|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
WSJ: "Senior Justice Department officials objected to
sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran
released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled
by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions. After
announcing the release of the Americans in January, President Barack
Obama also said the U.S. would pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle a
failed arms deal dating back to 1979. What wasn't disclosed then was that
the first payment would be $400 million in cash, flown in at the same
time... The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the
Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions.
'People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians
probably did consider it a ransom payment,' said one of the
people... The Justice Department raised other objections to the Iran
deals. Prosecutors were concerned that the U.S. would release too many
Iranian convicts and drop too many pending criminal cases against people
suspected of violating sanctions laws. They prevailed regarding some
of the suspects-those accused or suspected of crimes of terrorism or
other violence-but the objections on others were overruled, according to
the people familiar with the discussions." http://t.uani.com/2awIvk4
Reuters: "The Obama administration said on Wednesday that
$400 million in cash paid to Iran soon after the release of five
Americans detained by Tehran was not ransom as some Republicans have
charged. 'The United States, under President Obama, has not paid a ransom
to secure the release of Americans unjustly detained in Iran and we're
not going to pay a ransom,' [White House spokesman Josh Earnest]
said." http://t.uani.com/2anYxxe
UANI in the News
Carrie Sheffield in Salon: "David Ibsen, president of United Against
Nuclear Iran, told Salon that the recent detention of Robin Shahini,
another U.S. citizen, is further evidence that Washington should be
thwarting-not rewarding-Iran's bad behavior. 'The secret airlifting of
$400 million in cash to the Iranian regime is just another example of the
United States enabling the nefarious activities of the Ayatollah and his
proxies,' he said... These latest developments undoubtedly confirm what
conservatives and other pro-Israel activists have been arguing throughout
this entire episode... They also tarnish President Obama's legacy,
despite his brag last week at the Democratic National Convention in
Philadelphia that he'd 'shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program'... Despite
the administration's official claim of an innocent confluence of events,
Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders claimed otherwise in state media that
'Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the
American spies.' Tzvi Kahn, senior policy analyst at the Foreign Policy
Initiative, also pointed out that what happens in Tehran doesn't stay in
Tehran... 'The $400 million payment, which Tehran has transferred to its
military, directly subsidizes Iran's hegemonic ambitions,' Kahn told
Salon. 'It has led the regime to capture more hostages. And it
demonstrates that the nuclear deal, far from moderating Iran, has merely
emboldened it to further provoke America, secure in the knowledge that
the White House will do almost anything to protect its signature foreign policy
achievement... Iran, after all, has only itself to blame for its
continued economic travails. Why would companies want to invest in a
country that continues to sponsor terrorism across the globe, test
ballistic missiles, repress its own people, and capture Western hostages?
Washington should ignore the supreme leader's blackmail and instead make
clear that Iran will receive no additional economic benefits until it
halts its aggression." http://t.uani.com/2avUKQ2
Congressional Action
Weekly Standard: "A chorus
of Republican lawmakers condemned the Obama administration Wednesday for
secretly sending Iran $400 million in what critics called a ransom
payment... House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, who
sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry in February asking for
details about the payment, denounced the administration's lack of
transparency in a statement. 'The logistics of this payment - literally
delivering a plane full of cash to evade U.S. law - shows yet again the
extraordinary lengths the Obama administration will go to accommodate
Iran, all while hiding the facts from Congress and the American people,'
Royce said. 'Hundreds of millions in the pockets of a terrorist regime
means a more dangerous region, period,' he said. 'And paying ransom only
puts more American lives in jeopardy'... Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo,
who also sent a letter to the State Department in January and was met
with an incomplete answer, compared the administration's behavior to that
of the Iran-Contra scandal... Illinois congressman Peter Roskam,
Arizona senator John McCain, Illinois senator Mark Kirk, Texas senator
Ted Cruz, and a number of other lawmakers also condemned the 'ransom
payment' in statements Wednesday." http://t.uani.com/2awML3b
Opinion & Analysis
Eli Lake in Bloomberg: "If Americans were detained, cash was
exchanged, and Americans were released, that looks like a ransom payment,
right? Using the razor of Occam... Senior Obama administration
officials insist this was not a ransom payment... There is a reason
government officials stick to this convoluted story. U.S. policy for
decades has prohibited official ransom payments... And yet, when it
comes to Iran at least, ransom payments are standard operating procedure.
It goes back to the Reagan administration... All of this is
important because the Iranians learned an important lesson:
Hostage-taking works. Despite the completion of the Iran nuclear deal a
year ago, the payment of cash, the release of Iranian nationals and the
State Department campaign to encourage foreign investment in Iran, Iran's
regime is keeping to form. Since releasing the four U.S. citizens in
January, the regime has arrested two more Iranian-Americans and detained
other Westerners. The Wall Street Journal reports that friends and family
of two captives say Iran wants more cash or a prisoner exchange. If so,
can you blame the Iranians? They learned a long time ago that even the
toughest-minded U.S. presidents will pay to get their people back. All it
takes are a few sweet words from some moderate-sounding interlocutors,
and a not-necessarily-plausible cover story, and voila: The Great Satan
is paying you for the citizens you should have never taken hostage in the
first place." http://t.uani.com/2aCNVuM
WSJ editorial: "When is a payment for hostages not a ransom?
