Tag Archives: Iran

Sanctions Against Venezuelan Vice-President: Great First Step Against Venezuela’s Rogue Regime

Finally, we are seeing movement and leadership on the part of the U.S government to isolate a Venezuelan leadership that for almost two decades has led, within Latin America, an anti-democratic movement mixed with drug trafficking and alliances with rogue elements.

The Venezuelan Vice-President, Tareck El Aissami has been added to the list of those sanctioned by the U.S government on the grounds of international narcotics trafficking. El Aissami, as well as other associates who served as front men for him, have assets estimated at 3 billion dollars, including property bought in South Florida, a product of money laundry. The U.S Treasury froze all of their assets.

This action is the work of a meticulous investigation carried out by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the agency in charge of enforcing U.S. sanctions.

The Treasury Department accuses El Aissami of facilitating the shipment of narcotics from Venezuela and personal oversight of more than 1,000 kilograms of narcotics to Mexico and the U.S. Thus, El Aissami worked with large scale drug traffickers and facilitated their operations. He had relations with Venezuelan drug kingpin Walid Makled, who was captured by Colombia but was extradited to Venezuela where he was protected. Makled is a top cocaine dealer who had information revealed to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implicating top military Venezuelan officers in drug trafficking and connections with Hezbollah. It is not clear why the Obama Administration refused to extradite him to the U.S. It sounds like Makled was too much of hot potato. This would have inevitably led to a confrontation with Venezuela, a confrontation Obama tried to avoid at all costs.

The problem is not only that the Venezuelan regime is corrupt or criminal. The regime is also associated with Iran and Hezbollah. Mr. El Aissami was one of the key connections to the Islamic Republic, and its proxy Hezbollah.

As we pointed out in this article from last month, El Aissami, as head of the office of Immigration (ONIDEX) and Minister of Interior, provided passports to individuals from the Middle East; mainly Iranians. Iranian presence in Venezuela includes Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards are training soldiers of the revolution in camps in Venezuela, as well as in the ALBA school, located in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Likewise, many Venezuelans and presumably other Latin American revolutionaries received training in Lebanon.

A 2014 report by the Center for a Secure Free Society noted that when Al Aissami was Minister of Interior, almost 200 Venezuelan passports were issued, mainly but not only, to individuals with ties to Iran. The Venezuelan Embassy in Baghdad also sold passports. It can be assumed that chances are members of ISIS have also purchased Venezuelan passports.

The Venezuelan regime continues to repress its citizens, incarcerating political opponents, maintaining ties with rogue elements, and starving its population.

So far, the U.S government has not had any solid security or human rights policy.

These two are pillars for regional and American security.

Obama applied sanctions to a handful of individuals under heavy pressure from Congress. These sanctions are insignificant and ineffective.

Targeting El Aissami and his closes associates should be the first step. The U.S also must target the entire Venezuelan political, military, and security elite on grounds of human rights violations, drug trafficking, and cooperation with terrorist organizations. At this point, I see no reason why we need to wait for a long investigation of another suspect. Sanctions, freezing of assets, and other types of pressure must be applied carried in coordination with other regional partners. Political and economic means must be applied systematically and thoughtfully in order to isolate the regime and ultimately restore a democratic order in Venezuela, and consequently in the region too.

This action becomes even more relevant as Ecuador, another pro-Venezuela regime with a serious record of rights violations and drug trafficking, faces elections next Sunday. The pro-Venezuela government of Rafael Correa will try to secure his candidate Lenin Moreno in order to perpetuate the rule of his party, Alianza Pais.

Firm action by the Trump Administration on Venezuela can send a clear message that this kind of regime will no longer be tolerated in the region.

 

A new approach to U.S. Middle East strategy

The Trump administration has a unique opportunity to implement a new strategic policy to bring some semblance of stability to the current Middle East chaos. Under the pledge of putting “America first,” our core national security interest in the region should include the following:

  • Eliminating the Islamic State as an identifiable entity.
  • Preventing Iran from achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon capability.
  • Preventing Iran from achieving regional hegemony.
  • Supporting Iranians in their efforts to remove the corrupt Iranian theocracy.
  • Keeping open vital sea lanes and strategic choke points.
  • Defending U.S. bases and facilities.

• Re-emphasizing our support for our friends and allies while assisting threatened minorities (Christians, Assyrians/Chaldeans, Kurds and Yazidis).

Our strategy in the past has been reactive, but now must be driven by our vital core objectives. In that sense, it is not in the U.S. interest to become involved in a 1,300-year-old, intra-Islamic sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. From a Western perspective, there is no good side in this conflict. Both want to kill us.

It also must be recognized that much of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement nation-state system formed in the Middle East after World War I is coming asunder. Syria and Iraq are fractured states and a readjustment of a regional balance of power between Shiite and Sunni will evolve out of the current crisis with or without U.S. involvement. Our invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni army removed the main blocking force to the expansion of Iran’s Shiite Crescent and ensured the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) out of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq.

A Sunni entity that clearly is not ISIS should be assisted to coalesce in what used to be Iraq. Such an entity could involve Anbar Province and the Nineveh Plain, where Assyrians/Turkman/Yazidis are unifying in an effort at preservation and stabilization.

In areas outside of Alawite and Kurdish control and areas liberated from ISIS in the former Syria, Syrian Free Army (SFA) commanders believe that with U.S. and other Western support, they could pry off significant forces from jihadi militias to create a force to defeat Jabhat al-Nusra, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and ISIS. This approach should be explored. In implementing a new strategy, we must proceed in a manner that gains cooperation from those whose involvement is essential. This includes Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, and Turkey. The Gulf states must be persuaded to end support for Sunni jihadis, which can only happen if they are assured that they will not be threatened or surrounded by Iran’s Shiite Crescent.

The Trump administration’s recent declaration putting Iran “on notice” is a step in the right direction, as were U.S. Treasury sanctions on 12 entities for supporting Iran’s illicit ballistic missile program. Further, President Trump’s call for establishing safe zones in Syria, e.g., one in the northern Kurdish area, one along the Turkish border, and one on the Jordanian border, could help relieve economic pressure on Jordan and Turkey, which are providing support to millions of refugees. In return, we should expect Turkey and Jordan’s support for our new regional strategy.

President Obama’s policy that deliberately empowered Iran to advance its geostrategic ambitions and move toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability is over. Our so-called nuclear agreement with Iran must also be terminated and Iran’s joint venture relationship, using North Korea as its off-site laboratory to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, must end. Holding Iran accountable to the agreement is a pipe dream. There is no agreement. Further, a clear, unambiguous declaration from the Trump administration with appropriate follow-on action will go a long way to gain Saudi and GCC cooperation.

With regard to Syria, Bashar Assad must go. It appears Russia may support such action as it reportedly proposed Alawite Gen. Manas Tlass (formerly with the Hafez Assad regime) as his replacement at the Astana talks. SFA commanders may accept this as long as the Assad clan is out of power and in exile. Under such an arrangement, the Alawites would keep control of Damascus and their coastal strip heartland, but lose the rest of former Syria. This is the de facto current situation on the ground today.

Russia may find such an arrangement acceptable, provided it keeps its bases in Latakia and Tartus. While these are major concessions, issues involving Ukraine/Crimea must also be part of the discussion, as well as Libya. The bottom line in the trade-offs must be Russia’s commitment to help in getting Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias out of what formerly was Syria.

Turkey also may be helpful in the overall realignment but must be managed carefully, as Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) is moving toward an authoritarian neo-Ottoman jihad state. Clearly, the No. 1 Turkish concern is the Kurds. One option may be to not allow the Kurdish northern-Syria enclave “Rojava” to extend to the Turkish border. There would instead be a safe zone there, guaranteed jointly by Russia and Turkey. Gas and oil pipelines also are major factors that must be included in discussions with both Russia and Turkey.

Since we have no vital objectives in Afghanistan, we should stop wasting our national treasure to support a corrupt tribal society.

If this new strategic approach is followed, our vital core strategic objectives will most likely stand a better chance of being achieved while gradually bringing the current chaos under control.

What is the significance of Alberto Nisman’s death?

On Monday Diego Lagomarsino, an associate of the deceased Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman, affirmed that he played no role in the prosecutors mysterious death.

Nisman was a Jewish-Argentinian prosecutor who was investigating the 1994 terrorist suicide bombing of the Jewish headquarters (AMIA) in Buenos Aires by an Iranian sponsored Hezbollah fighter. The bomb killed 85 people and wounded 300.

Nisman had uncovered that the joint Argentinian-Iranian commission on the AMIA bombing set up in 2013 was a farce whose goal was to exonerate Tehran for its role in the attack. Kirchner wanted Iran cleared of wrongdoing because she wanted the country taken off the “terror list,” which would allow Buenos Aires to pursue a “food for oil” program with Tehran.

He was getting ready to present his findings to a Congressional Committee when the police found him dead in his home on January 18th, 2015 with a bullet to the head. Kirchner immediately went on national television and declared the death a suicide.

The evidence contradicted the President’s claims. The gun from which the bullet was fired belonged to Lagmorsino who was the last person to see Nisman alive. Also, Nisman’s friends and family said he was not suicidal or had he ever suffered from depression.

Given these circumstances it is likely that Kirchner or the Iranians might have ordered Nisman assassinated. Both sides probably wanted to protect the “food for oil” deal, which absolving Tehran for its role in the MAIA bombing would allow.

At the time Argentina was going through an energy crisis. The situation got so bad that in 2012 Kirchner nationalized the Argentinian assets of Spain’s energy company Repsol.

This did not work and still Argentina had to struggle with major blackouts. The “food for grain” program offered a way out because it promised to exchange Argentinian grain for Iran oil. Both Iran and Argentina would benefit from the deal. Along with Argentina grain Tehran could further expand its terror network in South America while Kirchner would have petroleum to power Argentina’s power plants.

Nisman’s evidence threatened to crush the deal and expose the Iranian network. So both Kirchner and mullahs had reason to want Nisman dead.

Kirchner had a history of employing violent leftist gangs such as the Quebracho to stifle the opposition and compromised the judiciary in order to enforce her policies. Due to Kirchner’s history of violence it is not hard for some Argentina’s to think that she had some role in Nisman’s assassination. Iranian directed operators, whether Hezbollah or IRGC, have a history of active measures in the region and may have acted independently.

At the time of his death Alberto Nisman was about to expose collusion between the Argentinian government, Iran, and Hezbollah. Such revelations would have damaged the Kirchner administration and disrupt the oil deal with Tehran.

 

Is Iran getting ready to choke oil supply lines?

On January 30th a boat piloted by a Houthi suicide bomber crashed into a frigate of the Saudi Royal Navy off the coast of Yemen. Due to the attacker yelling “Allahu Akbar, death to America, death to Israel” before crashing the Pentagon thinks the attack was meant for a U.S. Navy ship.

Basing this analysis on the attacker’s slogan is a mistake, since “Death to America…” is part of the Houthi rebel motto. This means that the Houthis probably use it when attacking troops and military installations that do not belong to the U.S.

The rebels have been engaged in a yearlong war with the Yemeni forces supporting of President Hadi and their Saudi allies.

Most of the support for President Hadi comes from a Saudi led coalition of Sunni states who have been bombing Houthi held cities and positions. The Saudi airstrikes and bombardments have caused a major humanitarian crisis in Yemen with aid workers being unable to penetrate Houthi held areas.

Since the Houthi Rebels are at war with Saudi Arabia it is entirely reasonable that they would launch an attack on Saudi ships.

Within two day of the attack Tehran announced that it has held another ballistic missile tests. The head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that with these missiles Iran can hit moving objects such as ships.

So Houthi rebels are accused of conducting a suicide bombing of a Saudi frigate and within two day the head of IRGC proclaims that Iran has missiles that can strike warships. Since Iran has been supplying weapons and cash to the Houthi rebels, it’s reasonable to believe the two incidents might be connected.

In October Iran deployed battleships to the Gulf of Aden claiming that the purpose of the ships is to protect the Houthi rebels and “Iran’s interests on the high seas.” The Gulf is the main passage point for Saudi oil heading towards Europe.

If oil tankers could not pass through the Gulf then they would have to travel through the Horn of Africa. This rerouting would increase costs and travel time causing oil prices to rise.

Iranian battleships off the coast of Yemen, their new ballistic missile tests, and the Houthi boat attacks could be part of Tehran’s attempts to use the Rebels as proxies to force the Saudis to abandon the Gulf of Aden as a transit point.

With the use of ballistic missiles and suicide bombings the Houthis could force oil tankers to reroute and travel through the Horn of Africa. The rebels have already used boats to attack Saudi coalition forces in the past. The same tactics could be applied to oil tankers especially since they are not well armed like military ships.

Houthis have also used ballistic missiles to attack U.S. battleships. Last October Houthi missiles targeted USS Mason, but fortunately no American service members were hurt and the ship was not damaged. So using Iranian missiles against large and slow targets like oil tankers is possible.

Using Houthis as proxies would allow Iran to escape U.S. retaliation while at the same time hurting America’s Saudi and European allies. Tehran could avoid direct military confrontation while at the same time choking off one of the main point for oil shipments.

The Iranians might also use the Gulf of Aden to test U.S. resolve in case Tehran goes through its promise of blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which would effectively block most of the world’s oil supply.

