Iran Received $1.3B Balance Within Two Months of Initial $400M Cash Payment

    Less than two months after Iran received $400 million in foreign currency in January, the top state sponsor of terror in the world acquired another $1.3 billion in cash from the United States, based on statements of US government officials. A state department official confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD via email that the payment occurred before March 17, and President Obama, while addressing the initial $400 million payment, acknowledged on August 4 that payments to Iran must be made in cash because "we don't have a banking relationships with Iran... We could not wire the money."
    Until last week, the Obama administration would not even confirm that the $1.3 billion balance had been paid. However, once the Wall Street Journal broke the story that the initial $400 million cash payment had coincided with the release of five American detainees by Iran, more details were revealed. But the State Department continued to decline to provide the "tick-tock" on the payment schedule.
    As it turns out, the State Department had already revealed back on March 17 that the $1.3 billion payment had been made at that time. On February 4, Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding a detailed explanation of the entire $1.7 billion agreement including the timing of payments.
     On March 17, Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, replied to Royce's letter (a month after Royce's requested deadline.) Frifield wrote, "Iran received the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund as well as roughly $1.3 billion representing a compromise on the interest.”
    Monday, a state department official responded to THE WEEKLY STANDARD via email, saying "I can confirm that the payment was made before Assistant Secretary Frifield’s letter on March 17, 2016, in which she said the payment had been made."
    Though the official would not confirm the "mechanics" of the payment, the August 4 statement of President Obama leaves no other alternative than that the $1.3 billion was also paid in cash.
    Assistant Julia Frifield also wrote in her March 17 latter that “[t]he payment for the compromise that was reached on interest, of approximately $1.3 billion, has been provided out of the Judgment Fund.” A search of the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund website, however, lists no such payment. The Treasury Department had not yet responded to a request for an explanation of the missing information.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

2015 Flashback: State Claimed No 'Big Suitcase Full of Cash' in Iran Deal

    The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the transfer of $400 million in cash for Iran in January coincided with not only the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal, but with the release of American detainees as well. The cash came not from sanctions relief, but from the settlement of a decades-old dispute over cancelled arms shipments in the 1970s. The Journal says the money was delivered via cargo plane:

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

    Although the administration announced the settlement at the time, including the amount of $400 million, the timing and details of the delivery were not publicly revealed until now. In fact, the administration downplayed the immediate benefits that Iran would enjoy. When the state department was pushing for the Iran deal in September 2015, a state official pooh-poohed the idea that Iran would get a "big suitcase full of cash":

[T]here’s a common misperception that on implementation day a big suitcase full of cash shows up in Tehran and all of a sudden they have all this money, which I think is really – does a disservice to what actually is going to happen.

    Just days before the deal was implemented, state department spokesman John Kirby remarked that "nobody is handing [Iran] some sort of windfall of cash", though he was specifically addressing sanctions relief and not the arms dispute settlement. Administration officials on a conference call on January 17 also skirted the issue of the cash delivery when describing the timing of the Iran deal, the dispute settlement, and the Americans' release.

    Some Republican lawmakers, including Senator John McCain, are accusing the Obama administration of trading hostages for cash.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard on August 3, 2016.

Kerry: Under Deal, 'Guarantee' Iran 'Won’t Possibly Be Able to Advance' Nuke Program

     In an editorial for the new issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Bill Kristol notes the "ludicrous" "guarantee" Secretary of State John Kerry made last week regarding Iran's so-called breakout capacity towards nuclear weapons. Kerry told Israelis:

I say to every Israeli that today we have the ability to stop [the Iranians] if they decided to move quickly to a bomb and I absolutely guarantee that in the future we will have the ability to know what they are doing so that we can still stop them if they decided to move to a bomb.

     This is not the first time Kerry has used the word "guarantee" in reference to the Iran nuclear deal. A month ago, in an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff, Kerry responded as follows when Woodruff asked if this deal was more about delaying Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons than about denying those weapons altogether:

SECRETARY KERRY: Absolutely not. Not in the least. No, it is not just about that. It’s about denying them a nuclear weapon. And the reason I can say that with confidence is that we will have a sufficient level of transparency, of inspections, of accountability, of tracing of uranium, of following the production of their centrifuges, of knowing what is happening in their program, that if they began to increase their enrichment in order to be able to move to create a nuclear weapon, we would know immediately and be able to take actions.