When the Obama Administration says so... One reason the
Administration is keen to deny that the cash was ransom is because it had
already paid a high price by freeing seven Iranians charged or convicted
of U.S. crimes and dropping extradition requests for 14 others. But the
Iranians weren't satisfied. As the Journal reports, 'U.S. officials
also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said
they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.' Cash is
an excellent way to pay terrorists, fund Hezbollah in Syria and the
Houthis in Yemen, and buy dual-use, nuclear-related hardware-which Iran
continues to do, according to reports from Germany's intelligence
services. The Administration is pretending this money is being used
for strictly kosher purposes... Has [CIA Director John Brennan] heard the
word fungible?... The American people aren't likely to get a
truthful answer, but someone should ask Hillary Clinton if she thinks
paying ransom for hostages encourages the world's thugs to take more
Americans hostage." http://t.uani.com/2aQct74
Jennifer Rubin in Washington
Post: "Analyst Omri Ceren points
out that international banks 'don't want to touch Iran's financial system
because of years of sanctions for terrorism, money laundering, etc. The
State Department and Treasury Department enlisted the Swiss and Dutch
governments to route hard cash to Iran to circumvent those problems.'
Once again, the administration fell all over itself to sweeten the pot
and get its historic "deal," which increasingly seems to be
even more heavily titled in Iran's favor than was known when Congress
voted on it. Indeed, a number of foreign policy gurus have remarked
on how shady the arrangement was. Michael Makovsky, CEO of JINSA,
observes that 'the president has gone rather rogue by circumventing
sanctions restrictions on banks by laundering the money through European
central banks, which is not only wrong but sends a dangerous signal to
other countries and companies.' He further notes, 'This payment coincided
with not just the release of civilian hostages from Iran but also
followed by a few days the release of American sailors who were abducted
the prior week'... Other than outrage it is not clear what Congress
is willing to do. Democrats have stalled on meaningful sanctions
legislation, either to extend the existing sanctions due to expire at the
end of the year or to authorize new sanctions. Hillary Clinton has talked
tough during the campaign, but critics of the deal are skeptical she will
have the nerve to pass new sanctions that the Iranians will claim 'threaten
the deal.' That is the problem, of course. Iran managed to get a deal out
of Obama that required no permanent changes; preserved its option down
the road to go nuclear; alleviated economic pressure; delivered cold,
hard cash; and gave it ongoing leverage to defend its ongoing defiance,
aggression and human rights abuses. If Clinton is elected, it will
be incumbent on Republicans to work with her, pushing Democrats in the
direction of a much tougher line on Iran. Passage of sanctions, a zero-tolerance
policy for illegal missiles (shoot one down, perhaps) and purchase of
banned materials, and renewed efforts on the ground to oust Iran's
partner Bashar al-Assad are needed. Most of all, however, it will be up
to the next administration to figuratively and literally stop Iran from
holding us hostage. After years of acceding to Iran's behavior, the
United States will need to convey forcefully and promptly that a new U.S.
policy is in effect." http://t.uani.com/2aXhDwm
Amir Taheri in NY Post: "In exchange for vague promises, Obama has solved
the Islamic Republic's cash-flow problem by releasing unknown quantities
of frozen assets. At least some of those assets took the form of hard
cash flown to Tehran via Beirut in sealed safes, all in secret. Part of
the cash, the Wall Street Journal revealed, appears to have been $400
million for the release of four hostages held by the mullahs -
disregarding United States policy not to pay ransom. Iran wasted no time
seizing six new American hostages. in fact, since its inception in 1979,
the mullahs' regime has not spent a single day without at least one
American hostage... A year after the hyped-up "deal," what
was known in Western chancelleries as "The Iran Problem"
remains intact. In Tehran we have a regime that cannot liberate itself
from its dangerous illusions and continues to behave like a rebellious
teenager who refuses to grow up. It tries to make the rest of the
Middle East like itself because it is afraid of being forced to become
like the rest of the Middle East. Obama simply kicked the ticking
can down the road for his successor." http://t.uani.com/2aQcDeJ
Marc Johnson in National Review: "We now know that Kerry's 24/7 access and the
"anytime, anywhere" inspections promised by deputy national
security advisor Ben Rhodes were never in the cards - a "rhetorical
flourish," as Wendy Sherman, State's lead negotiator, put
it... Since the Obama administration appears to want to maintain
this policy of turning a blind eye in service of extending the JCPOA past
November, it's up to Congress to act to ensure the agreement's integrity.
