Image 01 Image 03

Iran Tag

In a rather surprising move, Russia's president Vladimir Putin announced Monday that he would begin withdrawing troops from Syria the very next day.  Those of us watching the Middle East carefully were not only surprised by the move but also intensely curious about possible motivations and what the move will ultimately mean in the region, particularly with regard to Israel. Tuesday, retired U. S. Army lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters offered a compelling analysis of Putin's move and of what it means not only in the Middle East but, ultimately, for the United States. Positing that Putin has quickly seen—Russia's been in Syria only since September—that the power that will emerge in the region will be Iran's, not Russia's, Peters concludes that Putin's decision was based in cold, hard reality. In his article, "The Syrian War Just Taught Putin to Worry About Iran," for the The New York Post, Peters writes:

Amid renewed tensions between Iran and the Sunni Arab States, the six member Gulf Cooperation Council has declared Iranian-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Since 1980s, Iran has been exercising control over Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah, a Shia Islamist military outfit. Tehran-funded Hezbollah does not only controls Lebanon but also carries out terrorist operations on behalf of its Iranian masters across the globe. Thousands of Hezbollah fighters are currently fighting alongside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on behalf of Assad Regime in the Syrian civil war. The power vacuum created by President Obama’s hasty retreat from the Middle East has been rapidly filled by Iran and its proxies. Iranian expansion has now created an unbroken corridor of control extending from the Gulf of Persia to the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon. Flushed with fresh cash, thanks to Obama-Kerry Nuclear Deal that unlocked $100 billion in frozen funds, Iranian Regime is now capable of bankrolling its proxies throughout the Arab World.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment allowing victims of Iranian terror to attach a judgment owed to Iran.  This is separate from the Bank Markazi case argued before the Supreme Court last month. In this case -  Ministry Of Defense And Support For The Armed forces Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran v. Frym - ten victims of Iranian terrorism who hold valid judgments against Iran from previous cases seek to collect by attaching a judgment owed to Iran in yet another previous dispute.  All of the victim/Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens and have successfully navigated a welter of procedural and jurisprudential pitfalls. The case is a good reminder of Iran's global reach and commitment to terror.  It's also fairly complicated, so bear down.

1997 Ben Yehuda Bombing

Nine of the Plaintiffs seeing to enforce judgements against Iran were injured or had loved ones injured in the same attack.  According to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:

If you receive Morning Insurrection, you would have seen Prof. Miriam Elman's recommendation to read Jonah Goldberg's piece on the importance of foreign policy in the upcoming election. (If you don't currently read Morning Insurrection see the signup box in the upper right-hand corner of Legal Insurrection.) Goldberg wrote:
We can debate how much blame Obama deserves for Syria’s civil war, but almost no one outside his paid staff disputes that he’s only made things worse. The conflict there has set off the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since the end of World War II — that’s John Kerry’s own assessment — which may yet tear the European Union asunder. The instability closer to the fighting is even more dangerous. Russia and Turkey may soon go to war with one another, as Russia mercilessly and indiscriminately massacres anyone standing in the way of its pet, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The Jordanian monarchy may crumble, in part for a lack of assistance from the United States.

We hear from critics of Israel that Israel needs a two-state solution to be  legitimate. Without a Palestinian state, the argument goes, Israel will rule over millions of resentful Palestinians to whom it will have to deny their basic rights in order to maintain its Jewish nature. Or if Israel enfranchises the Palestinians, they could overwhelm the Jews with their votes and then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. So the reasoning goes, without a separate Palestinian state, Israel will either cease being Jewish or democratic. But there was already a separation achieved in 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords. By the end of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from the major population areas in the West Bank, leaving over 90% of Palestinians under the political control of the Palestinian Authority. In 2005, Israel "disengaged" from Gaza ending the occupation of that territory.

While President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have assured us that the nuclear deal with Iran has delayed war, Tony Badran in a devastating critique of the administration's foreign policy last week wrote, "Middle Easterners are not so lucky: They get to fight their wars with Iran right now." Back in 2014, Badran noted, President Obama said of the turmoil in the Middle East, "A lot of it has to do with changes that are taking place in the Middle East in which an old order that had been in place for 50 years, 60 years, 100 years was unsustainable, and was going to break up at some point. And now, what we are seeing is the old order not working, but the new order not being born yet -- and it is a rocky road through that process, and a dangerous time through that process." But a few months earlier, Obama, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, made very clear that his intent was to make Iran an agent of changing the orders. When Goldberg asked him why the Sunni states seem to fear him so much Obama answered, "I think that there are shifts that are taking place in the region that have caught a lot of them off guard. I think change is always scary. I think there was a comfort with a United States that was comfortable with an existing order and the existing alignments, and was an implacable foe of Iran, even if most of that was rhetorical and didn't actually translate into stopping the nuclear program. But the rhetoric was good. What I've been saying to our partners in the region is, 'We've got to respond and adapt to change.'"

The U.S. move to boost NATO forces in Eastern Europe is another black mark on President Obama and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy.  The decision to strengthen NATO's bulwark against further Russian adventurism is sound in itself, but it further exposes the 2009 Russia Reset as a naive, amateurish blunder.  The cost for the mistake - a mistake many recognized and warned against at the time - is still being reckoned on battlefields in Eastern Ukraine. President Obama entered office determined to distance himself from U.S. foreign policy that made no sense to his ideological view.  Among the anachronisms he identified was the tense U.S.-Russia relationship.  Relations with Russia degraded through President Bush's second term, and than cratered when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and President Bush responded by deploying U.S. warships to the Black Sea and airlifting Georgian troops home from Afghanistan. Two months after taking office, Obama dispatched his newly-appointed Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton - to reset relations with Russia.  In March, 2009, Clinton met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva, Switzerland, and gave him a big, red, plastic button with the Russian word "peregruzka" on it.  Clinton thought it meant "reset;" it actually meant "overcharge."

According to the head of Iran’s state-run oil company NPC, two leading German companies are set to invest a total of €12 billion in Tehran’s petroleum and gas sector. The latest agreement could make Germany the first big foreign investor in Iranian oil sector, after the nuclear deal was signed seven months ago. Once the deal is finalized, these German firms will start setting up petrochemical plants in Assaluyeh in southern Iran. Mullahs in Tehran plan to get 6 unfinished petrochemical projects off the ground, which could double Iran’s annual oil revenue. Germany has been the biggest European beneficiary of the Iranian Nuclear Deal. As German companies hoping to get up to €6 billion in back payments from Tehran, once country’s banking assets are unfrozen as part of the Obama-backed deal.

International financial sanctions against Iran are being lifted today as part of the Iran Nuclear Deal. The influx of tens of billions of funds are expected first to go to support Iranian efforts to destabilize the Middle East, including helping Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Not coincidentally, a prisoner swap also is taking place today between Iran and the U.S. HuffPo News reports:
As part of the exchange, the U.S. will release seven Iranians who were being held in the country on sanctions violations. All were born in Iran, but six are dual Iranian-American citizens. The seven men all have the option to remain in the U.S. The deal will bring home four Americans who have been imprisoned in Iran for years on trumped up charges, or in some cases no charges at all: Washington Post Tehran correspondent Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, and Nosratollah Khosrawi-Roodsari. The imprisonment of Khosrawi-Roodsari has never been previously reported.
Here is who Iran is getting back:

On Wednesday the Iranian Central Bank argued before the United States Supreme Court that Iranian-owned assets in U.S.-based accounts cannot be used to satisfy judgments against Iran.  The narrow legal question in Bank Markazi v. Peterson is whether and to what extent Congress can dictate the outcome of a pending suit by statute, but the practical question is whether victims of Iranian terror can obtain payment for their and their loved ones' suffering and deaths.

Background

Plaintiff Deborah Peterson sued the government of Iran for the wrongful death of her brother, Lance Corporal James C. Knipple, who was killed along with 240 other Americans in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.  Numerous other Plaintiffs sued Iran either for their own or for loved ones' injuries and deaths in other Iranian terror attacks including the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. Airmen. Iran did not appear in court to defend these suits, and the various courts entered default judgments against it in 19 different cases in an aggregate amount of several billion dollars.

With the news that Iran has seized two American boats and detained 10 American sailors in the Persian Gulf just ahead of the State of the Union earlier this week, I'd like to go back to something that President Barack Obama said a little more than a year ago. Even though the sailors have been released, albeit under humiliating circumstances, the real story here, which the media is generally ignoring, is that they were taken prisoner in the first place. At the end of 2014, Obama gave an interview to Steve Inskeep of NPR. When explaining his rationale for the nuclear deal this is what Obama said:
So, when I came into office, the world was divided and Iran was in the driver's seat. Now the world's united because of the actions we've taken, and Iran's the one that's isolated.

The US State Department is criticizing Israel's proposed "Transparency Law," suggesting that Israelis should not know when foreign governments are influencing their domestic politics. If enacted, the current version of the Transparency Law would deem an Israeli Non-Governmental Organization ("NGO") a foreign agent if it receives more than 50% of its budget from foreign government sources.  The NGO would then be required to disclose that it is a foreign agent in publications and political tracts, and to disclose foreign donors. The impetus behind the Transparency Law is Israel's increasingly hostile NGO community, such NGO's propaganda value to Israel's enemies, and their overwhelmingly non-Israeli financing.  Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University and NGO Monitor has explained the problem:

Every confrontation with Iran has a phase which is much more important to the Iranians than the physical outcome. It's the humiliation phase, in which the Iranians get to exploit photos and video showing their opponents as weak and the Iranians as strong. We saw it throughout the U.S. Embassy hostage drama in 1979-1980, in which the hostages were paraded in front of the cameras and crowds. Iran Hostage Crisis The 10 U.S. sailors were released earlier today after Iran seized two small U.S. Navy boats yesterday. Iran demanded an apology and is claiming it got one, though the U.S. denies that. There is no doubt, however, that the pathetic and delusional John Kerry openly thanked the Iranians:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday thanked Iran for its cooperation in the release of 10 sailors who had mistakenly entered Iran's territorial waters, an incident that stoked international tension.

Tuesday, the U.S. experienced yet another provocation from Iran who seized two U.S. Navy boats carrying ten U.S. sailors. Iran promised to return everyone and everything shortly. So, yay?

At a time when tensions in the Middle East are rising, it is perhaps a time to once again review President Barack Obama's qualifications for office. To be sure his qualifications were fabricated, or at least oversold. This wasn't just the doing of the Obama campaign. Campaigns are supposed to do present their candidates in the best possible light. The problem  was that America's supposedly independent media boosted the first terms senator's prospects with little or no skepticism. This was certainly the case in reporting where most reporters bought into the historical aspect of Obama's candidacy as well was the rebuke to Republicans for the failings of the Bush presidency. (If not the failings, then the aspects that the liberal media disagreed with.) For the purpose of this exercise let's look at parts of The Washington Post's 2008 endorsement of Obama. I am using the Post as an example of what we saw so frequetly because even though the Post is a liberal paper, its editorial position regarding foreign policy is generally responsible. However in the Post's enthusiasm for Obama, all caution was disregarded and they promoted a man who did not really exist.

The fallout from the execution of prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr in Saudi Arabia on Saturday will roil the Middle East region for some time to come. Below, I review the recent developments since our last posts (see here and here) and discuss some of the lessons to be learned from this latest episode in the unraveling of the Muslim Middle East.

Saudi Arabia Cuts Ties with Iran

As we reported, Saudi Arabia has broken diplomatic ties with Iran. On Sunday afternoon, the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir announced at a press conference that Iranian diplomats had 48 hours to leave the kingdom.

CAMERA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle-East Reporting in America - has released its Top Ten MidEast Media Mangles for 2015. There are some doozies, from all the usual sources: The New York Times, BBC, Washington Post, MSNBC, AP, The Guardian and Ha'aretz.  There's also the perennial phenomenon of media silence regarding Palestinian incitement that is the bedrock of the Israeli/Arab conflict.  In a first, Elle made the list as well (apparently terrorist chic is in style). CAMERA's full exposition is here, but in brief the top ten are:

1. Ignoring, absolving and questioning the spate of Palestinian knife terror attacks.