The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on three senior Al Qaeda members in Iran

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on three senior Al Qaeda members in Iran

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions Wednesday on three senior Al Qaeda members in Iran in an effort to disrupt their operations and fundraising.
The three men — Faisal Jassim Mohammed Al-Amri Al-Khalidi, Yisra Muhammad Ibrahim Bayumi and Abu Bakr Muhammad Muhammad Ghumayn — have been found to be acting for on behalf of Al Qaeda, and as a result, any of their property under U.S. jurisdiction have been blocked and U.S. citizens are prohibited from pursing transactions with them.
“Today’s action sanctions senior al-Qaida operatives responsible for moving money and weapons across the Middle East,” Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said in a news release. “Treasury remains committed to targeting al-Qaida’s terrorist activity and denying al-Qaida and its critical support networks access to the international financial system.”
All three men are senior Al Qaeda veterans and have been involved in various activities for the group including financial, military and communication roles.
Source: Politico, 20 July 2016

U.S. rejects EU bid to trade with Iran without the threat of US financial sanctions

Int.companies interested in doing business with Iran are holding back for fear of ...

European Union governments have hit a wall with the U.S. in attempts to shield banks and companies that do business with Iran from the threat of financial sanctions.
EU finance ministers pressed U.S. officials to provide more explicit guidance on the administration’s sanctions regime during talks in Brussels in late May, without success, two people familiar with the meeting said. Spokeswomen for the U.S. Treasury and the European Commission declined to comment on the talks.
With an estimated $24 billion in additional EU trade at stake over the next two years, Europe, Russia and the U.S. lifted economic sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear program in January. Yet restrictions on dollar-denominated trades related to Iran were among the penalties left in place, crimping Europe’s expansion of business ties with the Islamic republic.
“Banks evidently view the risk of violating U.S. sanctions as too great,” Arnold Wallraff, head of the German government’s Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control, said in an interview. “Additional measures to limit liability would be helpful. Politicians need to address that.”
With oil and aviation deals usually financed in dollars with large banks sharing the risks, the ban on dollar transactions remains a hurdle for deals such as Iran’s agreement to buy 118 Airbus planes worth $27 billion, announced shortly after sanctions were lifted in January.
EU finance ministers and officials pressed the U.S. to give assurances to banks about the reach and application of the remaining sanctions, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks were private. In its response, the U.S. declined to go beyond its publicly announced policy, the people said.
Past Penalties
The push by EU governments reflects pressure by banks after the nuclear deal with world powers sparked optimism that Iran would rejoin the global financial system. More than half of international companies interested in doing business with Iran are holding back for fear of running afoul of sanctions, according to a report by global law firm Clyde & Co.
EU-Iran trade is expected to quadruple in the next two years from an annual level of some $8 billion, according to the U.K. Foreign Office. Yet U.S. politics mean the window for expanding trade with Iran may be closing, with Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump signaling he’d tear up the Iran accord that he says led to U.S. “humiliation.”
Nuclear-related sanctions, including a ban on Iran’s use of the SWIFT system for international financial transactions, were lifted in January following the nuclear deal. Other international sanctions related to terrorism and ballistic-missile development remained in place, as does a U.S. ban on American commerce with Iran.
Past U.S. penalties loom large, including the record $9 billion fine that BNP Paribas SA agreed to pay in 2014 in part for dealings with Iran. France’s Societe Generale SA, Germany’s Deutsche Bank AG, Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group AG, ING Groep NV in the Netherlands and the U.K.’s Standard Chartered Plc are among the big European banks that have said they’re generally not prepared to do business in Iran yet.
‘Lack of Clarity’
France’s government, worried that companies may lose exports, is said to be in talks with the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, to seek a commitment that banks can do business without incurring legal woes.
The U.S. administration says Treasury and State Department officials have held meetings with companies, government officials and financial institutions in more than a dozen countries to discuss the sanctions relief for Iran. Guidance on OFAC’s website is regularly updated in response to questions about the scope of the sanctions, the Treasury spokeswoman said by e-mail.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met European bankers including Deutsche Bank AG Co-Chief Executive Officer John Cryan in London in May, telling them “that legitimate business, which is clear under the definition of the agreement, is available to banks.”
That doesn’t satisfy the Europeans. Several EU companies have asked the European Commission to take their individual cases to the Treasury so they can gain legal clearance or permissions before trading with Iran, Francesco Fini, an official in the office of EU foreign-policy chief Federica Mogherini, told Bloomberg BNA on May 25.
“Lack of clarity from the U.S. is causing a lack of certainty for companies like Airbus,” Franck Proust, a French member of the European Parliament, said during a committee meeting in May. “There are no banks at this point that will support investments.”
Source: Bloomberg, 7 June 2016

Iran, opening up or illusion

Iran was a source of instability and violence all across the region before during the International sanctions, but now, Sanctions have been lifted on her , and  logically a moment of change should  arrive . Although it is heard that “it could be a unique opportunity, but the main question is , if anything will be changed in the Middle East , and if the diplomacy of the Middle East could now change, for better or for worse  !

But be very wary of anyone who claims anything more, and certainly be careful of anyone who claims anything more for Iran itself. President Hassan Rouhani is not Mikhail Gorbachev, and this is not a perestroika moment. Iran is not “opening up” or becoming “more Western” or somehow more liberal. On the contrary, the level of repression inside the country has grown since the “moderate” Rouhani was elected in 2013. The number of death sentences has risen. In 2014, Iran carried out the largest number of executions anywhere in the world except for China. Last year, the number may have exceeded 2000. Partly this is because Iran’s chief justice has boasted of the eradication of drug offenders, many of whom are juveniles or convicted on dubious evidence.

 Moderation is an illusion in Iran

 Political pressure and religious discrimination have been increased, too. Women who don’t wear veils are still vulnerable to arrest and sentencing. The penalties for apostasy, adultery and … are still high, up to and including capital punishment. Cultural dissidents are under pressure, too, even more so since the sanctions-lifting deal was announced.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran noted that many political prisoners, including some foreigners, remain in Iranian prisons.

If it was  possible to separate all of these stories into a box and call Iran a country with “bad human rights” but “improving foreign policy,” then maybe there would be a case for ignoring them. But — as we’ve learned to our cost, in Russia, among other places — regimes that need violence to repress their citizens do not make reliable diplomatic partners. Any ruling clique that fears popular revolt will always, at the end of the day, tailor its foreign policy to the goal of keeping itself in power. Right now, Rouhani and his foreign minister, think that lifting sanctions will help improve Iran’s economy and create popular support. But if it doesn’t, then they or their successors will immediately direct public anger and emotion at the Great Satan once again.

The same warning applies to the Western businessmen lining up at the borders to enter Iran. No doubt there will be many Iranians willing to help them get rich, if it’s mutually beneficial. No doubt some will make money, though it might be hard to hold on to it in a country whose courts are politicized and whose judges are selected in an arbitrary and opaque process. But either way, there isn’t much point in wishfully hoping that foreign investment will “open up” Iran, either: In the current circumstances, foreign investment is far more likely to enrich the existing elite. If so, the result will be greater repression, more effective disinformation and, of course, more money for the export of terrorism and crime the ideology of the Iranian revolution to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

So, yes, change may come to Middle Eastern diplomacy. But change has not come to Iran yet. And until it does, Iran will remain a source of instability and violence all across the region.

Congress Should Reject Iran Deal

The following is an article posted by Kim R. Holmes in the Trend website on August 22, 2015.

You’ve heard the argument. If Congress turns down the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran will rush to get a nuclear bomb within two to three months. Our only alternative then is war.
But what about Congress voting “no” and adjusting the terms of the agreement?
Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently made such a proposal. He argues that congressional disapproval would provide time to correct some of the agreement’s flaws. Most experts believe that it would take until spring 2016 at the earliest for Iran to comply with the terms of the agreement. Since none of the U.S. sanctions will be suspended by then, there would still be time for the U.S. to take remedial measures to strengthen the deal.
Among these could be reaching understandings with the European partners “on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations.” Other actions could include a clearer declaratory policy that military force will not be taken off the table and ramping up tougher sanctions against Tehran’s terrorist and other non-nuclear activities that destabilize the region.
Satloff’s alternative is a noble effort to save an obviously weak deal. It recognizes a major flaw in the agreement: that the terms of re-imposing “snapback” sanctions are so onerous that they will likely never be enforced. It also points to a negotiating principle that the Obama administration has tried to obscure: strong sanctions are what forced whatever concessions Iran made. Keeping or strengthening sanctions enhances America’s bargaining leverage. Even if Congress disapproves the deal, that leverage will remain.
This last point is key. We should remember that no sanctions relief kicks in from anybody—including the United Nations and the Europeans—until the IAEA certifies that Iran has complied with its initial commitments under the agreement. If Tehran responds to a congressional “no” vote by thumbing its nose at everybody, it will only be back where it started, which is not where it wants to be. In fact, it could face even stronger sanctions (or worse) from the U.S. if it should hit the accelerator on its nuclear program.
Satloff’s idea is a good start. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. The only way to get Iran to give up its nuclear program short of war is to force it to decide between retaining its nuclear weapons potential and having sanctions completely lifted. Neither Satloff’s option nor Obama’s deal forces that choice....more

With or without deal, US must uphold commitments to Iranian dissidents

By Cols. Wesley Martin (ret.), Leo McCloskey (ret.) and Thomas Cantwell (ret.)
 
The U.S. and other key world powers concluded a controversial nuclear agreement with Iran in mid-July, which left the regime’s nuclear infrastructure in place but conceded to lifting crippling sanctions.
The administration has been widely criticized for failing to negotiate the release of American hostages held by the regime, including an American pastor, a former Marine and a journalist. The administration has claimed that this demand was a separate issue from the nuclear deal. Still, when it came to Iranian demands, it agreed to lift conventional weapons embargo and sanctions on Tehran’s missile program, which was also a non-nuclear issue.
Now, it has been revealed that the administration is also staying quiet as the Iranian regime has increased pressure on dissidents taking refuge in neighboring Iraq. For months now, nearly 2,500 Iranian political refugees residing in Camp Liberty, Iraq, have been subjected to frequent blockades by the Iraqi government and deprived of the most vital life-support needs.
On numerous occasions, including since the conclusion of nuclear weapons negotiations, the Iraqi government, acting at the behest Tehran, prevented the entry of food, fuel and other vital resources, triggering a humanitarian crisis at the decrepit camp, already beset by extensive infrastructure problems. The government only relented after intense pressure by members of the both chambers of U.S. Congress and both houses of British Parliament. 
Back in 2004,... more

Time to get rid of the terrorist regime of Iran

Rep. Ed Royce

 As the Obama Administration  pushes for a final agreement with  Iran, reports indicate that the deal could bring as much as $50 billion to the terrorist regime in Tehran in immediate relief, and another $100 billion could come over the next year. And U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued in his statement as U.S. negotiators work toward a final Iran nuclear agreement which would provide Tehran with tens of billions in sanctions relief.  Earlier this week, a senior U.S. official said that Iran would not use billions in sanctions to back its nefarious activities. "It is our assessment that they are not going to spend the vast majority of the money on guns, most of it will go to butter," said the U.S. official.

Chairman Royce said: “Obama Administration officials have talked themselves into the delusion that the regime in Tehran will use a sanctions relief jackpot to help its people.  But Iran’s Supreme Leader isn’t looking to cut this deal because he cares about ordinary Iranians.  He’s making it so that he can consolidate power at home, dominate the region and gain acceptance of Iran’s nuclear program, paving the path to a nuclear weapon.  Helping Iranians doesn’t even make the list.  The ObamaAdministration’s fundamental misread of the Iranian regime is part of what makes this potential agreement so dangerous to our national security.”

At the same time Hillary Clinton the 2016 presidential candidates who in known for her historical appeasements with the Iranian Mullahs was asked about the Obama administration’s involvement in ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, she said: “I’m hoping it’s a strong, verifiable deal that will put the lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Even if we are successful, however, Iran’s aggressiveness will not end.”

“Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing” on a range of foreign policy issues، particularly in the Middle East، Sen. Lindsey O.Graham (R-S.C.)، said of the president in a New York radio interview Sunday morning.

“These nuclear negotiations with Iran scare the heck out of me،” Graham said. “We’d be nuts to give the Iranians more money until they change their behavior. . . . At the end of the day، a nuclear deal with Iran has to be airtight because they lie and cheat،” he said، according to an account in The Hill.

Diplomats here enter the final hours of more than 18 months of negotiations that will either establish a new relationship between Iran and global powers، or collapse amid recriminations and threats to world peace.

All sides say they are very close to finalizing a comprehensive agreement that would place limits on Iran’s nuclear activities and prevent it from producing a nuclear weapon، in exchange for lifting international economic sanctions.

Differences have narrowed in recent days in both of the main areas of negotiations — the level of inspections and verification that Iran keeps its side of the bargain، and the pace and scope of sanctions relief Iran will get in exchange.

Separate from the negotiations، U.S. officials are working on how an accord would be rolled out to the public and to a skeptical Congress. Officials have said there will likely be no signing ceremony; instead، agreement on a   mutually agreed later date.

For the United States and its partners، lifting of a wide range of sanctions requires regulatory and political action in Europe، the United Nations and Washington — some of which is under the control of Congress.

 The United States and other countries believe Tehran once was working to develop an atomic weapon،, but any way, the world needs not to trust the Iranian Mullahs because they just want to get rid of the suffocating sanctions in order to earn billions to postpone the evident regime-collapse in Tehran. It's time to get rid of the terrorist regime in Iran instead of providing facilities for them to get rid of the  world sanctions.