If the Americans and the Saudis allow the Houthis to inflict enough damage on oil tankers that they would be forced to reroute their shipments it might convince Tehran that the U.S. is not serious about its commitments in the region. Emboldened by U.S. failure to defend the Gulf Iran could try to force a confrontation at Hormuz hoping that Washington would back away again.

Plus, the Gulf narrowest point is 18 miles compared to the Strait’s 21. Given how close both are in size, blockading the Gulf of Aden could be used as a practice round for choking the Strait of Hormuz.

By supplying the Houthi rebels and firing missiles Iran could be testing U.S. resolve. So far Washington has failed to stop either, which could push Tehran to further increase its influence in the region.

 

‘Putting Iran on Notice’ Means Restoring American Credibility

After declaring that “Iran is on notice” for a recent ballistic-missile test and for missile attacks against a Saudi ship by Houthi rebels, and then announcing new U.S. sanctions against Iran on Friday, the Trump administration met with predicable criticism from Democrats and the foreign-policy establishment, who objected that the president was provoking Iran and risking war by threatening the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA).

In fact, it was President Obama’s Iran policy that made the Middle East much less stable, as his appeasement of Iran and “leading from behind” approach emboldened Tehran and did little to stop it from pursuing nuclear weapons and building ballistic missiles to carry them. The Obama administration did absolutely nothing in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and its backing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Even worse, Obama officials during the nuclear talks gave Iran a green light to expand its role in Iraq and Syria. It’s no accident that Iran sent ground troops into Syria shortly after the JCPOA was announced.

The Obama administration claimed that the JCPOA would lead to an improvement in Iranian behavior and in U.S.–Iran relations. This did not happen. Iran has conducted at least a dozen ballistic-missile tests over the past two years. Some of these missiles had the words “Israel must be wiped off the map” written on the sides. Iran captured ten U.S. sailors and held them at gunpoint on the day of President Obama’s last State of the Union address. There has been a sharp increase in Iran’s harassing and threatening ships in the Persian Gulf, including U.S. Navy vessels. Houthi rebels, probably with Iranian assistance, fired anti-ship missiles at American and United Arab Emirates ships in the Red Sea last fall. Iran also has taken more American citizens and green-card holders prisoner since the JCPOA was announced and after five U.S. prisoners were released in January 2016.

Trump’s initial moves on Iran mark the beginning of an effort to reverse Obama’s disastrous Iran policy. The administration, actually addressing the threats Iran poses to global security, is holding Iran accountable for its actions and reasserting American power.

It’s no secret that no one believed President Obama when he said “all options are on the table,” drew red lines, or issued ultimatums after belligerent acts by Iran, North Korea, ISIS, the Syrian army, and Russia. The world knew that the use of American military power was never on the table for Obama and that his words were just empty rhetoric. They knew that Obama would never back up his red lines and ultimatums. While the Obama administration sometimes responded to rogue state actions with sanctions, they were usually weak and in every case ignored.

The Trump administration’s recent warning to Iran indicates that all options really are on the table when it comes to America’s responding to actions by rogue states and actors that endanger our security and the security of our friends and allies. The sanctions imposed today against 13 individuals and twelve companies involved in Iran’s missile program are long overdue and make clear that America will not look the other way while Tehran develops nuclear-weapons delivery systems.

Iranian leaders do not know whether or when President Trump will order military action against their nation. This uncertainty, coupled with tough rhetoric against Iran by Trump and most of his national-security team, should give Iran’s ruling mullahs pause before approving future provocations.

Although President Trump does not want war with Iran, he and his advisers are probably weighing appropriate and limited military options. At a minimum, the Trump administration needs to consider military action if Iran continues to threaten the free flow of commerce and freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea.

The Trump administration should also be weighing a broad set of international sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian entities that sponsor terrorism. These sanctions should be imposed outside of the United Nations so that China and Russia cannot veto or water them down. The Trump administration should support several efforts by Congress to impose new sanctions on Iran, including the Iran Non-Nuclear Sanctions Act sponsored by Senators Todd Young (R., Ind.), John Cornyn (R., Texas), and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.). This bill would impose severe financial and economic sanctions targeting Iran’s ballistic-missile violations, human-rights abuses, and support for terrorism.

I regret that that President Trump has not torn up the JCPOA. I hope he still will — possibly when Prime Minister Netanyahu visits the White House on February 15. As I’ve explained here at NRO, that is the best way to deal with a fraudulent agreement that allows Iran to continue to pursue nuclear weapons: While the agreement is in effect, it permits Iran to enrich uranium, develop advanced centrifuges, and operate a plutonium-producing reactor. The JCPOA also has very weak verification provisions that Iran refuses to fully comply with.