Congress should set up an independent verification mechanism to assess
Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. The mechanism could take any number of
forms - a new subcommittee, a new joint select committee, an outside
blue-ribbon commission, or some variation thereof. But the mechanism
needs to have genuine subject-matter experts, and they must have access
to the same reporting that the executive branch receives. This idea isn't
new. Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control,
proposed a similar solution to the House Foreign Affairs Committee even
before the JCPOA was concluded. And Representative Todd Young (R., Ind.)
introduced legislation (H. Res. 571) to set up a select committee. But no
action appears to have been taken on Joseph's recommendations, and
Young's bill stalled in the Rules Committee. Between Congress's
July-to-September recess and the looming general election, it seems
unlikely that any action will be taken in the near term to address these
anomalies. But the verification challenges of the Iran deal aren't going
away. They're just beginning." http://t.uani.com/2aSAGKl
Matthew McInnis and Daniel Schnur
in Newsweek: "A
new supreme leader (and therefore new commander in chief) will likely be
installed in the next few years. These are the big factors driving
uncertainty in how the Iranian military wants to move forward. The
recent reshuffling of Iran's Armed Forces General Staff (AFGS) can give
some insight not only into the inner dynamics of Iran's military
structure, but also how Iran intends to use its military in the future.
In particular, the appointment of Mohammed Bagheri, a major general in
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to head the AFGS may be the
most telling. Bagheri's predecessor, Hassan Firouzabadi, had little
military background prior to his appointment and was instead empowered
largely by his personal relationship with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Bagheri, however, has a distinguished military career in the IRGC and the
AFGS intelligence dating back to the Iran-Iraq War. Bagheri's
appointment shows a shift away from the singular importance of connection
with Khamenei, as seen in Firouzabadi, to individuals who also possess
institutional loyalty to the IRGC, revolutionary ideals and strong
professional credentials.The supreme leader can now be more confident of
the capability and position of the IRGC and the military under his
successor. It cannot be ruled out that the IRGC was pushing for some of
these leadership changes, preparing for a post-Khamenei
Iran... Beyond improved interoperability, where does Bagheri want to
take the Islamic republic's military? The new commander and those close
to him have publicly hit on at least five major themes since his
appointment: furthering the capabilities of the Basij, the IRGC's Quds
Force, and cyberforces, while increasing intelligence operations and
extending Iran's naval reach into the Indian Ocean... Iran's current
unconventional asymmetric military and proxy armies give the United
States and our allies enough headaches. Adding more traditional
capabilities will only compound the regional security challenge, though
there may be an upside. U.S. planners may find a more 'familiar' military
threat easier to confront." http://t.uani.com/2akGSe4
Amir Toumaj in Long War Journal: "During the latest offensive in southwestern
Aleppo, officials have thus far announced the deaths of five Iranian
soldiers... The death of [an] Iranian Army artillery officer
suggests that elements of the regular Army continue rotating into Syria
as part of the IRGC-led expeditionary force. Army commanders publicly
confirmed in April the deployment of special forces, following weeks of
hints and announcements offering their services for the Islamic Republic
in Syria. Special forces were defeated in one of their first major
battles in Aleppo at the hands of the battle-hardened Jabhat al Nusrah,
al Qaeda's Syrian branch, which is now called Jabhat al Fatah al Sham.
Iran has acknowledged the deaths of seven Army commandos, all in
April. With the backing of Russian airpower, the IRGC,
Iranian-backed militias, and allies succeeded in encircling Aleppo last
week. In early July, pro-regime forces launched the operation to link
forces from the north and west of the city at Castello Road, the last
rebel supply route to the city. The Guard confirmed five fatalities during
the course of the operation, including two majors on July 13. At least 42
Afghan and Pakistani militiamen were killed last month, with dozens
killed before July 21. Syrian Arab Army, YPG, and Russia dealt the
finishing blows last week, completing the encirclement of Aleppo. The
Guard was furthermore instrumental in laying the groundwork of Aleppo's
siege in February, cutting off rebel supply route to Turkey with the
assistance of YPG, Russia, and Iranian-backed militias including Lebanese
Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militias, the Afghan Fatemiyoun Division, and
Syrian National Defense Forces. The IRGC put far more of its own ground
forces in that operation, losing more than 40 soldiers including
brigadier generals. The IRGC prefers to rely on foreign proxies as foot
soldiers in Syria with Guard officers advising and leading operations,
though the top command has not hesitated to inject its own regular ground
forces if necessary. Iran's military involvement in Aleppo
underscores the strategic importance of the city to the Tehran. The
potential success of Jaish al Fatah in breaking the city's siege would be
a setback, but Iran and its allies are committed to victory in Aleppo, or
at least achieving a political solution through military means." http://t.uani.com/2aVk71C
|
|
Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear
Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive
media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with
discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please
email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com
United Against Nuclear
Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a
commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a
regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an
issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own
interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of
nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment