israel should not be singled out. Item 7 on the agenda has to do with violations against Palestine and other occupied territories whereas item 4 has to do with any form human rights violations that requires Council’s attention.
When asked by one of the audience if the US will commit to remaining on the UN Human Rights Council, Haley declared the US would not commit to remaining on the Council until it observed improvements.
Iran’s Parliament and Shrine attacked by terrorists killing 12 people
On Wednesday, gunmen and suicide bombers attacked Iran’s parliament and the Shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini killing 12 and injuring many people. The terrorist also held the Parliament under siege for one hour, which led to 4 of the attackers being killed by the Iran’s security forces.
IS have taken responsibility for the attack while this has not yet been verified.
This would be the first time that IS, a Sunni jihadist group, has managed to successfully attack Shiite majority Iran. Islamic State is vocal about its view that the Shiites are apostates. Islamic State is also engaged with Iran-backed forces in both Iraq and Syria. IS had begun a series of propaganda against Iran in the past year encouraging attacks on Iran.
Those who observed the attack describe that the attackers were dressed in women’s clothing and entered through a public entrance in the building. The Shrine of the founder of Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini was the second site of attack. Several grenades and magazines for automatic weapons were recovered from the scene. The suicide bomber was reported to be a woman.
One gunman spoke in Arabic and stated, “Oh God, thank you… Do you think we will leave? No! We will remain, God willing,”, which is a slogan that was created by ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani.
Al-Adnani was killed last year in Syria. The intelligence ministry claimed that they foiled a third attack, but they did not provide any details. The parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, called this action a cowardly act. According to the analyst, Charlie Winter, this attack has major implications for the region by intensifying the battle between Sunnis and Shiites.
The attack in Tehran follows a call by IS leaders for more terrorist attacks during the month of Ramadan. This is the fourth attack by IS since May 26th when Ramadan began. Some experts believe that as ISIS loses its control in Iraq and Syria, it will continue to spread its insurgency abroad and use its tactics and to prove their power and legitimacy.
The attack in Tehran is the first successful attack by Islamic State in the country. Historically, Iran has maintained a relationship with Sunni jihadist groups, including Islamic State’s predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq which largely spared it from being targeted. In 2012, David S. Cohen, then under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence stated that Iran allowed Al Qaeda to move money, weapons and personnel through its territory and in exchange avoided being targeted.
Iran’s support for Sunni jihadists may have emboldened those who have now turned their back on Tehran.
Iranian regime supporters however are blaming the attack on the Saudi government. Hamidreza Taraghi, an Iranian analyst close to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei claimed, “ISIS ideologically, financially and logistically is fully supported and sponsored by Saudi Arabia — they are one and the same.”
The timing of this attack is critical since it occurred on the heel of major tension in the Persian Gulf. On Monday, Saudi Arabia and seven others states cut ties with Qatar due to its support of terrorist groups and supporting Iran. The attack in Iran could help to buttress Iran’s claims that it too is a victim of terrorism, which the regime uses to downplay its own role as a state sponsor of terror.
Arab States Sever Ties with Qatar
On Monday, several Arab states cut ties with Qatar over accusations that the small gulf states intervenes in their affairs and supports terrorism in the region. Bahrain was the first nation that cut its ties with Qatar, and then Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Maldives followed suit and cut all their diplomatic ties with Qatar.
According to Saudi State News Agency (SPA), Bahrain cut its ties due to their belief that Qatar has meddled in its domestic affairs, and has funded terrorists’ groups associated with Iran.
Saudi Arabia severed land, sea, and air contacts with Qatar due to the violation of agreements signed under the umbrella of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
The Saudis allege Qatar violated agreements to cease instigating hostility against Saudi Arabia and stop support of terrorist groups. The official Saudi statement made an effort to clarify that Saudi Arabia supports the people of Qatar but not the authorities in Doha.
Similarly, UAE, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Maldives cut their diplomatic ties with Qatar to show their solidarity in fighting against terrorism and Qatar’s support of Islamist militias seeking to overthrow their regimes.
According to BBC, the most recent escalation came after reportedly Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, made a speech in late May 2017 criticizing the US, offering support for Iran and reaffirming their support of Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas.
In addition, the Qatar News Agency reported that Qatar was going to withdraw support from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, and Egypt due to “conspiracy” against Qatar. While Qatar officials refuted the news, it damaged the relations between Qatar and the aforementioned states.
According to Politico, Secretary Tillerson predicts that these actions will not have any impact in their unified actions with Gulf states against terrorism.