I believe that the JCPOA was an American surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program and that President Trump should renounce it. During the campaign, he sometimes indicated that he would tear up the agreement but usually said he would renegotiate it to get a better deal. I am okay with renegotiation, because I am confident that a Trump negotiating team making reasonable demands to “fix” the JCPOA would cause Iran to back out of this deeply flawed agreement.

The latest approach to the JCPOA being promoted by some Trump officials and outside experts is “strict enforcement” of the deal. Under this approach, Iran could be declared in noncompliance owing to several instances of failing to meet its JCPOA obligations or secretly cheating on them. I explained some of these concerns at NRO last July. The Institute for Science and International Security discussed recent compliance concerns in a November 2016 report.

There are several problems with this approach. First, under the JCPOA, the United States agreed to a process under which the parties to the agreement (U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran) must vote to reimpose sanctions because of Iranian noncompliance. I see little chance that the United States could convince a majority of JCPOA parties to punish Iran for noncompliance, because they fear Iran would carry out its threat to withdraw from the agreement if nuclear sanctions were reimposed. Moreover, it would be hypocritical for the United States to unilaterally sanction Iran as part of a policy of strictly enforcing the JCPOA, given that the pact requires that sanctions must be reimposed multilaterally and only by a vote of JCPOA parties.

However, a more serious problem with a strict enforcement policy by the Trump administration is that it would be legitimizing President Obama’s fraudulent nuclear agreement with Iran. It is important for Trump officials to realize that the threat from Iran’s nuclear program is not due to current Iranian noncompliance. Iran can easily advance important aspects of its nuclear-weapons effort and still be in full compliance with the JCPOA. Iran also can engage in nuclear-weapons-related work that violates the agreement and go undetected because verification provisions of the JCPOA are so weak and Iran refuses to allow inspections of military facilities.

Supporters of the nuclear deal often argue that since it is the best agreement possible and its detractors have no alternative to replace it with, the United States must stick with this deal. What they are really arguing is that a bad deal is better than no deal. I disagree. No nuclear deal with Iran is far preferable to an agreement that legitimizes its nuclear program, allows it to continue to develop nuclear-weapons-related technology, and will result in Iran’s having an industrial-scale nuclear program in ten to 15 years. If Iran will not agree to a nuclear pact that actually prevents it from developing nuclear weapons, the Trump administration should work with America’s allies to impose strict nuclear sanctions, including barring all transfers of nuclear technology. This may not completely halt Iran from pursuit of nuclear weapons, but it would probably result in a much better outcome than the JCPOA.

With President Trump in office only two weeks, it is hard to foresee how his administration will ultimately come down on the nuclear deal with Iran and how aggressive it will be in responding to Iranian belligerence and provocations. Moreover, regardless of whether President Trump tears up the JCPOA, Iran may back out of it anyway, since the flow of additional concessions from the Obama administration has ceased.

Putting Iran on notice is significant because it signals the return to the global stage of a strong and decisive United States prepared to reinstate the successful national-security strategy of President Ronald Reagan: “peace through strength.” Such a jolt to the international order could convince rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to dial back their destabilizing behavior and possibly agree to talks to address regional concerns about their missile and weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Let’s hope it does not take military action by the Trump administration to convince these states to recognize that Trump is changing the global order and that the days of U.S. appeasement of its enemies and “leading from behind” are over.

Trump Should Shred Iran Deal During Netanyahu’s Visit

One of President Trump’s many achievements this week was repairing our relationship with Israel. The president told Sean Hannity during an exclusive interview on Jan. 26 that he has already repaired these relations that were seriously damaged by the anti-Israel policies of Barack Obama.

Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke on Jan. 22.

During the call, the president invited Netanyahu to visit the White House in early February. The Israeli leader said after the call that President Trump understands the danger of the Iran nuclear deal.

Here’s a way President Trump can best celebrate his mending of U.S.-Israel relations: Trump and Netanyahu should jointly tear up the nuclear deal with Iran when the Israeli leader visits the White House.

This would be a powerful and meaningful rejection of the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As I explained in my 2016 book “Obamabomb” and in National Review Online (NRO), the JCPOA is a fraud that has not halted the threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb.

There is clear evidence Iran has cheated on this agreement. Iran also was given secret exemptions for not meeting its requirements. We still do not know the full extent of JCPOA secret side deals that exempted parts of Iran’s nuclear program.

President Obama also promised Americans that the JCPOA would improve both U.S.-Iran relations, and Iran’s behavior. Not only did this not happen, Iran’s behavior significantly worsened.

Iran has conducted several ballistic missile tests since the agreement was announced.

Some of these missiles had the words “Israel must be wiped off the map” written on their sides. Iran also increased its support to terrorist groups, the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Iran briefly captured and humiliated 10 U.S. sailors and held them at gunpoint last January on the day of President Obama’s last State of the Union address. Other U.S. citizens and green card holders have been taken prisoner by Iran since the nuclear deal was agreed to.

There has been a sharp increase since July 2015 of Iran harassing and threatening ships in the Persian Gulf, including U.S. Navy vessels. Houthi rebels — probably with Iranian assistance — fired anti-ship missiles at American and United Arab Emirates (UAE) ships in the Red Sea last September.

Another reason the JCPOA is a fraud is the fact that President Obama rammed it though without ratification by Congress as a treaty even though it was submitted for ratification by the Iranian parliament. A majority of Congress voted to oppose the JCPOA, including the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Congress was unable to block the agreement because of the bizarre Corker-Cardin Act which required JCPOA opponents in Congress to get veto-proof and filibuster-proof majorities.

But the worst aspect of the JCPOA is that even though it would have a huge impact on Israel’s security, the agreement was negotiated over Israel’s objections and behind its back.

It also was negotiated behind the backs of America’s other friends in the Mideast.

It was an act of extreme arrogance for the Obama administration to negotiate this terrible deal with zero input from regional states who are most affected by Iran’s nuclear program.

By contrast, when the Clinton and Bush administrations held nuclear talks with North Korea, Japan and South Korea were always kept full informed and were usually at the negotiating table.

A new nuclear deal with Iran must actually halt its nuclear program and also require that Iran cease its missile program, sponsorship of terrorism and meddling in regional disputes. Such a deal must use a new negotiating group that includes Israel and other regional states.

By tearing up the JCPOA with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump would celebrate America’s important relationship with Israel and make amends to Israel and our Mideast friends and allies on the dangerous nuclear deal with Iran.

Mr. Trump also would declare an important principal of his presidency: the Trump administration will not will not support or stand by fraudulent agreements that endanger American and global security.

Will Ecuador’s elections remove the left-wing government from power?

On February 19th Ecuador will be having its presidential elections. The leading candidates are Lenin Moreno (former Vice-President) and Guillermo Lasso (a conservative banker). If Lasso or someone from the opposition wins it would bring to an end the over 10 year rule of the left-wing regime of Rafael Correa. However, if Moreno (Correa’s hand-picked successor) wins then his policies are bound to continue.

This would include Correa’s foreign policy, which seeks cooperation with Iran and China. Some of Ecuadorian and Iranian cooperation under Correa included laundering money for Tehran thus helping it skirt international sanctions. Since it is laundered money there is no information on what Iran is spending it on.

Moreno will probably continue Correa’s cooperation with Iran. Tehran might start sending “workers,” i.e. terrorists, into the country in the same way it did in Venezuela. This could turn Ecuador into another outpost for Islamic terrorism.

Correa has also turned China into a big market for Ecuadorian oil. Thanks to him China has the rights to 90 percent of Ecuador’s oil, profits from which go to repay the loans Correa took out from Beijing. This dependence on Beijing’s loans makes Ecuador a Chinese vassal state. Under Moreno Chinese firms will likely continue to buy up Ecuador’s petroleum reserves, which will allow Beijing to keep Ecuador dependent on its loans thus maintaining the regimes foothold in Latin America.

Despite Moreno leading in opinion polls, the opposition hopes that looming oil crisis and an ongoing corruption scandal could hurt him come Election Day. If he does not receive the required 40 percent of the popular vote then there would be a runoff election with the second most popular candidate. This could allow the fractured opposition to unite behind him and defeat Moreno.

However, the past decade has shown that left-wing populist governments are willing to subvert democracy to stay power. In Nicaragua Daniel Ortega placed his supporters in Electoral College and the Supreme Court in order to win a third term. While in Venezuela Maduro managed to win a slim majority in an election whose results were dubious.

All three branches of Ecuador’s government are staffed with Correa loyalists. The free press and media have also been censored by the regime. Given Correa’s authoritarian tendencies it is very likely that he could help swing elections towards Moreno.

So given the previous experience with Venezuela and Nicaragua Moreno will likely win the elections. Thus allowing Iran and China to increase their influence on the continent.

