Posted tagged ‘USA’

Qatari Group Accused of Funding Hamas Hires D.C. Lobbyist

August 4, 2015

Qatari Group Accused of Funding Hamas Hires D.C. Lobbyist

Founding member Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aym funneled millions to al Qaeda in Syria, Iraq

BY:
August 4, 2015 5:00 am

via Qatari Group Accused of Funding Hamas Hires D.C. Lobbyist | Washington Free Beacon.

A Qatar-based charity accused of funding Hamas has hired a lobbyist to represent it in the United States.

The Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammed al-Thani Charitable Foundation, located in Doha, Qatar, recently brought aboard Wendell Belew, a Washington D.C.-based lawyer, to lobby on its behalf. Belew, who will work on issues dealing with “NGO regulations and charity best practices,” previously served as chief counsel of the House Budget Committee.

The foundation was one of 36 organizations banned in Israel in July 2008 for its links to fundraising for Hamas.

“This is a significant step against the global network which assists Hamas in raising funds. The order outlaws a great number of bodies that are active abroad and which are responsible for raising very large sums,” the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs said at the time of the foundation bans.

Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aymi, a founding member of the organization, was said by U.S. officials in 2013 to have funneled millions of dollars to al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.

The Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on Nu’aymi in December 2013 after he was named a specially designated global terrorist for being a “financier and facilitator who has provided money and material support and conveyed communications to al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen for more than a decade.”

Nu’aymi ordered the transfer of $600,000 through an al Qaeda representative in Syria with the intention of transferring at least $50,000 more at a later date, according to the Treasury. Additionally, he oversaw a transfer of $2 million per month to al Qaeda in Iraq for an unspecified period of time.

This is not the first time that Belew has worked on behalf of a group with ties to terrorist organizations.

Belew previously represented the Saudi Arabia-based Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, an organization that was found to be a significant backer of al Qaeda.

In July 2004, Aqeel Abdulaziz Aqeel al-Aqeel, the foundation’s leader, was put on the United Nations Security Council Special Notice list of terrorists associated with al Qaeda.

In September 2004, the Treasury announced that the foundation’s American branch, which is based out of Oregon, had direct connections with Osama Bin Laden.

The Treasury investigation found “direct links” between the American branch and Osama bin Laden. It also alleged that the foundation had violated tax laws and engaged in other money laundering offenses. Individuals associated with the branch tried to conceal funds intended for Chechnya by omitting the information from their tax returns and instead claimed that the money was intended to purchase a prayer house in Springfield, Mo.

The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation is now defunct. Wendell Belew could not be reached for comment.

Majority of House Backs Resolution to Kill Iran Deal

August 3, 2015

Majority of House Backs Resolution to Kill Iran Deal

218 lawmakers sign on to resolution expressing ‘firm disapproval’ of deal

BY:
August 3, 2015 5:00 am

via Majority of House Backs Resolution to Kill Iran Deal | Washington Free Beacon.

A majority of House lawmakers now support a resolution to reject the recently signed nuclear agreement with Iran, marking another blow to the White House’s aggressive push to convince Congress to back the deal, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear research.

The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.

Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.

The Obama administration has launched an aggressive push to sell the deal, both on Capitol Hill and among the public. President Barack Obama and other senior administration officials have been holding conference calls with liberal groups to sell the deal and put pressure on Congress.

Support for the resolution rejecting the deal is a sign that many lawmakers have made up their minds well before the congressional review period expires.

At least three members of the House leadership, as well as 18 of 22 House committee chairmen and 23 of the 25 GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have already signed on to back the resolution, according to figures provided by congressional sources.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Republican Study Committee Chair Bill Flores (R., Texas) also back the measure.

More and more lawmakers are deciding to oppose the deal on a daily basis, Roskam told the Free Beacon.

“Time is not the friend of this deal. The more time Members spend evaluating this agreement, the more they realize it’s an historic mistake,” Roskam said. “While the administration continues to flaunt a false choice between this deal and war, Secretary [John] Kerry said repeatedly over the course of the negotiations that he would walk away from a bad deal.”

However, “if that was the case, then surely there was an alternative besides this dangerous agreement and war,” Roskam said. “Congress and the American people believe a better agreement is still achievable, and we can start by walking away from this one. This is why a majority of the House is already prepared to vote against this deal.”

Congress will “do everything in our power to shut down an accord that so utterly fails to shut down Iran’s nuclear program,” he said.

The resolution explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the nuclear deal and reiterates support to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon.

The resolution also rejects key portions of the deal, including ones that provide Iran billions of dollars in assets and approve the Islamic Republic’s right to construct ballistic missiles and freely purchase arms.

In addition, it highlights that the deal “allows key restraints on Iran’s nuclear program to expire within 10 to 15 years, including those on Iran’s domestic uranium enrichment program and heavy-water reactor at Arak.”

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] fails to address Iran’s egregious human rights record, Iran’s role as the world’s leading state sponsor of international terrorism, and Iran’s unjust imprisonment of innocent United States citizens,” the resolution states.

Roskam has spoken to colleagues about the resolution since spearheading it several weeks ago, according to sources familiar with the situation. The lawmaker spent most of last week on the floor wrangling support for the resolution.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chair of the powerful Armed Services Committee, became the 218th co-sponsor of the resolution on Friday, when he called Roskam to lend his support, sources said.

Thornberry had been withholding judgment of the deal until he was able to grill senior Obama administration officials about it during a hearing last week.

Roskam will speak to House Democrats about the measure over the August recess to secure a veto-proof majority, sources said.

A senior congressional aide familiar with the effort said the administration is failing to convince lawmakers to back the deal.

“It appears the administration’s sales pitch for this deal is falling on deaf ears. Closed-door briefings and public hearings have apparently left Members with more questions than answers, and the administration’s decision to circumvent Congress by first bringing the deal to the UN infuriated key Democrats who are otherwise loyal to the president,” the source said.

“This level of opposition so early in the review period indicates that Congress really has a chance of killing the agreement. What Congressman Roskam has done—securing 218 commitments from Members vote against the deal in just two weeks—is a rather remarkable feat. He still has more work to do, but this is an impressive start,” the source added.

In the weeks since the deal was signed, critics have warned that it will only embolden Tehran’s intransigence, including its illicit nuclear relationship with North Korea.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials have downplayed comments by the Obama administration maintaining that the deal shuts down Iran’s pathway to the bomb while imposing a strict inspections regime.

Hamid Baeidinejad, an official in the Iranian foreign ministry and one of the country’s nuclear negotiators, claimed in an interview that “the remarks by the western officials are ambiguous comments which are merely uttered for domestic use and therefore we should say that there is no ambiguity in this [nuclear] agreement.”

 

Iran Openly Refuses UN IAEA Inspectors Access to Military Sites

August 3, 2015

Iranian double talk is clear when a top official praises the nuclear deal but warns of no IAEA inspector access to military sites.

By: Hana Levi Julian

Published: August 3rd, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Iran Openly Refuses UN IAEA Inspectors Access to Military Sites.

Ali Akbar Velayati, Security Adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader.

Ali Akbar Velayati, Security Adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Photo Credit: Screenshot from Al Jazeera / MEMRI TV

The Iranian security adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei explained in a broadcast interview last week that United Nations nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would not be given access to Tehran’s sensitive military nuclear sites.

Ali Akbar Velayati made the statement in a broadcast interview with Aljazeera on July 31, 2015 (clip# 5026) that was monitored and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“First, allow me to emphasize that the issue of the missiles and of Iran’s defensive capabilities were not part of the negotiations to begin with,” Velayati said.

“No matter what pressure is exerted, Iran never has negotiated and never will negotiate with others – America, Europe, or any other country – about the nature and quality of missiles it should manufacture or possess, or about the defensive military equipment that it needs. This is out of the question.

“We in Iran will independently determine what military equipment we need in order to defend our land, the regime of the Islamic Republic, the Iranian people, and the interest of our country.

“Therefore, we will not hesitate to obtain these weapons, with the exception of nuclear weapons or WMD, such as chemical weapons, which are internationally prohibited.

“Therefore, the missile issue is not a part of the nuclear agreement with the P5+1.

“Any different statement about this is baseless.

Regardless of how the P5+1 countries interpret the nuclear agreement, their entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden. The entry of any foreigner, including IAEA inspectors or any other inspector, to the sensitive military sites of the Islamic Republic is forbidden, no matter what,” Velayati stated firmly. (italics added)

The interviewer asked: “That’s final?”

“Yes,” Velayati replied. “Final.”

He went on to say, “Israel does not dare to attack Iran. The moment it initiates such a thing, important Israeli cities will be razed to the ground.

“The U.S. accuses us of supporting terrorism and terrorists in the region. We ask the Americans: ‘Who are those terrorists?’ Their answer boils down to Hezbollah.

“Is Lebanese Hezbollah a terrorist party? We are proud of Hezbollah. It defends its existence and the existence of the Muslims, the Arabs and the Lebanese. Hezbollah was the first to deal Israel a real defeat.

“We are proud to be supporting Hezbollah, while America deems this support to constitute support of terrorism.

“First of all, we should sit down and define what terrorism is and who is a terrorist. We believe that if you defend your land you are not a terrorist.

“We are committed to the Vienna agreement,” he reiterated.

“How do you view the recent Security Council resolution?” asked the interviewer.

“We are not necessarily required to accept everything decided by the Security Council,” replied Velayati. “Let me give you an example that is important to us and to you.

“The Security Council might make resolutions in favor of Israel. We would not accept or recognize these resolutions. This is what the Arab and Islamic countries would do. They would not recognize these resolutions.

“There were quite a few UN Security Council resolutions which ran counter to the interests of some countries that did not recognize them.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will not succumb to any international resolution that contradicts our strategic interests and our sovereignty.

“However, with regard to the Vienna agreement, if it wins the support of the legal authorities in Iran, Iran will be completely committed to it.”

Iran’s parliament has no authority over nuclear deal, Iran’s top negotiator says

August 1, 2015

Iran’s parliament has no authority over nuclear deal, Iran’s top negotiator says

via Iran’s parliament has no authority over nuclear deal, Iran’s top negotiator says – Middle East – Jerusalem Post.

Iran’s parliament does not have authority over the nuclear agreement signed with world powers last month, the Islamic Republic’s top nuclear negotiator was quoted as saying on Saturday.

The comments from Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, are the latest volley in a lengthy battle between Iranian officials supportive of the deal, and hardliners who are skeptical of it.

The conservative-dominated parliament in June passed a bill imposing strict conditions on any nuclear deal, such as barring international inspectors from Iran’s military sites.

Under the terms of the final deal, however, Iran must provide access to suspect sites including at its military facilities within 24 days, or risk sanctions being reimposed.

“It is absolutely not the case that the government must bring before parliament any agreement it wants to sign with a foreign country,” Salehi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not a treaty or a convention, and I don’t know under what definition it would go to parliament.”

The Iran nuclear deal, reached with six world powers on July 14, imposes strict limits on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions, breaking decades of mounting hostility with the West.

Hardliners in parliament and the security establishment began sniping at the deal within days but have been unable to persuade Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s highest authority, to withdraw his cautious support for it.

The deal is also under threat from US lawmakers, who have until Sept. 17 to accept or reject the agreement. Some members of Congress have objected to the deal as not tough enough, and rejection would prevent President Barack Obama from waiving most US-imposed sanctions on Iran.

The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will meet US Senators this week to discuss his agency’s monitoring role of Iran’s nuclear program.

 

Netanyahu will ask American Jews to oppose the agreement with Iran

August 1, 2015

Netanyahu will ask American Jews to oppose the agreement with Iran

Netanyahu’s speech will be broadcasted over the Internet to many synagogues and community centers, located in the US.

Aug 01, 2015, 03:47PM | Idan Cohen

via Israel News – Netanyahu will ask American Jews to oppose the agreement with Iran – JerusalemOnline.

Photo Credit: Channel 2 news

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to step up pressure on the US Congress to oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran. Next week he would turn directly to Jewish groups around the country to ask them to exert their influence on members of Congress. Netanyahu’s speech will be broadcasted over the Internet to many synagogues and community centers, located in the US.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also expected to take part in a video during a special session of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewry and the Jewish Federations of North America. A question and answer period will follow Netanyahu’s remarks.

“The Issue of nuclear deal with Iran is complex and have great importance to the Jewish community in North America,” said Steven Greenberg, chairman of the Conference of Presidents. Jewish organizations are deeply divided with respect to the nuclear agreement with Iran. While Jewish right-wing organizations and pro-Israel lobby AIPAC oppose the deal, J Street is trying to convince members of Congress to support the agreement.

‘Make him uneasy’ — Clinton emails reveal debate on handling Netanyahu

August 1, 2015

Make him uneasy’ — Clinton emails reveal debate on handling Netanyahu

Newly released exchanges between ex-secretary of state and Sandy Berger show US administration saw PM as obstacle to peace

By Sara Miller and AP August 1, 2015, 8:39 am

via ‘Make him uneasy’ — Clinton emails reveal debate on handling Netanyahu | The Times of Israel.

 

A new batch of emails released Friday to and from Hillary Clinton show that the then-secretary of state was advised in 2009 to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into restarting peace talks with the Palestinians by making “his politics uneasy.”

In September of that year, Clinton took counsel from her husband’s former national security adviser Sandy Berger on how best to handle Netanyahu on the stagnant peace process.

Berger, who served as former president Bill Clinton’s security adviser from 1997 to 2001, told Hillary Clinton that she should take advantage of Israel’s discomfort at the prospect of a hostile American administration to press her case.

In an email dated September 22, 2009 and entitled “Bibi/Abu Mazen” — Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ respective commonly used monikers — Berger advised Clinton that the public debate should shift “from settlement freeze to final status.”

“Going forward, if Bibi continues to be the obstacle, you will need to find the ground from which you can make his politics uneasy,” Berger wrote. “I think you can do that even with current concerns in Israel about US posture.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas meet in September, 2010, to relaunch peace talks in Washington, DC (photo credit: Moshe Milner/GPO/Flash90)

Berger also recommended that Clinton should “be mindful of Abu Mazen’s politics,” saying that he was “[t]aking a lot of criticism for meeting with Bibi without settlement freeze.”

In another email three days earlier, Berger wrote: “The objective is to try shift the fulcrum of our current relations with Bibi from settlements — where he thinks he has the upper hand — to ground where there is greater understanding in Israel of the American position and where we can make him uneasy about incurring our displeasure… Ironically, his intransigence over 67 borders may offer us that possibility to turn his position against him.”

Berger also suggested sending then-Middle East envoy Gorge Mitchell back to the region in an effort to find “a common basis to relaunch negotiations.”

Email correspondence dated September 2009 between Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton (screen capture: US State Department)

Berger wrote: “This includes: a safe, secure and recognized Israel living side by side in peace with a safe, secure and sovereign Palestine and an end to the occupation that began in 1967. This 67 formulation was used in the Road Map, by Bush, Sharon and Olmert.”

Sandy Berger (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

The former security adviser was referencing the 2004 road map promoted by the Bush administration and agreed with then-prime minister Ariel Sharon, and Sharon’s deputy and later his successor Ehud Olmert.

Berger also suggested that Netanyahu’s political opposition to the pre-1967 borders as a basis for territorial negotiations would cast the prime minister in the role of peace rejectionist.

“Assuming Bibi will accept no formulation that includes 67 borders, it suggests that Bibi is the obstacle to progress and backtracking on his part on an issue that previous Israeli governments have accepted. It begins shifting the discussion from settlements to the more fundamental issue of ultimate territorial outcome,” Berger wrote.

Email correspondence dated September 2009 between Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton (screen capture: US State Department)

In November 2009, Netanyahu announced in a press conference from Jerusalem that Israel was embarking on a limited 10-month settlement freeze, as a gesture to kick-start peace talks. The freeze covered new building permits and the construction of new residential buildings in the West Bank.

“We hope that this decision will help launch meaningful negotiations to reach an historic peace agreement that will finally end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” the prime minister said, adding that he hoped the Palestinians would “take full advantage” of the opportunity to restart talks during that time.

The Friday release brings the volume of emails publicly released by the State Department to roughly 12 percent of the 55,000 pages Clinton had turned over to department lawyers earlier this year. That falls short of the 15% goal set by a court ruling in May, a lag the State Department attributed to interest by the inspector general of the US intelligence community in the possible compromise of classified information.

The emails released Friday raised new questions about Clinton’s stated reason for routing all her work-related emails through a private server. On several occasions, Clinton received messages not only at her home email server — hdr22@clintonemail.com — but also on a BlackBerry email account through her cellphone provider.

In March, a Clinton spokesman said the only reason Clinton had her own account is because she “wanted the simplicity of using one device” and “opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.”

There was no indication from emails released so far that Clinton’s home computer system used encryption software that would have protected her communications from the prying eyes of foreign spies, hackers or any other interested parties on the Internet.

Current and former intelligence officials have said they assume the emails were intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Earlier this year, a district court judge mandated that the agency release batches of Clinton’s private correspondence from her time as secretary of state every 30 days starting June 30.

The regular releases of Clinton’s correspondence all but guarantee a slow drip of revelations from the emails throughout the Democratic presidential primary campaign, complicating her efforts to put the issue to rest. The goal is for the department to publicly unveil all 55,000 pages of her emails by Jan. 29, 2016 — just three days before Iowa caucus-goers cast the first votes in the Democratic primary contest.

Despite Bombing Campaign, Islamic State No Weaker Than a Year Ago

August 1, 2015

Despite Bombing Campaign, Islamic State No Weaker Than a Year Ago.

by Breitbart News31 Jul 2015

via Despite Bombing Campaign, Islamic State No Weaker Than a Year Ago – Breitbart.

WASHINGTON (AP) — After billions of dollars spent and more than 10,000 extremist fighters killed, the Islamic State group is fundamentally no weaker than it was when the U.S.-led bombing campaign began a year ago, American intelligence agencies have concluded.

The military campaign has prevented Iraq’s collapse and put the Islamic State under increasing pressure in northern Syria, particularly squeezing its self-proclaimed capital in Raqqa. But intelligence analysts see the overall situation as a strategic stalemate: The Islamic State remains a well-funded extremist army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. Meanwhile, the group has expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

The assessments by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and others appear to contradict the optimistic line taken by the Obama administration’s special envoy, retired Gen. John Allen, who told a forum in Aspen, Colorado, last week that “ISIS is losing” in Iraq and Syria. The intelligence was described by officials who would not be named because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

“We’ve seen no meaningful degradation in their numbers,” a defense official said, citing intelligence estimates that put the group’s total strength at between 20,000 and 30,000, the same estimate as last August when the airstrikes began.

The Islamic State’s staying power also raises questions about the administration’s approach to the threat that the group poses to the U.S. and its allies. Although officials do not believe it is planning complex attacks on the West from its territory, the group’s call to Western Muslims to kill at home has become a serious problem, FBI Director James Comey and other officials say.

Yet under the Obama administration’s campaign of bombing and training, which prohibits American troops from accompanying fighters into combat or directing air strikes from the ground, it could take a decade to drive the Islamic State from its safe havens, analysts say. The administration is adamant that it will commit no U.S. ground troops to the fight despite calls from some in Congress to do so.

The U.S.-led coalition and its Syrian and Kurdish allies on the ground have made some inroads. The Islamic State has lost 9.4 percent of its territory in the first six months of 2015, according to an analysis by the conflict monitoring group IHS. And the military campaign has arrested the sense of momentum and inevitability created by the group’s stunning advances last year, leaving the combination of Sunni religious extremists and former Saddam Hussein loyalists unable to grow its forces or continue its surge.

“In Raqqa, they are being slowly strangled,” said an activist who fled Raqqa earlier this year and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect relatives and friends who remain there. “There is no longer a feeling that Raqqa is a safe haven for the group.”

A Delta Force raid in Syria that killed Islamic State financier Abu Sayyaf in May also has resulted in a well of intelligence about the group’s structure and finances, U.S. officials say. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.

Syrian Kurdish fighters and their allies have wrested most of the northern Syria border from the Islamic State group. In June, the U.S.-backed alliance captured the border town of Tal Abyad, which for more than a year had been the militants’ most vital direct supply route from Turkey. The Kurds also took the town of Ein Issa, a hub for IS movements and supply lines only 35 miles north of Raqqa.

As a result, the militants have had to take a more circuitous smuggling path through a stretch of about 60 miles they still control along the Turkish border. A plan announced this week for a U.S.-Turkish “safe zone” envisages driving the Islamic State group out of those areas as well, using Syrian rebels backed by airstrikes.

In Raqqa, U.S. coalition bombs pound the group’s positions and target its leaders with increasing regularity. The militants’ movements have been hampered by strikes against bridges, and some fighters are sending their families away to safer ground.

In early July, a wave of strikes in 24 hours destroyed 18 overpasses and a number of roads used by the group in and around Raqqa.

Reflecting IS unease, the group has taken exceptional measures against residents of Raqqa the past two weeks, activists say. It has moved to shut down private Internet access for residents, arrested suspected spies and set up security cameras in the streets. Patrols by its “morals police” have decreased because fighters are needed on the front lines, the activists say.

But American intelligence officials and other experts say that in the big picture, the Islamic State is hanging tough.

“The pressure on Raqqa is significant, and it’s an important thing to watch, but looking at the overall picture, ISIS is mostly in the same place,” said Harleen Gambhir, a counterterrorism analyst at Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “Overall ISIS still retains the ability to plan and execute phased conventional military campaigns and terrorist attacks.”

In Iraq, the Islamic State’s seizure of the strategically important provincial capital of Ramadi has so far stood. Although U.S. officials have said it is crucial that the government in Baghdad win back disaffected Sunnis, there is little sign of that happening. American-led efforts to train Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State have produced a grand total of 60 vetted fighters.

The group has adjusted its tactics to thwart a U.S. bombing campaign that tries to avoid civilian casualties, officials say. Fighters no longer move around in easily targeted armored columns; they embed themselves among women and children, and they communicate through couriers to thwart eavesdropping and geolocation, the defense official said.

Oil continues to be a major revenue source. By one estimate, the Islamic State is clearing $500 million per year from oil sales, said Daniel Glaser, assistant secretary for terrorist financing at the Treasury Department. That’s on top of as much as $1 billion in cash the group seized from banks in its territory.

Although the U.S. has been bombing oil infrastructure, the militants have been adept at rebuilding oil refining, drilling and trading capacity, the defense official said.

“ISIL has plenty of money,” Glaser said last week, more than enough to meet a payroll he estimated at a high of $360 million a year.

Glaser said the U.S. was gradually squeezing the group’s finances through sanctions, military strikes and other means, but he acknowledged it would take time.

Ahmad al-Ahmad, a Syrian journalist in Hama province who heads an opposition media outfit called Syrian Press Center, said he did not expect recent setbacks to seriously alter the group’s fortunes.

“IS moves with a very intelligent strategy which its fighters call the lizard strategy,” he said. “They emerge in one place, then they disappear and pop up in another place.”

___

Karam and Mroue reported from Beirut.

Follow Ken Dilanian on Twitter at https://twitter.com/kendilanianap .

Follow Zeina Karam at https://twitter.com/zkaram?lang=en. Follow Bassem Mroue at https://twitter.com/bmroue

Huckabee is Right: Holocaust Lessons Needed in Iran Deal

August 1, 2015

Huckabee is Right: Iran Nuclear Deal Brings us Closer to Catastrophe of Holocaust Proportions

by Anne Bayefsky31 Jul 2015

via Huckabee is Right: Holocaust Lessons Needed in Iran Deal.

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee raised the specter of the Holocaust in his evaluation of President Obama’s Iran deal, he touched a raw nerve because Huckabee got it right: The Holocaust taught us that evil is not satiated after it consumes Jews. A deal that is catastrophic for Israel is also catastrophic for the United States.

The Governor reminded us that imagining the deal means losing some purportedly tolerable number of American servicemen to Iranian terror, somewhere “over there,” is morally and empirically wrong.

Critics, however—starting with the President—jumped on the Governor’s remarks – misread and misrepresented. What the Governor actually said to Breitbart News on July 25, 2015 was as follows: “This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

In response to the critics, Huckabee refused to be cowed. He subsequently told reporters and tweeted: “The last time the world did not take seriously threats against the Jewish people, just before World War II, this ended up in the murder of six million Jews… For decades, Iranian leaders have pledged to ‘destroy,’ ‘annihilate,’ and ‘wipe Israel off the map’ with a ‘big Holocaust.’” “What’s ‘unacceptable’ is a mushroom cloud over Israel,” he added. “If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all.”

President Obama, anxious to court American Jews to support the deal – and New York Senator Chuck Schumer in particular – responded with alacrity from a trip abroad in Ethiopia: “The particular comments of Mr. Huckabee are, I think, part of just a general pattern that we’ve seen that is — would be considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad.”

Huckabee shot back via Twitter: “What’s ‘ridiculous and sad’ is that @POTUS does not take Iran’s repeated threats seriously.”

The accuracy of Huckabee’s reply was corroborated by Secretary Kerry within a day, when Kerry testified at the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week. Over and over, Kerry was asked by Congressmen about the dangers of Iran in the here and now.

Congressman

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

80%

: Three months ago Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi stated that erasing Israel off the map is non-negotiable. Do you believe his comments accurately reflect Iranian government goals?Secretary Kerry: I think it accurately reflects some people’s rhetoric and some people’s attitude…

Congressman

Rep. Steven Chabot (R-OH)

80%

: If this is such a good deal, why is Israel so opposed to it?Secretary Kerry: First of all, I understand when you say Israel, there are people in Israel who support it…There are concerns about the region they live in, about the nature of the rhetoric that’s used…

Congressman

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

74%

: Is it the policy of the ayatollah…that Iran wants to destroy the United States? …Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?Secretary Kerry: I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity. But I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us.

In other words, the Prime Minister of a democratic state, a close ally, and three-quarters of Jewish Israelis from all political stripes who are opposed to the deal were dismissed, along with the insufficiently specific “rhetoric.”

The militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, Kerry suggested in the same hearing, was all in the past. “We know what they were doing, we’ve already drawn our conclusion about 2003. We know they were engaged in trying to make a weapon.” So this deal literally gives Iran a do-over.

Downplaying the evil intent of Iran isn’t just fuzzy thinking. This posture has formed the essence of the President’s foreign policy from the moment he took office and is critical to appreciating the catastrophic nature of the deal.

As early as March 2009, President Obama produced a video in which he directly addressed the “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” seeking “engagement grounded in mutual respect.” When his vision finally culminated last week in the overthrow of the entire hard-won UN sanctions regime, Ambassador Samantha Power boasted that negotiators “demonstrated” “mutual respect.”

Governor Huckabee is telling us: stop whatever you’re doing, and let that sink in. Mutual respect for a regime overtly committed to genocide against the Jewish state.

After the President ridiculed the Governor for his own political purposes, there were other politically tinged responses.

The Anti-Defamation League – whose new National Director Jonathan Greenblatt is a former Special Assistant to President Obama – immediately fell in line behind the President. Naturally, Greenblatt labeled Huckabee’s comments “completely out of line.”

Marvin Hier, Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told CNN, “…the only way we’re going to win this is with bipartisan support…[W]hat [Huckabee] said…is hardly the way to achieve that bipartisan support.” Huckabee’s political rival Jeb Bush told MSNBC: “This is not the way we’re going to win elections…” The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, called Huckabee’s words inappropriate while explaining to USA Today that “he had met with dozens of congressional Democrats because ‘I think ultimately they may decide whether this deal goes through or doesn’t go through.’”

Critics of Huckabee worried that Democrats would defend their president if his honor was at stake, regardless of the demerits of the deal. Seeking precisely such an outcome, the President had twisted Huckabee’s words into a personal assault devoid of substance. From Ethiopia, the President said: “we just don’t fling out ad hominem attacks like that.” Instead of addressing Iran’s illegal, evil intentions and deeds, or Iran’s lack of mutual respect for diversity of any kind, the President made the critique of the deal all about himself.

The liberal news outlet Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) ran a piece about Huckabee’s comments that counseled those considering making a Holocaust analogy: “never again.” That’s exactly the intimidation President Obama hoped to achieve.

It is also exactly the opposite of the lesson that ought to be drawn from the Holocaust.

In 1939, when Hitler spoke of “the end of the Jews” of Europe, precious few took seriously his genocidal intent. Just days ago, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a chanting crowd: “You heard ‘Death to Israel,’ ‘Death to the US’… So we ask Almighty God to accept these prayers by the people of Iran.”

Last year, Khamenei said “this barbaric… regime of Israel… has no cure but to be annihilated.”

It is time that the Obama administration stopped calling these statements “rhetoric” and stopped pretending that the subject at hand is Mr. President.

The subject at hand is an enemy that is the leading state sponsor of terror; today openly advocates genocide; funds the killers of Israelis; tortures Americans in its prisons; and stays in power only through brutality and mass disenfranchisement. An enemy that was caught red-handed trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has spent years continuously violating nuclear non-proliferation laws.

The subject is a deal that puts billions into the hands of this deadly foe. A deal that promises Iran an end to an arms embargo when the previously entrenched Security Council regime had no time limit and was not about to expire. A deal that grants Iran a right to enrich that was denied under the now defunct legally binding resolutions.

The President’s deal, with this enemy, takes Israel to the brink of a catastrophe of Holocaust proportions. What else should we call nuclear war?

 Anne Bayefsky is the director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Lawmakers Confirm French Diplomat Supports Congress Rejecting Iran Deal

August 1, 2015

Lawmakers Confirm French Diplomat Supports Congress Rejecting Iran Deal

Jacques Audibert reported to have said congressional rejection would be ‘helpful’

BY:
July 31, 2015 4:05 pm

via Lawmakers Confirm French Diplomat Supports Congress Rejecting Iran Deal | Washington Free Beacon.

Two more lawmakers stepped forward on Friday to confirm recent comments by senior French national security official Jacques Audibert, who reportedly told a delegation of lawmakers in a recent meeting that a congressional rejection of the recent Iranian nuclear deal could be “helpful.”

Audibert, a senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande, is said to have told Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D., Calif.) and Mike Turner (R., Ohio) in a recent meeting that congressional disapproval of the deal could be beneficial and help world powers secure more favorable terms.

The comments, which were first reported Thursday by Bloomberg, are directly at odds with recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry, who has argued that a rejection of the deal would destroy international sanctions on Tehran and push it to pursue nuclear weapons more aggressively.

Reps. Paul Cook (R., Calif.) and Tom Marino (R., Pa.) released a joint statement on Friday confirming Audibert’s comments as described by Sanchez.

“We participated in the meeting and can confirm that Congresswoman Sanchez’s account of the meeting is accurate. We disagree with recent claims that seek to refute her account,” the lawmakers said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.

The French Embassy continues to deny the report and worked furiously on in conjunction with White House officials Thursday to downplay Audibert’s comments, sources said.