So I don’t agree with that assessment. This is a guarantee that for the next 15 to 20 years they won’t possibly be able to advance that program. And then when they become a more legitimate member of the nonproliferation community and subject to lifetime inspections and investigation, we will have accountability.

      As Kristol points out in his editorial, absolute guarantees when it comes to Iran's nuclear progress are wishful thinking at best. And even though the deal purportedly binds Iran for 10 years, Kerry sanguinely extends his "guarantee" to "15 to 20 years."
     In any case, as with all guarantees, it's the fine print that matters. And with the extent of Congress's oversight of the proposed deal still in doubt, it remains to be seen whether or not anyone will read that fine print before a final deal with Iran is signed.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Did Susan Rice Disclose Classified Info on Iran?

     Bloomberg's Eli Lake reports Tuesday that the Obama administration kept secret until the beginning of April Iran's two to three month breakout time for a nuclear weapon, saying "the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public."
     Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking to reporters on Monday, said that the administration has held this assessment for "quite some time." Lake says that Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed Monday "that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1."
     However, at least one member of the administration publicly spoke about the two-to-three-month breakout time frame prior to April. On March 2, 2015, National Security Advisor Susan Rice addressed the annual AIPAC meeting and said the following [emphasis added]:

This is my third point—a good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.  Every single one. 

Any deal must prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else. 

Any deal must prevent Iran from enriching uranium at its nuclear facility at Fordow—a site we uncovered buried deep underground and revealed to the world in 2009 

Any deal must increase the time it takes Iran to reach breakout capacity—the time it would take to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium.  Today, experts suggest Iran’s breakout window is just two to three months.  We seek to extend that to at least one year.

     Rice's disclosure suggests that either DNI spokesman Brian Hale is incorrect in his assertion that the assessment was declassified on April 1, or Rice revealed classified information.
     The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Rice's March disclosure.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Gives Iran More Benefit of the Doubt Than Israel

    A pair of statements about an hour apart on Monday by two top Obama administration officials give a clear if jarring look into the funhouse mirror that is current US policy towards Iran and Israel. The two comments are recorded by CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta on his Twitter account:

Here are White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough's comments, made at the J Street Annual Conference, in fuller context:

After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had not changed his position, but for many in Israel and in the international community, such contradictory comments call into question his commitment to a two-state solution, as did his suggestion that the construction of settlements has a strategic purpose of dividing Palestinian communities and his claim that conditions in the larger Middle East must be more stable before a Palestinian state can be established. We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made, or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.

    Over at the State Department, spokesperson Marie Harf piled on, despite clarification and even apologies from Netanyahu for some of his pre-election remarks:

MS. HARF: Well, the President, I think, addressed this in his interview that ran this weekend – that given [Netanyahu's] statements prior to the election, it’s going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing, when it comes to negotiations, that those are possible. So we are evaluating what’s taking place. And I think what we’re looking for now are actions and policies that demonstrate genuine commitment to a two-state solution, not more words. So that’s what we’ll be looking for. 

... I think it’s just understandably confusing for people about which of his comments to believe. And so that’s why -- 

...I think we just don’t know what to believe at this point.

    On the other hand, Ayatollah Khamenei's Nowruz (Iranian New Year) message called for "Death to America" even as he voiced support for the ongoing nuclear negotiations, blaming the US in advance if the talks fail. Rather than read this dichotomy as a reason to doubt Iran's sincerity (John Kerry, after all, said that we have "great respect" for the religious importance of the Ayatollah's elusive anti-nuke fatwa), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest simply sees this as all the more reason to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. And as CNN reported (via Josh Kraushaar), the White House just sees the "Death to America" talk as "intended for a domestic political audience," not the first time the Obama administration has used that excuse for Iran.
    Even for veterans observers of middle eastern politics it must be disorienting to witness the benefit of the doubt extended to the worst state sponsor of terrorism whose "Supreme Leader" wishes "Death to America", while this nation's closest ally in the Middle East (and also a target of death wishes by Iran's Supreme Leader) is met with the wounded lament, "I think we just don’t know what to believe at this point." Given these responses, the Unites States may not be the only country to "re-evaluate our approach to the peace process."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry Claims 'Great Respect' for 'Religious Importance' of Khamenei's Fatwa

    While addressing the press on Saturday during a visit to Egypt, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear programs. As he and President Obama have several times in the past, Kerry cited a report that Iran's "Supreme Leader" has issued a "fatwa" against the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, a fatwa that remains unpublished according to a recent article by U.S. News. Nevertheless, Kerry said that the United States has "great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa." Here are his remarks in context:

Now I want to be very clear. Nothing in our deliberations is decided until everything is decided. And the purpose of these negotiations is not just to get any deal; it is to get the right deal. President Obama means it when he says, again and again, that Iran will not be permitted to get a nuclear weapon. As you all know, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, and that is a very welcome statement that the Supreme Leader has, in fact, incorporated into a fatwa. And we have great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa. And what we are effectively trying to do is translate that into legal language, into everyday language within the framework of a negotiated agreement that everybody can understand, which requires everybody to have certain obligations and ultimately be able to guarantee that Iran’s program, its nuclear program, will be peaceful now and peaceful forever.

    Given the history of fatwas issued by Iranian leaders in the past, Kerry's "great respect... for the religious importance of a fatwa" seems curious. The most notorious of these fatwas was issued in 1989 and called for the death of Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses. Although various reports have surfaced over the years regarding the status of that fatwa, as recently as last month a senior Iranian cleric affirmed that it is still in effect. Other fatwas over the years have called for things as varied as the death of Jerry Falwell to prohibitions against members of the opposite sex chatting online.
    Secretary Kerry's reference to the "religious importance" of Iran's purported anti-nuclear fatwa seems particularly significant given the vehemence with which Kerry and President Obama deny any connection between the Islamic State and true Islam. Iran, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran as the White House and State Department routinely refer to it, is the most significant state sponsor of terror in the world according to the State Department and has been on the list for over 30 years. Yet the Obama administration exhibits no reticence when it comes to ascribing "religious importance" to a fatwa issued by those in Iran who claim to represent Islam. The State Department did not reply to a request for comment on this apparent disparity.
    In spite of Kerry's glowing reference to the anti-nuclear arms fatwa and its "religious importance", reporters at Kerry's press appearance in Egypt appeared unmoved. Of the four questions asked of Kerry after his remarks, only one addressed the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and that one inquired as to the possible fallout from the letter Senator Tom Cotton and 46 fellow GOP senators to the Iranian leadership. Margaret Brennan of CBS News inquired, "...Given the recent comments by the Supreme Leader as well as some of U.S. allies, do you think that the GOP letter has undermined the diplomacy and made reaching of an agreement that much harder?" Unsurprisingly, Kerry's reply strongly suggested he agreed.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Ahead of Deal, Top Intel Organization Plays Down Iran's Sponsorship of Terrorism

    Sunday night, Stephen Hayes noted (via Twitter) a Times of Israel article that the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities delivered annually by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to a Senate committee had "removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats" after having been included in prior years.
    For each of at least the past four years, the report from Clapper has featured a section early in the document entitled "Terrorism". In the 2015 report, that section spans pages 4 and 5 of the report and is completely silent about both Iran and Hezbollah. Other sections of the report mention Iran as a cyber threat and talk about Iran's nuclear program as a potential threat, but even when discussing specific threats country by country, the section dedicated to Iran (four paragraphs on page 14) does not mention terrorism as a reason that nation is an "ongoing threat" to the United States. The open sentence reads:

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an ongoing threat to US national interests because of its support to the Asad regime in Syria, promulgation of anti-Israeli policies, development of advanced military capabilities, and pursuit of its nuclear program.

     In stark contrast to the 2015 report, each of the three preceding reports not only singles out Iran for terrorism, but actually gives the country (sometimes paired with Hezbollah) its own subheading. Here are excerpts from the Terrorism section of each of those three reports:

2014:

2013:

2012:

    As Hayes noted on Twitter regarding the removal by US intelligence of Iran and Hezbollah as worldwide terror threats, "If true, jaw-dropping." This closer look at the last four annual reports seems to indicate that it is indeed true.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Obama: Goal Is to 'Reduce the Possibility of Iran' Getting Nukes

    Amid reports that a nuclear deal with Iran may freeze that country's ability to produce nuclear fuel for only ten years in exchange for sanctions relief, President Obama appeared to soften his words if not his position. Following a meeting with the Amir of Qatar earlier this week, the president characterized the ongoing talks as trying "to reduce the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon," and "to verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon." These words ("reduce the possibility", and "does not have" as opposed to "will not acquire") stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous statements President Obama had tended to make over the past several years:

"We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon." - Mar. 14, 2012 

"And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." - Sept. 25, 2012 

"Since I took office, I’ve made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." - Nov. 23, 2013 

"At the top of that list is our work to ensure that Iran does not ever acquire a nuclear weapon." - July 8, 2014 

"[W]e seek a comprehensive diplomatic solution to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." - Jan. 16, 2015 

"[W]e also had a very useful discussion around Iran and the negotiations that are currently taking place to try to reduce the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Those negotiations are ongoing.  I gave the Amir an update and assured him that our goal here is to be able to verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon[.]" - Feb. 24, 2015

    Vice President Biden has made perhaps the most unequivocal statement of anyone in the Obama administration on the subject, telling the Saban Forum in December, "We will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon.  Period.  Period.  End of discussion.  It will not happen on our watch." But even if Biden himself won two terms in the White House, a ten-year freeze would sunset beyond both his and Barack Obama's "watch."
    John Kerry was pressed on the issue while testifying before Congress the same day the president made the softer statement, but Kerry insisted, "The president has made clear — I can't state this more firmly — the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon." However, any details of the deal, Kerry said, will have to wait. "And anybody running around right now, jumping in to say, 'Well, we don't like the deal,' or this or that, doesn't know what the deal is. There is no deal yet. And I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Department On Iran Nuke Negotiations: 'We Know Each Other Well Enough to Make Jokes'

    Some American and Iranian diplomats have been spending so much time together lately that they're beginning to crack jokes with one another. Even though the subject matter of the talks, Iran's nuclear ambitions, is quite serious, a senior state department official shared a lighter moment with reporters who had gathered for a background briefing at the P5+1 talks in Vienna, Austria:

I just told Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi that that I was coming down to do a backgrounder, and I said, you know, “You’ll know what I’m going to say.” And his suggestion was that I simply hand you the transcript from the last one, and that would probably do the trick. (Laughter.) So we thought that was pretty funny. Obviously, you don’t think that’s so funny, but we all thought it was pretty funny.

    Further into the briefing, the official expanded on the state of the relationship that has developed between the Iranian and American negotiators:

In terms of mood, in a professional way, we all know each other pretty well now. You can tell when the [Iranian] Deputy Foreign Minister jokes. He reads the transcripts of these backgrounders, and when he can joke, “Why don’t you just hand over the last one? You’re going to say the same thing,” it’s reached a level of we know each other well enough to make jokes.

    The current round of talks has a November 24th deadline to reach a complete agreement. The official said there has been progress, but a lot of work remains. The talks have been extended in the past when an agreement could not be reached, but the official said to keep the pressure on, an extension has not been discussed this time around.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry 'Respectfully Calls' on Iran to Release Detained US Citizens

    John Kerry chose the third anniversary of U.S. citizen Amir Hekmati’s "detention on false espionage charges" during a visit with his family in Iran in 2011 to "respectfully" call on the government of Iran to release Hekmati and several other US citizens held or missing in that country. Saeed Abedini and Jason Rezaian, the latter a Washington Post reporter, are also being held. Kerry also called on Iran to help facilitate the location and return of Robert Levinson, missing since 2007.
    Here is the full statement:

U.S. Citizens Detained or Missing in Iran

The Unites States respectfully calls on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to release Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and Jason Rezaian to their families and work cooperatively with us to find Robert Levinson and bring him home.

Today marks the three-year anniversary of U.S. citizen Amir Hekmati’s detention on false espionage charges while visiting his family in Iran.  Mr. Hekmati is the eldest son; he has long been separated from his family and they need him home.

Mr. Levinson went missing in March 2007 on Kish Island.  His family has endured years of painful separation and worry.  We are immensely concerned about his well-being and whereabouts.

On September 26, Mr. Abedini will have been detained for two years in Iran, on charges related to his religious beliefs.  Mrs. Abedini has spoken eloquently about the difficulties her family has faced during this challenging time.

Mr. Rezaian, a reporter for the Washington Post, is being detained in an unknown location.  His love of Iran is seen in his reporting – portraits of the generosity and kindness of the Iranian people.

The United States remains committed to returning all of them to their families, friends, and loved ones.  We ask the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately release Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and Jason Rezaian and respectfully request the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran work cooperatively with us to find Mr. Levinson and bring him home.