Can Israel’s new missile shield help it avoid an EMP attack?

On January 18 Israel launched the Arrow-3 interceptor, which gives the Israeli Air Force the capability to shoot down missiles from space. Arrow-3 joins Arrow-2, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome as part of the country’s multi-layered anti-ballistic missile shield.

Israel’s new anti-ballistic missile shield is designed to protect the country from Hamas and Hezbollah’s mid-range missiles as well as Iran’s long-range missiles. This upgraded missile defense shield should also be able to protect Israel from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

An EMP is a burst of electromagnetic energy that comes in three waves. The initial burst from an EMP wave is known as E1. It is faster than lighting and will damage control systems necessary for operations of things such as the electric grid. It essentially fries some components of small electric circuitry. The second wave (E2) is as fast and strong as lighting so it can be stopped with lighting protection, but many homes and businesses lack lightning protection. An E3 wave is the slowest, but also has the most energy and is capable of causing high-voltage transformers to melt. HV transformers are a necessary component of sub-stations and enable electricity to be carried across large areas.

An EMP strike can be achieved by detonating a nuclear weapon between 30 and 400 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, according to the Congressional Report on EMP attacks. This is high enough to avoid any physical or radiological damage to people and infrastructure, but low enough for an EMP burst that will shut down electronics in a radius of 600 to 2,000 km.

This is a realistic scenario based on intelligence community projections of Iran’s weapons capabilities. If Iran was to detonate a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere the resulting EMP would cover the whole of Israel. The resulting bursts would shut-down Israel’s vital infrastructure and render technology-dependent army largely inoperable leaving the country open to invasion.

There are thousands of Iranian fighters in Syria and Iraq, including members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, helping to prop-up their governments. A posture of provocative weakness for Israel under these conditions is definitely a driver of destabilization.

The U.S. cannot guarantee that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. Right now Iran could place such a nuclear weapon on ballistic missiles, but those can be shot down using Israel’s Arrow-2. The system cannot intercept ICBMs, which leaves Israel to an EMP attack from an ICBM missile.

Iran has already demonstrated the ability to fire satellites into space with the Safir rocket. For the Safir to be used as an ICBM its second stage has to be heavily modified and have a reentry vehicle. If Safir were to be used for an EMP attack it would not require a reentry vehicle.

All that would be necessary is for the Safir to have its second stage modified and then fired towards US and Israel.

However, Arrow-3 interceptors have exo-atmospheric strike capabilities allowing it to shoot down ICBMs from space. This would allow Arrow-3 to shoot down the Safir. So with Arrow-3 Israel should be able to safeguard itself from an ICBM based EMP attack.

 

Venezuela’s new Vice-President and Iranian influence in Latin America

Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro recently appointed Tareck El-Aissami to be his Vice-President. El-Aissami is suspected by the U.S. intelligence community to have ties with drug-traffickers, Iran, and Hezbollah. Iran is a sponsor of Islamic terrorism while Hezbollah is one of the terrorist organizations Tehran supports.

The new Venezuelan VP has many business dealings with Iran. Joseph Humire, founder of the Center for a Secure Free Society, testified before Congress that El-Aissami owns a network of 40 front companies. These shells have bank accounts set up in 36 countries, including the U.S. His network has been integrated with the Ayman Joumaa money laundering network that launders hundreds of millions of dollars and ships cocaine for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels as well as Hezbollah. So El-Aissami’s “companies” are probably responsible for hiding terrorist drug money and helping cocaine get into the U.S.

El-Aissami’s ties with terrorists do not end there. Between 2007 and 2010 as the country’s Interior Minister he participated in “Aeroterror,” which were flights between Caracas and Tehran with a stop-over in Damascus. According to Congressional testimony these flights carried drugs, arms, cash, and terrorists. All of these are worrying, but especially the last one since El-Aissami took part in a clandestine operation to provide fake Venezuelan passports to Islamic terrorists in Damascus. This could mean that he transported terrorists into Venezuela and then provided them with documentation that would allow them to move freely through Latin America.

This has been made possible partly thanks to Cuba. Tehran and Havana have been allies for decades. When Chavez took power in Venezuela he sought close ties with the Castro. In exchange for oil Cuba provided Venezuela with 200,000 workers, most of whom are intelligence officers. Along with Cubans also came Iranians who turned the country into a terrorist outpost.

Given El-Aissami’s strong ties with Iran and Hezbollah his appointment as Venezuela’s VP probably signals an increase of Iranian influence in the country and through the region. If the country opposition is actually able to recall President Nicolas Maduro effectively removing him from power, as unlikely as it is, El-Aissami would take charge.

This would most likely mean an Iranian and Hezbollah ally in control of a country that is in America’s backyard. Even if El-Aissami does not become President he might end up unofficially running Venezuela. If Maduro becomes bogged down fighting recall attempts, Al-Aissami might have more say in running the country. Also, since President Maduro has shown himself to be incompetent it is likely that he might depend on a seasoned politician like El-Aissami to be his chief decision-maker.

With El-Aissami as VP the Iranian mullahs could use their connections with him and the country’s desperate economic situation to get more Islamic terrorists into Venezuela. Given that Venezuela is strapped for cash and basic resources, it is possible that El-Aissami might agree to let in more terrorists in exchange for Iranian cash, not to mention increase drug-trafficking to make up for the missing revenue.

Iran could also use its ties to Venezuela to ship more terrorist to Maduro friendly countries like Cuba and Nicaragua. This would allow Iran and its ally Hezbollah to export Islamic terror into the Caribbean and Central America. From there these terrorists could try to make their way into the U.S using fake Venezuelan passports.

The long established threat capability of Iran in Caribbean and Latin America will only increase. This is an important factor to calculate in U.S.-Iranian relations.

 

Trump Has a Chance to Deal, Lead on Syria

The tragedy of Aleppo is not only a giant human rights failure on the part of the West that will eventually haunt us for the years to come. It is also a geo-strategic failure whose consequences are difficult— but not impossible — to repair.

The U.S. policy under President Barack Obama was based on a number of premises:

First, the U.S. interventions abroad had only caused pain and suffering to people who now resent it and has taken American casualties. Thus, what needs to be done is avoid confrontation by engaging our enemies and adversaries.

The Iran deal is the product of that policy.

But the Iran deal came with a price.

Apart from all the discussions about whether the deal stops a nuclear Iran or not, it is clear that the agreement excluded Iran’s subversive and terrorist activities that now have expanded to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, some Gulf countries, and others.

Similarly, Obama has given to the Iranians the guarantee that he will not interfere in Iran’s aspiration to seek a significant sphere of influence in the Middle East.

Indeed, the president told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, that Saudi Arabia and Iran need to find a way “to share the neighborhood.”

Of course, this will further embolden Iran.

Iran felt free to continue supporting Assad’s murderous campaign against its enemies.

Something similar happened with Russia. Regardless of the administration’s statements to the contrary, Russia’s intervention in Syria was viewed as an opportunity to defeat the Islamic State. President Obama by then thought the cost of getting rid of Bashar Al Assad’s was too high.

Therefore, Assad’s survival was accepted as long as ISIS was defeated.

The administration meanwhile provided timid help to anti-Assad rebels and refused to create a no-fly zone in Syria in order to avoid any U.S. military engagement in case the no fly zone was violated.

At this point, the city of Aleppo — previously in the hands of the rebels — is being bombed, people are being burned alive or in the best case scenario they are being evacuated and becoming refuges. Incredibly so, simultaneously the city of Palmyra that the Assad government successfully recovered a year ago, was falling again in the hands of ISIS.

That did not seem to bother Russia or Assad. But this makes sense. The rebels represent a genuine opposition to the regime of Bashar Assad that has lost legitimacy a long time ago.

The assumption was that even after Assad retakes Aleppo, there will be an underground resistance against the government because The Syrian president never again will be able to establish legitimate rule. The forces of dissent are irreversible and are unlikely to remain passive.

The fact that the U.S. adopted a policy of withdrawal and fear of confrontation worsened the situation.

The fact, that the Trump team is considering an approach aimed at reducing Iran’s subversive and terrorist activities is a positive step.

As per Russia, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with attempting to normalize relations with an adversary like Russia. However, such normalization cannot take place without a show of strength on the part of the United States.

President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s statement about his support for a no-fly zone is a good first step. This will not only provide protection to Syrians so fulfilling an important humanitarian duty. Such step should deter the Russians from doing something clumsy like engaging American forces.

If we are concerned about engaging the Russians militarily, the Russians need to be equally concerned and therefore be equally deterred.

By the same token, even if we end up accepting some sort of Assad rule in Syria, such rule should not be all over Syria. It should be limited and Syria should be adequately divided.

This is another reason why the no-fly zone is important in addition to stronger support for moderate rebels whom we need to seriously vet but effectively arm them.

The Aleppo massacre should be a wake up call to seriously reevaluate our failed policies in the Mideast. Donald J. Trump has a superb opportunity to do so.