While the US works with Qatar militarily, the US has had tense relations with this state because of Qatari support for terrorists’ organizations.
In addition, Al-Jazeera, which is a Qatar-owned news agency continually, provides slanted news coverage in the Middle East causing concern for the US. According to the National Interest, this news agency provides a platform for Anti-American and Anti-Semitic sentiments and uses words such as “victims” and “martyrs” to describe terrorist operatives.
The tensions are nothing new to some of the Gulf states. In 2014, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar for several months protesting that Qatar was interfering in their affairs. According to BBC, wealthy individuals in Qatar have been known to provide donations to terrorism groups. Furthermore, the Qatar government has supported Islamist groups in Syria with money and weapons.
The move may impact petroleum markets, as Qatar is one of the world’s largest exporter of liquified gas. According to Qatar Tribune, Qatar can still access shipping routes to export its natural gas despite the severed relations with several Arab nations in the region. Qatar is the fourth largest producer of natural gas and oil, and it only has the following five Middle Eastern customers for its natural gas, which compromised 10% of the sales in 2016: Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, UAE, and Egypt.
The majority of its LGS is shipped to other parts of the world and this increased tension will not impact its exports significantly.
The cutting of ties by Arab states threatens to impact Qatar’s economy, food availability, cost of flights, and its construction plans for the World Cup in 2022. While Qatar is under fire from its neighboring Arab states, it has received the backing of Iran.
Qatar has been a supporter of Islamic groups such as Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas despite the opposition by other Arab states over the years. While these tensions are nothing new in the region, President Trump’s visit, two weeks ago, may have emboldened these Gulf states to take a stronger stance against Qatar by showing a united front to Qatar and the world.
President Trump expressed his support in one of his recent tweets by stating, “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!”
Kuwait has reportedly offered to mediate this tension, and Qatar is receptive to the offer. The plan is for Kuwait’s emir to go to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday and meet with Saudi’s officials. It remains to be seen the impact of Kuwait in this regional conflict and whether or not Kuwait can truly remain neutral.
The cutting of diplomatic ties with Qatar should be a warning signal for any state that harbors or sponsors terrorism. The concerted effort by the Arab states is a step in the right direction in aiding the US in its fight against terrorism and in stabilizing the Middle East.
Venezuelan Crisis Requires Immediate Action
Venezuela is facing a major crisis. As in the Arab Spring, Venezuelans have lost fear of a government that is becoming ever more authoritarian and murderous. Recently, a 25 year old woman was intentionally run over by a car whose drivers were policemen and a top officials in the Maduro regime.
Since major protests began, forty one people have died. Even though the government uses violence to deter protestors, people continue to demonstrate because living under the current regime is a nightmare. The protesters don’t care. They will fight the oppressors with anything they have, including human excrement.
The Venezuelan people have no choice. The military continues to be loyal to the government, as these officers have been allowed to enrich themselves by securing economic privileges and total impunity in practicing drug trafficking. Also, the Cubans provide more than 40,000 troops to help the regime to remain in power, as well as providing advice on the use of repressive tactics – a minor detail former President Barack Obama forgot to take into account while negotiating with the Castro regime.
Cuba knows that if Maduro leaves they will lose its most important benefactor. Meanwhile, Russia seems to be providing oil and diesel to Cuba already. Russian weapon supplies sustain Maduro’s regime, too. Russia and Cuba are very much interested in keeping the Maduro regime alive. Cuba wants to continue securing oil supplies and Russia does not want to lose this strategic ally.
But there is more. The Iranians are also interested in sustaining the Maduro regime. The Islamic Republic has secret military agreements with Venezuela and it was reported that 10,000 Iranians and Syrians hold Venezuelan passports. Some have estimated that this number could be as high as 25,000. It is reasonable to assume that many of these individuals, as well as FARC members who have found refuge in Venezuela for a long time, could join the fight on Maduro’s side just to protect their interests.
For many years drug traffickers have enjoyed the privilege of using Venezuelan airports and seaports to transport drugs that end up in the United States and Europe. It goes without saying that they are scared to death to lose an ally such as Maduro. It is reasonable that the drug mafias are likely to use their murderous power and capability to save the regime.
The president of Costa Rica, Guillermo Solis blasted Luis Almagro, the Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), for having a belligerent attitude towards Maduro. Solis also claimed that there is nothing we can do to solve the Venezuelan crisis.
In a recent press conference call the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Michael Fitzpatrick declared that the crisis in Venezuela is a problem for the Venezuelans to solve.
Well, if drug trafficking, terrorism, mass flow of refugees, malevolent Russian, and both a Cuban and Iranian presence is not our problem, what is our problem?
U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere, and in particular Venezuela, has yet to be defined. It is a policy inherited from the Obama and Bush Administrations, as well as the State Department bureaucracy. This policy is defensive and projects concern that the U.S. might be blamed for the ouster of Maduro. Really?
If we apply crippling sanctions we would be siding with the people of Venezuela. Hungry and angry Venezuelans are going to blame the U.S. for the downfall of the tyrant? This cannot be serious.
The U.S. Senate introduced bi-partisan legislation that codifies into law the executive orders issued by Obama – but not properly implemented. According to which, sanctions are to be imposed on violators of human rights, drug traffickers and corrupt officials.
All this is very nice, but there is no movement yet.
The Trump Administration has acknowledged that the problem is serious but so far no economic sanctions have been imposed since sanctions were imposed on the Venezuelan vice-president, Tareck Al Assami, in February.
In an article written last month, I pointed out:
“[I]t is unbelievable that in the year 2004, when the people of the Ukraine rebelled against a fraudulent government, they got more American and international attention than Venezuela is getting now”. A few years ago, the Obama Administration asked Hosni Mubarak to step down from office as popular uprisings began to fill the streets of Cairo. The Reagan Administration in the late 1980’s asked Ferdinand Marcus in the Philippines to step down as soon as it realized that the regime was unsustainable”
So, why can’t we apply the same logic to Venezuela, where our national security is at higher stake, and announce that “Maduro has to go?”
13 reasons why the Russia probes must be expanded
Ample evidence exists of illicit and/or damaging Russian efforts involving the Kremlin’s interference in American governmental operations, domestic politics, the U.S. economy and often to the detriment of America’s national security.
The Center for Security Policy explains in this memo (download PDF: Broadening Russia probe)
Whatever activities Vladimir Putin’s regime undertook in this regard with respect to the 2016 elections pale by comparison with – and can only be properly understood in the context of – this larger pattern involving both Republicans and Democrats. Consequently, if Congress is to perform the required due diligence and oversight with respect to the Kremlin’s subversive activities in this country, the focus of the present investigations – and perhaps others – must be made truly bipartisan.
Here are 13 examples of topics that should be addressed in such a properly expanded focus:
1. Russian interference in the 2012 Election. On March 26, 2012, President Obama privately asked then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to relay to Vladimir Putin that he would have “more flexibility” after the election “on all these issues but particularly missile defense” if Putin would just “give me space” in the meantime.
2. Russian penetration of New York Democratic Party machine. In June 2010, the FBI rolled up an 11-person Russian deep-cover agent network. Two of its members had penetrated the New York Democratic Party machine of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. When the FBI arrested 10 of the spies, then-Secretary of State Clinton whisked them back to Russia in a hastily arranged spy swap, even though FBI investigators wanted to interrogate them further.
3. Thomas Pickering and Russian and Iranian interests. Between 2009 and 2012, Hillary Clinton’s senior foreign policy advisor, Thomas Pickering, was paid some $500,000 as a board member of the Russian pipeline firm TMK. During this period, as Pickering advised Clinton on Iran policy and promoted a nuclear deal with Tehran, TMK was selling oil and gas pipelines to Iran. Pickering also was a senior executive with Boeing, which benefited from the Iran deal.
4. John Podesta and $35 million from a Russian industrial espionage firm. While advising Hillary Clinton in 2011, John Podesta joined the board of a small energy company in Massachusetts that, two months later, received $35 million from Rusnano, a Russian investment firm. Putin created Rusnano by decree for the purpose of committing industrial espionage. Rusnano CEO Anatoly Chubais, was a major figure in the creation of the Russian gangster-state in 1990s and was close to the Bill Clinton administration, whose White House Chief of Staff was John Podesta. Podesta subsequently joined the Obama White House as senior counselor in 2014, but did not declare his Rusnano business connection. That same year, the FBI issued an “extraordinary warning” about Rusnano. Podesta went on to become Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager.
5. Tony Podesta lobbied for criminal Russian bank. John’s brother, lobbyist Tony Podesta, John’s, took $170,000 over six months in payments from a sanctioned Russian bank, Sberbank (and offshore subsidiaries). The money was for lobbying the U.S. to lift sanctions on Sberbank in 2016, while John Podesta ran Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
6. Podesta Group lobbied for same pro-Kremlin Ukrainians as Manafort. The Podesta Group, founded by John and Tony and headed by Tony, took $900,000 in payments from what Politico calls “pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians who also employed former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.” The purpose was to conduct influence operations against Congress and federal agencies on behalf of the pro-Putin figures. The Trump campaign’s liaison to the RNC in 2016, Rick Gates, connected the Podesta Group with the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a non-profit whose board originally contained Ukrainian members of parliament from the pro-Russian party.” The lobbying ended in 2014 when Ukraine’s pro-Putin president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Moscow.
7. Uranium One: Sale of 20% of US Uranium Production to Russia. Uranium One was owned by Frank Giustra, a close friend and business partner of former President Bill Clinton. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the company’s sale to the Russian nuclear agency, Rosatom, giving Putin’s nuclear weapons monopoly ownership of 20% of US annual uranium production. Sberbank, which hired lobbyist Tony Podesta, was the lead financial institution involved in the transaction. Tony Podesta’s firm also represented Uranium One before the State Department in 2012 and 2015. Giustra and others tied to the sale donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
8. David and Simon Reuben. Two British billionaires who made a fortune with Russian gangster-oligarchs during the latters’ so-called “Aluminum Wars,” the Reubens have long been tied to organized crime figures. They formed a joint venture with gangster-tycoon Oleg Deripaska (with whom they later had a falling out) and Lev and Mikhail Chernoi, who are linked to the Russian Mafia. The Reubens raised money for the Clinton Foundation.
9. Viktor Pinchuk is a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian oligarch with a decade-long relationship with the Clintons. He gave to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. He has long sought to be accepted as a broker between the U.S. and Putin. His company, Interpipe, provides gas and oil pipelines to Iran. He is reported to be the largest funder of the Clinton Foundation.
10. Hunter Biden and the pro-Kremlin Ukrainian oligarch. In 2014, former Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company. Burisma is headed by a former minister of ousted Kremlin loyalist Viktor Yanukovych and is under British investigation for international money laundering.
11. Hillary Clinton ‘Reset’ Partner Medvedev, now a focal point of Russian corruption. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton bet heavily on Putin surrogate Dmitry Medvedev. Last month, Medvedev’s exposure as one of the most corrupt of Putin’s inner circle triggered the massive anti-corruption protests across Russia.
12. Skolkovo industrial espionage and missile development. Prompted by Clinton Foundation staff and authorized by Hillary Clinton, the State Department in May 2010 facilitated the visit of 28 US high-tech CEOs and venture capitalists (17 of whom were Clinton Foundation donors) to Skolkovo, dubbed “Russia’s Silicon Valley.” The U.S. Army calls Skolkovo “an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” Skolkovo enabled the transfer of militarily relevant American technologies, including hypersonic engines. The U.S. Air Force reported last fall that the United States is currently behind Russia and China in developing “high speed maneuvering weapons,” and that Russia’s hypersonic weapons now threaten the continental U.S.
13. Crowdstrike: Source of the narrative on Russian hacking for Trump. Crowdstrike is the IT firm owned by a Russian expatriate, Dmitry Alperovich, that first announced that the Russian government “probably” hacked its client, the Democratic National Committee. Esquire reported that Alperovich was “surprised” that the DNC wanted to reveal that Russia was the suspected perpetrator. The FBI subsequently made its statement about Russia being the hacking source based on Crowdstrike’s say-so, since it was denied access of its own to the compromised DNC servers. Recently Crowdstrike modified and retracted its statements on Russia hacking, but the narrative was already firmly in play.
Written by J. Michael Waller for the Center for Security Policy
Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: On Course, Underground, Uninspected
The Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program, born in secrecy and kept hidden for years, has never skipped a beat and today continues on course in underground and military facilities to which inspectors have no access. On 21 April 2017, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the oldest, largest, and best organized democratic Iranian opposition group presented startling new evidence that the jihadist regime in Tehran is violating the terms of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) agreement reached in July 2015 among the P-5 +1 (Permanent Five Members of the UN Security Council plus Germany), the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and Iran.
As will be recalled, it was the NCRI that first blew the lid off Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002, at a time when it had been in progress for at least fourteen years (since 1988), unbeknownst to most of the world, including the IAEA. Virtually all of the Iranian nuclear sites now known publicly were only retroactively ‘declared’ by the mullahs’ regime after exposure: the Natanz enrichment site, Isfahan conversion site, Fordow enrichment and Research and Development (R&D) site, Lavizan-Shian, and more. Regularly corroborated additional revelations since 2002 by the NCRI have built a record of credibility that should prompt a closer official look at these new reports by the U.S. State and Defense Departments, National Security Council (NSC), and White House.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of NCRI’s Washington office, provided a devastating expose of the ongoing activities of the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), the Tehran-based element of the Iranian Ministry of Defense that has primary responsibility for the regime’s nuclear weapons development. The SPND, established in February 2011, was officially sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State in August 2014 for engaging in nuclear weapons R&D. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (aka Dr. Hassan Mohseni), the founder and director of the SPND and a veteran IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) brigadier general, was designated individually under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1747 in 2007 and by the U.S. in July 2008 for his involvement in Iran’s proscribed WMD activities. Despite these designations, and the IAEA’s failure to resolve the many critical indicators of “Possible Military Dimensions” related to Iran’s nuclear program as specified in the November 2011 IAEA Board of Governors report, the July 2015 JCPOA inexplicably lifted sanctions against the SPND.
It is hardly surprising, then, to learn that the SPND not only continues critical weaponization research involving nuclear warheads, triggers, and explosives, but has expanded that work at each of seven subordinate locations. One of these, revealed by the NCRI in 2009 but never declared to the IAEA, is the Center for Research and Expansion of Technologies on Explosions and Impact (Markaz-e Tahghighat va Tose’e Fanavari-e Enfejar va Zarbeh or METFAZ), which works on triggers and high-impact, non-conventional explosives. The current METFAZ director is a Ministry of Defense engineer named Mohammad Ferdowsi, whose expertise is in high explosives. Ferdowsi also serves as chairman of the board of directors of the High-Explosive Society of Malek Ashtar University (affiliated with the Defense Ministry).
After conclusion of the July 2015 JCPOA, much of METFAZ’s personnel and work was moved to the Parchin military facility for better cover and security. Parchin Chemical Industries, an element of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization (DIO), was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2008 for importing “a chemical precursor for solid propellant oxidizer, possibly to be used for ballistic missiles.” Parchin is the location where the IAEA long suspected Iran was conducting test explosions for nuclear detonators. In October 2014, Iran finally admitted to using Parchin to test exploding bridge wires, but implausibly claimed they were not for weapons development. Equally incredibly, the IAEA concluded a secret side deal with Iran that allowed it to collect its own samples at Parchin—in which the IAEA in fact did find evidence of enriched uranium. But despite that and more evidence, the JCPOA was concluded and sanctions against Parchin Chemical Industries were lifted.
Within Parchin are twelve separate military and missile complexes. According to the NCRI’s new information, METFAZ has established a new location within one of these that is near the center of Parchin and referred to simply as the “Research Academy” in SPND internal communications. Located on the sprawling Parchin complex some 30 miles southeast of Tehran, the new METFAZ center is called the Chemical Plan of Zeinoddin and is located in a section called Plan 6. It’s completely fenced in and protected by heavy security under control of the IRGC’s Intelligence Service. What goes on there is concealed from the IAEA, and likely with good reason.
Old and New Locations for the SPND
METFAZ’s Research Academy Location within Parchin Plan 6 Area
Lambasting the Iranian regime for its ongoing regional aggression and support to terrorist organizations, as Secretary of State Tillerson did on 20 April 2017, is certainly a step in the right direction. Noting that after ten years, Iran can break out and build all the bombs it wants is also a useful observation. But neither of those comes close to fulfilling the Trump campaign pledge to “rip up” the JCPOA – or hold Iran accountable for its violations of the JCPOA. Secretary Tillerson’s 18 April letter to U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, certifying that Iran was in compliance with the 2015 deal, simply cannot be squared with the NCRI’s latest revelations, which it has shared with both the U.S. government and the IAEA. Indeed, the independent Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) issued a March 3, 2017 report in which it explicitly states about the IAEA’s 24 February 2017 Quarterly report, “Nowhere in the report does the IAEA state that Iran is fully compliant with the JCPOA, and it should not make that judgement.”
The real problem with the JCPOA—and why it needs to be ripped to shreds—is not what’s in it: it’s what’s been left out or exempted in any number of secret side deals that the U.S. and IAEA concluded with the Iranians. Among critical issues either explicitly permitted or simply not covered in the JCPOA are the following:
- Iran keeps its entire nuclear infrastructure intact
- Iran keeps all its centrifuges and is allowed to work on newer models
- Iran can deny IAEA inspectors access to any site it seeks to keep off-limits
- Iran can continue its ballistic missile nuclear weapons delivery system research, development, and testing
- Iran’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missile collaboration with North Korea is not mentioned in the JCPOA
- Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism is off-limits for the JCPOA
The Trump administration must make good on its campaign promises with regard to Iran, its nuclear weapons program, and the JCPOA. The U.S. with its international partners and the IAEA must demand that Iran fully implement all UN Security Council Resolutions (including the one prohibiting Iran from any nuclear enrichment activities); accept the Additional Protocol; and allow unhindered access for IAEA inspectors to all suspected centers and facilities.
Beginning to fill relevant USG positions with officers untainted by association with the failed JCPOA or Iran Lobby affiliates like NIAC (National Iranian American Council) is an imperative and urgent first step. Announcing U.S. intent to end all activities associated with the JCPOA, hold Iran to account for its human rights abuses, involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and continuing support for terrorism would be natural subsequent policy positions.
We look forward to the results of the JCPOA policy review that Secretary Tillerson has announced.
Team Trump and Iran: Obama and the ‘swamp’ have just scored a huge win
Despite Donald Trump’s insistence during the presidential campaign that the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was the “worst deal ever” and Iran’s failure to fully comply with this agreement, the Trump administration Tuesday certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance with the agreement and will continue to receive sanction relief. The administration added, however that the agreement is under review.
Make no mistake: this is a huge win for the Obama administration and the permanent foreign policy bureaucracy – the so-called swamp – who desperately want to protect this flawed and dangerous agreement at all costs.
The certification probably indicates the outcome of the Trump administration’s review of the JCPOA is a forgone conclusion just like a similar review in 2001 by the Bush administration of a deeply-flawed nuclear agreement with North Korea.
The publicly known reasons that Iran is not in compliance with the JCPOA include:
- Iran is not allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to military sites. If Iran is engaged in covert nuclear weapons work, this is where it is taking place. As long as Iran refuses to allow the IAEA unfettered access to all military sites, it is not in compliance with the JCPOA and the international community cannot be confident that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been halted.
- According to a March 3, 2017 report by the Institute for Science and International Security, Iran has produced and stockpiled more heavy-water than it is allowed under the JCPOA and is storing some heavy-water outside of Iran. Heavy-water is a proliferation concern because it can be used in a nuclear reactor design that produces large amounts of plutonium, a nuclear weapons fuel.
- The Institute report also said that although a February 2017 IAEA report claimed Iran was in compliance with a commitment to limit its stockpile of reactor-grade uranium to 300 kg, it only met this cap because the JCPOA’s Joint Commission granted Iran exemptions to exclude several quantities of enriched uranium from the cap. Concerning the IAEA’s reporting on this issue, the Institute report said the IAEA was being forced to use “convoluted and potentially deceptive language.”
In his press conference Wednesday, Sean Spicer seemed to contradict an earlier statement by the State Department that it determined Iran is in compliance with the agreement. Both Spicer and State are ignoring violations like those listed above that should have caused the Trump administration to declare Iran in noncompliance with the JCPOA months ago.
Although the above violations are serious, it is worth stressing that Iran can continue making progress in its nuclear weapons program without violating the JCPOA since the deal allows it to enrich uranium with over 5,000 centrifuges, develop and test advanced centrifuges and construct a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor.
As Israeli Ambassador to the United States put it in an April 14, 2017 Wall Street Journal oped, the JCPOA “is so inherently flawed that Tehran doesn’t even have to break it. Honoring it will be enough to endanger millions of lives.”
As I explained in my book “Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud,” the Obama administration was fully aware of these concerns but agreed to the JCPOA anyway because it desperately wanted a legacy Iran nuclear deal for President Obama and probably did not view Iran’s nuclear weapons program as a serious threat.
Foreign policy careerists – the swamp — share the Obama administration’s views on the Iran deal and are working hard to protect it. They are claiming the only alternative to this agreement is war with Iran and that withdrawing from the deal would isolate the United States. In a November 2016 article I explained why these arguments are false and why it is urgent that the Trump administration kill or substantially renegotiate the fraudulent Iran deal.
Unfortunately, it appears that some Trump officials have been convinced to stick with the deal.
A major reason for this is because almost all foreign policy posts responsible for the Iran deal are staffed by Obama administration holdovers due to the failure of the Trump administration to fill jobs at the State and Defense Departments.
When Secretary of State Tillerson certified Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA on Tuesday, he added that U.S. Iran policy “is under review.”
Wednesday, Tillerson tried to respond to conservative criticism of his compliance finding by stating that Iran remains a state sponsor of terror and the JCPOA is an incredibly flawed agreement.
I don’t take any comfort from these statements because they remind me of the 2001 review by the Bush administration of the disastrous nuclear deal with North Korea – the Agreed Framework – which allowed North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons and was violated by Pyongyang while the ink was drying on the agreement.
The 1994 Agreed Framework was also strongly opposed by congressional Republicans and was supported by the foreign policy establishment which claimed there was no alternative to this deeply flawed pact.
The Bush administration repeatedly said North Korea was in compliance with this deal even though it wasn’t and completed a policy review in June 2001 that kept the deal but promised tougher enforcement.
The Agreed Framework collapsed when the U.S. presented North Korea with evidence that it had a covert uranium enrichment program that violated this agreement.
North Korea used the time and huge concessions it gained from the Agreed Framework to accelerate its nuclear weapons and missile programs. It conducted its first of five nuclear tests in 2006.
I fear history is about to repeat itself.
Tuesday’s certification that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and statements by some Trump officials may indicate the Swamp will once again convince a Republican administration to keep a deeply flawed nuclear agreement with a rogue state negotiated by a prior Democratic administration.
Meanwhile, I believe Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues, probably in close coordination with North Korea.
Fortunately, there is still time for President Trump to get this right and fulfill his campaign promises to tear up, or substantially renegotiate, the fraudulent nuclear deal with Iran.
The first thing he should do is to tell Secretary Tillerson to immediately start filling State Department jobs that deal with the Iran deal with appointees who support the president’s position on this issue. — Tillerson also must be told to stop declaring that Iran in compliance with this agreement.
Most importantly, President Trump must publicly restate his strong opposition to the JCPOA to make it clear to his appointees and the Swamp that he will not tolerate a nuclear agreement with Iran unless it actually halts Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and also addresses Iran’s missile program, support of terrorism and its efforts to destabilize the Middle East.
How to prepare for a Venezuelan Civil War.
At the meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) on March 28 its members urged the Venezuelan government and the opposition to settle differences through dialogue. The OAS backed off from suspending the socialist dictatorship because of opposition from Caribbean states. Instead, the organization hopes that President Nicolas Maduro and the opposition will be able to negotiate a timetable for holding democratic elections.
The new push for dialogue between the Maduro government and Venezuelan opposition will likely go nowhere, similar to previous efforts. The Venezuelan government has shown that it is unwilling to give up power by repeatedly ignoring calls to stage a recall referendum, having the Supreme Court –stacked with regime supporters by Hugo Chavez- briefly took away the National Assembly’s law-making power until it was forced to back-track due to international and opposition pressure, and refusing to hold regional elections scheduled for this year.
Opposition to transitioning to democracy was even demonstrated at the March 28th OAS meeting. When a coalition of member states called for Venezuela to hold democratic elections the country’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs attacked states for interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics.
Suspending Venezuela from the OAS might also do little to end the country’s dictatorship. Maduro could use the OAS suspension to delegitimize the organization as an imperialist tool of the United States. Once suspended Venezuela could attempt to utilize alternative leftist Latin American organizations such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and Latin American and Caribbean Community of States (CELAC) group for access and to spread its influence.
The possibility that a suspension would isolate Venezuela from other South American states is unlikely. The group failed to suspend Venezuela because of the influence Caracas has over the organization’s Caribbean states. Additionally, Caracas still has friends in the governments of Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Venezuela also has a long-standing alliance with Iran, who set-up an IRGC and Hezbollah networks throughout the country, and China, which has given Caracas cash to boost oil-output. All of which makes isolating the Maduro regime more unlikely.
An OAS suspension would mean that Caracas could not participate in the organization, but would still have to fulfill its other obligations like enforcing human rights. The U.S. could back-up the suspension with an embargo on Venezuelan oil or additional sanctions on members of Maduro government who are involved in narco-trafficking.
The U.S. is the main importer of Venezuelan petroleum, which means that any oil embargo could seriously hurt the South American country’s economy. Right now Caracas cannot even provide food or health services so denying them major oil revenues might worsen the country’s internal conditions. If Maduro is unable to fund the army and paramilitary groups upon which he depends on to stay in power further destabilization is likely. The U.S. could agree to end the embargo once the OAS ends its suspension of Venezuela.
However, these measures are unlikely to stave off Venezuela’s eventual descent into civil war. The government of President Maduro is too entrenched with their control of the army and paramilitary groups. The Venezuelan opposition is divided between those who want a peaceful tradition to democracy and factions who believe street protests and violence are necessary to oust the Maduro regime.
A U.S. oil embargo and an OAS suspension might hasten Venezuela’s collapse because they would leave Maduro without cash to shore up his base. Although narco-trafficking does generate profits for Venezuelan political and military officials it will probably not be enough to fund the entire army and the many pro-government military groups. Cutting the flow of U.S. dollars may help split the Venezuelan army from Maduro, given a lack of funds to buy their loyalty.
Opposition leaders might take advantage of Maduro’s weak hold over his power base and stage massive protests to force him to stand down. A refusal by the army and the paramilitary groups to suppress protests would further weaken Maduro and embolden the divided opposition. In the longer term however, it seems unlikely the army would support a transition to democracy.
This unstable situation could lead to a civil war as Maduro, the armed forces, paramilitary groups, and the opposition struggle for the control of the country. That said such an outcome is already increasingly likely due to the decayed nature of the Venezuelan state.
An OAS suspension followed by a U.S. oil embargo may quicken the already all but inevitable Venezuelan collapse, even while it remains a vital step towards insuring that the Maduro regime does not enter such a conflict as the strongest of the disputing factions.
Hezbollah’s expansion since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War
On March 11th sources from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) revealed that the IRGC had established weapons factories in Lebanon to be run by Hezbollah. The IRGC handed over the facilities to the Islamic terrorist organization giving them the ability to manufacture their own weapons decreasing their dependence on imports.
Hezbollah’s domestic arm’s industry is part of a larger expansion that the group has undergone since the beginning of Syria’s Civil War in 2011. They joined the civil war in 2011 as part of the “axis of resistance,” an anti-American/Israeli alliance whose members also include Iran and Syria, to preserve the Assad regime and defend their arms supply routes from Iran.
Their involvement in the conflict grew from sending fighters to back-up the pro-Assad forces into leading a pro-regime Shia foreign legion of between 15,000 and 25,000 fighters.
Hezbollah has been present in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003 when under Iranian orders they founded the Unit 2800 to train and equip Shia militias in the country. With the appearance of Islamic State in Iraq in 2014 the newly renamed Unit 3800 joined the Shia militias and the IRGC in their fight against IS.
According to Hussein Yazadan, a Kurdish military official, Hezbollah has deployed 1,000 fighters to support Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and help them consolidate Iran’s hold over the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.
Hezbollah has also been engaged in an escalating conflict with Israel. In late 2016 the IDF conducted a series of surface-to-surface missile strikes against Hezbollah facilities and leaders through Syria. So far the group has not counterattacked, possibly because it is stretched thin in Syria and Iraq.
To help Hezbollah fight Israel and strengthen its position in Syria the IRGC established the Golan Liberation Brigade (GLB). The GLB is part of Harakat al Nujaba, an Iraqi Shia militia under the control of Iran.
The cooperation between the two groups and the area’s proximity to Lebanon could mean that Hezbollah will supply the GLB with arms from their new weapon’s factories. Shipping arms from Lebanon to Golan Heights would be easier than sending them via Iraq and Syria.
According to the IRGC source among the weapons produced in Hezbollah’s new factories are drones.
Hezbollah has already been using drones to bomb Syrian rebels the group may use the same techniques on Israel. In 2016 Hezbollah was able to fly a drone into Israel and the country’s air defenses failed to down it, a worrisome development if Hezbollah considers putting into practice techniques learned in Syria against Israel.
Faster weapon supply lines and support from the Golan Liberation Brigade will increase pressure on the Syrian rebels in Golan Heights, which could lead to their defeat in the region. This would strengthen Iran’s grip in Syria and allow the Shia militias to turn the area into a staging ground of attacks against Israel.
Should Hezbollah and the GLB start flying drones into Israel, or take other offensive action, Israel is increasingly likely to feel the need to respond military to blunt Hezbollah’s capability. The IDF has previously conducted raids against the Syrian army and Hezbollah have mostly been concentrated around Damascus, but some jets have gone as far as Palmyra.
Besides military instillations these bombings targeted convoys supplying arms for Hezbollah, which Israel has indicated it reserves the right to target because they posed a danger to its nationals security. Now the IDF air raids on southern Syria will likely increase as Israel could target GLB and Hezbollah positions in the Golan Heights as well as their arms supply routes in order to prevent the groups from launching attacks on them from the area.