     Kerry's statement comes the same day that the state department announced additional sanctions against "entities providing support to illicit Iranian nuclear activities."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

What Happens in the Middle East Stays in the Middle East

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked this week about the Obama administration's reaction to Iran's foreign minister laying a wreath at the tomb of an infamous Hezbollah terrorist in Beruit, Lebanon.  In response, Carney quoted the statement issued by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden:

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’d say a couple things.  On the matter of the Iranian foreign minister honoring Imad Mugniyah, the United States condemns the decision taken by the Iranian foreign minister to place a wreath at the grave of a former leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah responsible for heinous acts of terrorism that killed hundreds of innocent people, including Americans.  The inhumane violence that Mugniyah perpetrated and that Lebanese Hezbollah continues to perpetrate in a region with Iran’s financial and materiel support has had profoundly destabilizing and deadly effects for Lebanon and the region.
The decision to commemorate an individual who has participated in such vicious acts and whose organization continues to actively support terrorism worldwide sends the wrong message and will only exacerbate tensions in the region....

    But then Carney went further to put the incident in the context of the administration's current diplomatic engagement with Iran:

So our disposition has not changed on these matters.  And that's why it’s so important to be clear that the actions that Iran takes, the steps it takes to either comply with or not comply with commitments it makes are what we judge Iran by -- not by statements meant for a domestic audience or by promises rather than action.  So we’re going to press forward. 

    Notice two things in Carney's response.

    First, there is the odd wording of Hayden which Carney quoted: "the United States condemns the decision taken ... to place a wreath..."  Why "condemn the decision" as opposed to condemning the action itself?  The administration is finding fault with Iran's decision-making process first and foremost that "sends the wrong message" rather than its commemoration of a dead terrorist responsible for the deaths of scores of Americans and others.

    Second is Carney's assertion that the United States does not judge Iran "by statements meant for a domestic audience."  Carney seems to be implying that the wreath laying was meant for domestic consumption in Iran and the broader Arab Middle East, and that the Obama administration is not going to judge Iran on such things, but only on actions specifically related to the recently announced nuclear deal.

    The unconscionable action of the Iranian foreign minister demanded unequivocal condemnation by the United States and perhaps even that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism be made to pay a price for pouring salt in decades-old wounds.  Instead, Iran was criticized for bad PR.  For years, the enemies of Israel and the U.S. have had one message (in English) for the West, and another (in Arabic) for domestic audiences.  The Obama administration essentially reminded Iran to stick to the script.

State Dept. Won't Identify "Specific Scenarios of Noncompliance" in Iran Deal

    Yesterday, the Obama administration announced an agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program had been reached.  But a statement about the enforcement of the deal made by a senior administration official during a background briefing on Sunday, however, is likely to further worry critics of the deal.  The official declined to cite a single example of an "individual instance of noncompliance" that would trigger the reversal of the sanctions relief put into effect by the deal:

QUESTION: ... If Iran violates any part of this deal, does the deal come to an end immediately? I know you said that there would be more sanctions. But what specifically does it mean for the deal?...
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: ... I think the bottom line is this agreement is based on the two sides taking steps that fulfill their commitment, and the implementation plan provides for a roadmap for the timing and sequencing of those steps. I couldn’t speculate onto specific scenarios of noncompliance. What I would say, though, is that if Iran does not comply with the agreement, then the relief that they’ve accessed as part of the agreement is reversed. And we have said that we would move to impose additional sanctions, including working with Congress to do so.
So the short answer to your question is yes, if we were to assess that Iran had not complied, then they would not be able to access the relief that they’re slated to get through this agreement, and we would move to additional sanctions. Now, the specifics of those scenarios remain hypothetical, so at this point, I wouldn’t want to speculate as to what an individual instance of noncompliance is.

    The official went on to say, "Our hope and expectation is that Iran will comply."


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Playing Chess With Iran

    To hear Obama administration officials tell it, Iran got snookered at the bargaining table in Geneva.  The description of the deal worked out between the P5+1 and the world's largest supporter of terrorism is so one-sided, it's a wonder the foreign minister of Iran will be allowed back into his home country.  Two unnamed senior administration officials held a background conference call with reporters early Sunday morning after Secretary of State Kerry addressed the press about the deal.  Here are a few of their remarks:

• So these are very important concessions and the most significant progress that has been made in halting the progress of the uranium program in a decade...
• Along with those agreements come an unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of the Iranian program...
• This is much more extensive monitoring than we have today, and it is a significant portion of this agreement...
• So, taken together, again, a halt of activities across the Iranian program, a rollback in certain important elements, and extensive and intrusive monitoring...
• First and most importantly, [Iranian sanctions] relief is limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible. It is designed so that the core of our sanctions, the sanctions that have had a tremendous bite -- the oil, banking and financial sanctions -- all remain in place. So in that very important respect, this deal is limited...
• Second, the relief that Iran gets under this agreement is insignificant economically...
• Iran is not back in business and anyone who makes the mistake of thinking so I think will be met with some serious consequences...
• The deal that was struck is very limited in terms of the additional business that Iran can engage in...
• So just looking at oil revenue alone, Iran will actually be worse off at the end of this six-month deal than it is today...

    And all of this while still explicitly acknowledging "Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record[.]"  What is in this deal for Iran?  What motive does the regime that still publicly calls for Israel's destruction have?

The purpose of sanctions were not to just have sanctions in place. They were to change the calculus of the Iranian government. We began to see that with the election of a new President who ran on a mandate to achieve sanctions relief through a more moderate foreign policy towards the West. And we had an opportunity, the best opportunity we've had in five years, to test whether we could get an agreement through diplomacy.

    The situation calls to mind an amateur chess player who has just taken an important piece in a game with a grandmaster. "Did you see that?  I took his rook! He's in trouble now!" Meanwhile, the grandmaster is saying, "Wow... never saw that coming!" but a smile is visible behind his eyes as he envisions the endgame twelve moves in the future.  If Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Egypt are any indication, the Obama administration will once again be shaking its head and saying, "But things were going so well..." This time, however, the endgame could be the worst outcome yet: a nuclear Iran.

John Kerry Shakes Hands With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif

    Speculation ran high at the United Nations this week about whether or not President Obama and Iranian President Rouhani would shake hands.  Ultimately, the two leaders did not as the gesture was deemed “too complicated” for Iran at this time, “given their own dynamic back home.”
    However, those complications did not prevent a handshake between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif at a ministerial meeting on Thursday.  The following exchange took place at a press briefing between a reporter and an unnamed Senior State Department official:

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So Minister Zarif – we were in a U-shaped table. When Zarif came in, Helga Schmid got up so that he could sit next to Lady Ashton, and cornered with Zarif was the Secretary of State. So they were sitting next to each other on the corner, and at the end of the meeting, the Secretary leaned over and said, “Shall we talk for a few moments?” Now, informally, there had been a little bit of chatting that that might happen, and so neither one of them were surprised. And we -- 

QUESTION: It’s like being asked to a dance -- 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right. (Laughter.) We had -- 

MODERATOR: There was no dancing. 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, no dancing. (Laughter.) 

QUESTION: And they did shake hands? 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Trust me, no dancing. They did. 

QUESTION: Shake hands? 

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: They did shake hands... They shook hands when they met.

    The Senior State Department official, though unnamed, went on to identify herself as a woman with the following comment on diplomatic protocol with the Iranians:

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: ... I did not shake hands for all the reasons you know, because I try to be respectful of the tradition that they would not shake hands with a woman...

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

The Danger of America's Endless "National Emergencies"

    On March 12, the White House issued a press release that began with what have become rather familiar words: "Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to..."  In this case, it is Iran, an emergency first declared on March 15, 1995, when President Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iran in response to concern over the regime's nuclear ambitions. This is not to be confused with the state of emergency with respect to Iran declared by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 during the Iranian hostage crisis. The hostages were released in 1980, but 33 years later, President Obama continues to renew the national emergency declaration just as Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did year after year.

    These continuations are the product of the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which, ironically, was intended in part to prevent such declarations from being open-ended.  Per the Act, if not terminated by Congress or the President, National Emergency declarations automatically expire after a year unless the president issues a continuance, and these continuances have become a matter of course.

   In the past year, President Obama has signed continuations of National Emergency declarations for Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Ivory Coast, the Middle East Peace Process, Sudan, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations, the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor, the Western Balkans, the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Iran (2); nineteen in all.  Nineteen concurrent "national emergencies."  Most Americans, and perhaps most politicians, would be hard pressed to explain the circumstances surrounding one-third of these emergencies, let alone all nineteen.  The mere existence of some of these declarations would doubtless be a surprise to many.

    The nature of most national emergency declarations is not a sweeping omnipotence granted to the Commander in Chief. The National Emergencies Act requires the president to specify the provisions in the law upon which his actions under each declaration are authorized.  Many of the current declarations involve only economic measures and sanctions that are being imposed in a targeted and limited context.  But presidents seem loath to yield back even these limited powers granted by the declarations.  So the "emergencies" go on... and on.

    The world is surely a dangerous place, and responsible governance requires not only vigilance, but the ability to exercise a variety of powers.  But perhaps nothing illustrates the problem with the perpetual "emergency" as well as the following.  Last year, President Obama extended the National Emergency with respect to terrorism that President Bush signed after the devastating attacks on America by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001.  In his notice to Congress, President Obama wrote:

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706).  The President took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States.  Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States... I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency[.]

    The date the president signed and issued this notice warning of the "immediate threat of further attacks"?  September 11, 2012, the very day of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  While the ink was still drying on the words "continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals" and "an unusual and extraordinary threat," the assault was underway.  Because the readiness that a "national emergency" implies was just a facade (at least in Benghazi,) the United States was caught flatfooted, unable to adequately respond in time.  Four Americans were killed and the consulate was burned.

    We will never stop every attack. The enemies of the United States are legion and seemingly tireless.  Yet the principle at work here is at least as old as Aesop and the boy watching the sheep.  When everything is an emergency, nothing is. While these declarations are not false alarms, neither do they reflect the imminence and urgency normally associated with a true emergency.  Rather, they tend to obscure actual immediate threats.  Therefore, as nineteen echoes of "national emergency!" rang in the air, the wolf struck in Benghazi.  Unless our leaders learn to resist the profligate invocation of "emergency," the wolves simply have to wait until overuse once again breeds complacency before they strike.  But then, the emergency will be all too real.

Monkey Business: John McCain and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

    Senator John McCain strirred up a fuss today by mocking Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a tweet.  Here's the offending remark:

    While the joke was frankly fairly lame and comes from a long line of monkey jokes (think: "Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, You look like a monkey, and you act like one, too",) it was not the lameness that landed McCain in hot water.  Rather the joke was deemed racist by some, even by fellow GOPer Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, who replied:

    "Racism" in America is often in the ear of the hearer even when not in the mouth or mind of the sayer. True racism surely still exists in this country, but is often obscured by sensitivities, selective application, and outright mischaracterizations. 

    Honestly, in this case, who in the world before today would have listed "monkey" as a racist name for an Iranian? I failed to turn up an example of this in an internet search today. (If anyone can refute this, please do.) However, I did find this story from 2009:

Iranian TV show scrapped after child calls toy monkey Ahmadinejad live on air 

An Iranian children's television show has been pulled after a child appearing on the programme called his pet monkey Ahmadinejad live on air. 

When the presenter of Amoo Pourang (Uncle Pourang), a programme watched by millions of Iranian children three times a week on state TV, asked the name of the toy the boy had been given as a reward for behaving himself, the child replied: "Well, my father calls him Ahmadinejad." 

The father's likely unease at his son's honesty was matched by the programme makers after the state broadcaster, IRIB, immediately responded by removing the show from viewing schedules, The Guardian reported.

     If John McCain's statement was racist, this story makes little sense.  An Iranian father makes a racist joke about the Iranian president? In all probability, Iranians use "monkey" in the same way Americans (including John McCain) do: a term of derision for someone they find silly or absurd. But while the consequences for McCain may consist of a few angry tweets, the Iranian father in 2009 may have faced much more dire consequences for his attempt at humor. Once again, the silly charges of "racism" have distracted from the real evil here: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the oppressive regime he heads. Ahmadinejad himself might actually be laughing this time.

President Obama Discusses "Limitations" of U.S. Military

    The New Republic recently published an interview with President Obama under the title: "Barack Obama is Not Pleased - The president on his enemies, the media, and the future of football."  However, the president's response to the final interview question may contain the most significant glimpse into his thinking on a topic more significant than football, the media, or his political enemies.  One of the interviewers, Chris Hughes, asked the president: "The last question is about Syria. I wonder if you can speak about how you personally, morally, wrestle with the ongoing violence there."  Here in part is his response:

And as I wrestle with those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations. In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo?”

    While I would not contend that the situation in Syria (or the Congo or Afghanistan or Libya or Iraq, for that matter) is an easy call, one of the questions the president asks himself in regard to the American military's "limitations" has some disturbing implications: "How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan?" As recently as 2008, the US had more than 185,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, troop levels in Iraq are only a few thousand and the number in Afghanistan is around 68,000.  Has our military been weakened so much in the past five years that the president must consider if an intervention in Syria would degrade efforts to support troops in Afghanistan?

    In 2010, the Obama adminstration's Quadrennial Defense Review report stated:

In the mid- to long term, U.S. military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames. This includes maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.

    Technically, the war in Afghanistan is not even against a "nation-state aggressor," but against the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies; still a formidable foe, but not a foe with the backing of an organized national government with all the resources that come with it.  What does it communicate to Iran or North Korea if the president is publicly airing concerns about our military's "limitations" as we (as he often characterizes it) "wind down" the war in Afghanistan, the only significant conflict in which the United States is currently involved?

    The rest of the interview makes it clear that the president is not reticent about projecting a position of strength to overcome his domestic political enemies.  His closing words about the flexibility and readiness of the U.S. military project a rather less confident posture to our enemies abroad.

About Those Nuclear Talks With Iran

    The New York Times published a story on Saturday headlined "U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks."  The story has been quickly denounced as untrue by both Iranian and U.S. officials, so speculation has begun about the source of the story and the reason behind it.  Jazz Shaw at Hot Air pondered the question and came up with four possibilities.  Here's #3:

Theory 3: The story is garbage, but the New York Times was misled by an Obama administration official who wanted to plant a seed to make it look like the President’s foreign policy platform isn’t a complete shambles right before the foreign policy debate.

    I'd like to submit some meat for those bones.  The NYT story was written by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler.  Landler has written Times stories in the past with David E. Sanger, notably a February 2012 article about the tension between Israel and the U.S over the Iran threat.  Sanger more recently wrote another article about Iran in August 2012 which included some reports on the negotiations with Iran that were the subject of Saturday's story.  The August story said:

Though Iranian officials have privately expressed some interest in the plan, the deal has gone nowhere, and no new negotiating sessions are scheduled, American officials say.
“For now, the talks are dead in the water,” one senior official said Thursday.

    Of course quoting anonymous "senior officials" in quite common, not just for Sanger but for most national security reporters and understandably so.  But Sanger has also written a book about Iran, reviewed by none other than the Times in June 2012.  That review contains the following insights into Sanger's reporting [emphasis mine]:

And throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White House officials, most notably to Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser.
Mr. Donilon, in effect, is the hero of the book, as well as the commenter of record on events. He leads the team that goes to Israel and spends “five hours wading through the intelligence in the basement of the prime minister’s residence.” He is shown studying the nettlesome problems of foreign relations, working closely with the president, and fending off the villains of this story — which in Mr. Sanger’s account tend to be the government of Pakistan and, surprisingly, the generals of the American military. “We fought the Pentagon every step of the way on this,” a “senior American diplomat” tells Mr. Sanger. At another point, a “senior White House official” reports that, “There was incredible resistance inside the Pentagon.” And so on.
The virtue of this book — its foundation of White House sources who give the author insiders’ material like a transcript of Mr. Obama’s last telephone call with the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak — is also its weakness. That is, Mr. Sanger shows us the world through the eyes of Mr. Obama, Mr. Donilon and those around him. But he also tends to depict Washington and the world as they see it.

     And what is know about the "hero" of Sanger's book, Thomas Donilon?  A profile provided by the Times says the following of Mr. Donilon:

Thomas E. Donilon is President Obama’s national security adviser and a central, if little-known figure in American foreign policy...
He oversaw support for the Libya war that toppled Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He made sure surge troops left Afghanistan as scheduled. He is a champion of Mr. Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia, in which strengthening regional alliances in the Pacific have become an increasingly important focus of policy.
Yet Mr. Donilon has not escaped controversy... Republicans suspect him of orchestrating national security leaks to make Mr. Obama look good.

    So is Mr. Donilon the "administration official" who floated the Iran-has-agreed-to-talks balloon, which coincidentally are only likely to happen if Barack Obama is reelected?  After putting together this chain of people and information above, I can see how this conspiracy theorizing can be addictive.  But the above scenario is fairly low on conspiracy if I do say so myself.  Even for someone with an aversion to going out on limbs, this particular limb seems pretty thick.