“I was in the July 17 meeting of Codel Turner with French Diplomatic Advisor Jacques Audibert, and the July 30 Bloomberg article on the meeting is completely inaccurate,” U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jane Hartley said in a statement released by the embassy. “Mr. Audibert expressed France’s strong support for the JCPOA, never said there would be a better deal if Congress rejected it, and emphasized that it was a robust and hard-won accord.”

The initial report of Audibert’s comments prompted a quick pushback by the French Embassy, which was pressed to do so at the behest of White House officials, who were reportedly panicked over the report, according to sources apprised of the situation.

Audibert “basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told Bloomberg. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”

The comments  “directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions,” according to Bloomberg.

The French Embassy’s Twitter account issued a statement by Audibert, who also distanced himself from the report.

“During the meeting with the members of the US Congress on the 17th of July, I never said or suggested that a no vote from the Congress on the JCPOA might be helpful or lead to a better deal,” Audibert said in the statement. “I insisted repeatedly on the fact that the deal itself was the best possible.”

Eric Schultz, White House press secretary, also took to Twitter to push back against the report.

However, Audibert walked back his initial rejection of the report on Friday in an interview with French-language press.

When asked by European officials what would happen if Congress were to reject the deal, Audibert “told them that in my opinion, no European company would take the risk of going to do business in Iran, since it risks being subjected to US sanctions, as was recently the case of a large French bank. It’s obvious,” French press reported.

Audibert’s apparent support for a congressional no vote on the deal is said to have swayed some lawmakers to oppose the agreement.

While Kerry and senior Obama administration officials claim that congressional refusal to lift sanctions on Iran would collapse sanctions and push international entities to do business in Iran, Audibert disagrees.

Sanchez told Bloomberg that she asked the French official “specifically what the Europeans would do, and his comment was that the way the U.S. sanctions are set in, he didn’t see an entity or a country going against them, that the risk was too high.”

U.S. Defense Official: ‘No Meaningful Degradation’ In Islamic State Force From Obama Bomb Campaign

July 31, 2015

U.S. Defense Official: ‘No Meaningful Degradation’ In Islamic State Force From Obama Bomb Campaign

BY:
July 31, 2015 1:15 pm

via U.S. Defense Official: ‘No Meaningful Degradation’ In Islamic State Force From Obama Bomb Campaign | Washington Free Beacon.

The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Obama administration bomb campaign launched last year against the Islamic State has yielded no perceivable degradation of the terrorist organization’s forces.

The Associated Press reported:

The military campaign has prevented Iraq’s collapse and put the Islamic State under increasing pressure in northern Syria, particularly squeezing its self-proclaimed capital in Raqqa. But intelligence analysts see the overall situation as a strategic stalemate: The Islamic State remains a well-funded extremist army able to replenish its ranks with foreign jihadis as quickly as the U.S. can eliminate them. Meanwhile, the group has expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

An unnamed defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, admitted that U.S. intelligence has “seen no meaningful degradation in their numbers.”

U.S. intelligence officials estimate that the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL or ISIS) remains between 20,000 and 30,000 fighters strong.

Nevertheless, President Obama spoke earlier this month on the “progress” the United States has witnessed after hitting IS in Iraq and Syria with thousands of air strikes.

John Allen, the retired Marine general tasked with developing the campaign against IS, said, “ISIS is losing” at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado last week. At the same event, FBI director James Comey called IS a “the threat that we’re worrying about in the homeland most of all.”

The Obama administration strategy to thwart IS involves bombing militants and training Syrian and Kurdish fighters on the ground. It bars U.S. troops from engaging in combat with the Islamic State or launching air strikes from the ground.

Only 60 Syrian insurgents have received appropriate training and been vetted by the United States to fight the Islamic State. Still, the U.S. is planning to rely on Syrian rebels–many of whom have connections to Islamic militant groups and are more concerned with toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime–to secure an IS “safe zone” along the Syrian-Turkish border.

Despite the U.S. campaign, the Islamic State has exhibited signs of transforming into a functional state, issuing identification cards and dispersing fishing guidelines in the areas of Syria and Iraq that it controls.

John E. McLaughlin, who served as deputy director of the CIA between 2000 and 2004 during portions of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, recently admitted that the idea of IS eventually becoming a legitimate state with working airports and passports is “not inconceivable.”

The Islamic State is also accumulating plenty of money. According to one estimate, IS nets $500 million in annual revenue from oil sales in addition to the $1 billion the terrorist group lifts from banks in areas it controls.

Obama has insisted in July that there are “no current plans” to send more U.S. troops overseas to fight IS.