Trump and the Grid

Trump and the grid:

As excited as I was about the concept of the grid actually being protected and prioritized in our NSS, I'm not sure that it will actually happen. Because, based on reports from Bloomberg and other sources, the career officials at the Department of Energy, and elsewhere, are still doing everything possible to derail this administration's agenda, and Trump still has not appointed people who would kick the bureaus inside those agencies in gear. Rick Perry may give orders, but enforcement of implementation ends up falling to the career people, who, so far, have shown little gusto for doing the work, and on some things, downright put up obstacles or lied about doing it.

That is why I do not have high hopes for anything infrastructure-related. This would have been the case to some extent with any Republican president, but will be particularly bad with Trump.

Oh well. At least, just like with the embassy, he set an example of what should be a national security priority, and perhaps in the future, someone else will actually get it done.

NIAC Is The Propaganda Arm of Iran, Not a Human Rights Organization’

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/06/niac-is-the-propaganda-arm-of/

They wine and dine members of Congress at monthly dinners. Their members serve on the boards of successful, well-respected organizations run by Iranian-Americans. They claim to be the voice of moderation and friendship.

In reality, NIAC is the propaganda arm of Iran, strengthening its position inside the United States through outreach, propaganda, disinformation articles, character assassination attacks against critics, and intimidation of dissenters through lawsuits.

The Department of Justice should investigation this lobby group for its failure to register under Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), expose their frauds and destructive role in the US, and inform Congress and the administration about their destructive roles as agents of influence for Iran's intelligence.

Challenge

NIAC claims to be dedicated to strengthening the voice of the Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between Americans and Iranian people. In fact, NIAC has been acting as a de facto lobbyist for the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act ((22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.)  This law requires agents representing interests of foreign powers in a political or semi-political capacity to disclose their relationship with the foreign government, as well as related activities and finances. NIAC, led by the Swedish-born activist Trita Parsi, is likely in violation of the relevant provision. As a key and overtly pro-Iranian voice advising the Obama administration on the nuclear deal  with the Islamic Republic, NIAC consistently voiced the interests and point of view of the "Reformist" faction of the regime, represented, in part, by the current president Hassan Rouhani.   

While in Lausanne during the JCPOA negotiations, Trita Parsi put himself forward as a member of the Iranian negotiating team, and repeatedly boasts of his access to Iranian regime leaders. He has dined with Iran's former hardliner president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met with the brother of the current president Hassan Rouhani, corresponded and maintained close ties with  Foreign Minister Zarif, dating from Zarif's previous position as Iran's Permanent Representative to the United States in New York. That level of access suggests trust on the part of the normally suspicious regime. Furthermore, a shady family that had financed NIAC,  started by Parsi in 2002, stood to gain financially from the sanctions relief, as they openly backed the deal.  The Namazis, who peddled influence between the White House and Teheran, ultimately overstepped the boundaries and have been arrested by the regime.  Parsi continued pro-regime fabrications through the years since NIAC's inception.  Most recently, Trita Parsi fabricated (in allegation) that green card holders from the seven countries designated by the most recent immigration suspension were being asked about their views on President Trump upon entering the airport.  He then doubled down on this mendacious claim.  

Contrary to the popular view, the Reformists are no more moderate than the hard-liners such as the previous president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and are yet another group of people played by the ayatollah-led regime. NIAC was consistently deceptive in advocating the potential consequences of the nuclear deal, and attacked critics of the deal, such as the well-known dissident and journalist Ahmad Batebi, for their public concern. NIAC-affiliated public figures, such as Muhammad Sahimi, had attacked critics of the deal as right-wing pawns and pillars of the Israel lobby in the U.S., an argument that directly reflected the rhetoric of the regime itself and furthered its interests through a character assassination campaign. Trita Parsi himself had visited President Obama at least 33 times, and remained his leading adviser.

There is evidence to believe than rather than being an organization and an individual sympathetic to the Regime, NIAC and Parsi actively aided Iranian intelligence. For instance, a report from Iranian American Forum, based in London, claims that a secret message delivered by Trita Parsi to their office in September 2011 was identical to a secret message delivered to Washington in 2007 by the regime's envoy Salman Savafi. Both messages warned against designating the IRGC (The Iranian Revolutionary Guards) as a terrorist organization because it would wreak havoc in Iraq, and also jeopardize the possibility of improving relations with Iran.  Separately, an unclassified Pentagon report described NIAC's collaboration with two Iranian intelligence agents, who were invited to give a Congressional briefing (links to report included). Meanwhile, most recently, a number of senior defense and intelligence officials have come forward  against designating IRGC as a terrorist organization, in a language similar to the two messages cited above, particularly warning that such designation could endanger US troops in Iraq and endanger the fight against ISIS. Given the close connection between NIAC and the previous administration, one can easily surmise NIAC's role in making that impression and continuing to play the role of the regime's lobbyist in preventing unfavorable policies.

Above-mentioned Trita Parsi unsuccessfully sued a noted Iranian American journalist Hassan Daioleslam for defamation, where Mr. Daioleslam argued in his articles that NIAC is an unregistered lobby group. A treasure trove of documents on Mr. Daioleslam's website unveil the intricate web of deeply rooted and personal relationships between NIAC members and regime families. More recently, they demonstrate how NIAC is deceitfully trying to divorce the West's view of Iran from its obvious connections with North Korea.  Furthermore, NIAC appears to be the only widely known group representing interests of Iranian-Americans, and has gained renowned in the US educational and cultural institutions. For that reason, perhaps, only Reformists in Iranian prisons are promoted in the NIAC-sponsored English language press, and for the same reason the voices of the NIAC-sponsored “dissidents” drown out and shut down the voices of legitimate anti-regime critics throughout the United States.  

. Prior to the lawsuit, NIAC was registered as a (501) ( c) (3). Despite the fact that NIAC spent only about 5% of their activity on human rights advocacy and the remainder on lobbying activities in violation of their status, the State Department did not require them to register as foreign agency and did not refer them to the Department of Justice.  In court, NIAC and Trita Parsi were both sanctioned for systematic abuse of discovery process and repeated false and misleading declarations to court. Interestingly, this abuse of process included the altering of 1400 emails referencing the word "lobby".  In fact, Parsi himself used the word "lobby" to describe NIAC in documents obtained by Eli Lake. Additionally, NIAC and Parsi withheld vital documents on numerous occasions and made false comments before the court.

The sanctions were upheld on appeal.  Many Iranian Americans, as well as the governmental press in Iran, consider NIAC to be the"Iran lobby".  This organization, and its director Trita Parsi, pretend to be the leading voice of the Iranian Americans in the United States, in reality representing the interests of a state that promotes terrorism, ignores sanctions, engages in systematic and widespread human rights abuses, and has utilized the money released by the Obama administration towards developing its illegal ballistic missile program.  NIAC-affiliated entities have engaged in a pattern of shutting down the dissent by Iranian dissidents and other critics who have come out against the regime and who have criticized the Reformists.  NIAC and its individual members release deceptive missives, which paint a distorted portrait of the Islamic Republic's regime and excuse away its anti-Western, anti-Israel rhetoric.

Suggested Response

NIAC, rather than representing the interests of Iranian Americans, promotes the interests of an openly adversarial and threatening regime, all tax-free. Its duplicity and intentions should be unmasked and exposed.

In fact, after the oral argument in the above-cited case,  Judge Wilkins states:

“I got to tell you that your client is lucky that I was not the District Judge, because you will be here appealing much more severe and higher sanctions, because I think he (the District Court judge) had extreme patience in dealing with lots of misleading and false representations and countless times when your client was trying to slice the baloney very thin, as far as trying to parse what their obligations were.”

Given the strong signal from the judiciary, the Department of Justice and Congress should launch an investigation into NIAC's and Trita Parsi's deceptive and insidious activities in violation of the United States law, and contrary to U.S. interests.  A hearing examining its pattern of duplicity, character assassination attacks on critics, and self-serving agendas that in no way help the interests of the Iranian American community will bring to light its many instances of violations, and likely, tax evasion. It may reveal the illicit funding of its pro-Iran agendas by figures within the regime itself. Finally, it may give grounds for a recommendation that the State Department should require NIAC be designated as a foreign agent, and that the Department of Justice should investigate NIAC, Trita Parsi, and other relevant subsidiary groups and individuals for fraudulent activities, tax evasion, and other violations.

The Department of Justice should investigate NIAC's and Tria Parsi's failure to register under FARA and require them to do so immediately, while strictly enforcing the periodic reporting requirement in the interests of national security. Likewise both NIAC and Trita Parsi should be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and investigated for their lies under oath and tempering with evidence during the course of the trial.  

Anticipated Outcome

The Islamic Republic's aggression against the Western, and particularly U.S. interests, takes many forms, but not the least of them is "lawfare" against critics, information warfare, the shutdown of popular dissent at home and abroad, institutionalized espionage, and high-positioned agents of influence. Not-for-profit cultural organizations purporting to represent intercultural understanding and the interests of particular communities are an excellent vehicle to promote these active measures of swaying public opinion, influencing decisionmakers, and dictating pro-Iran policy to the U.S. government and institutions. Exposing these instruments of the Islamic Republic for what they are will shred their credibility, and give opportunity to pro-freedom, pro-Western institutions to arise among Iranian-Americans, and will give voice to the Iranians that are looking to defend the interests of the United States, rather than its adversary.

Overlooking Corruption and Authoritarianism Among Allies Leads to Abuse Of Our Humanitarian and Counterterrorism Aid

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/02/overlooking-corruption-and/

US policy of providing "counterterrorism" funding and humanitarian aid to authoritarian regimes, who claim to be allies, but who utilize that money to suppress criticism, political opposition, and minorities runs counter to its own interests in preventing radicalization in otherwise stable countries and liquidating terrorist groups in the region. We have seen how such misuse of funding worked to perpetuate slavery in Mauritania, where abolitions have been labeled "terrorists" in order to justify the expenditure of US aid to hunt down such critics. 

We are seeing the same pattern in Bangladesh, where the President of the opposition party BJP, Mithun Chowdhury, was just arrested.  The sudden arrest of the leader of the opposition in a country allegedly allied with the United States should be an international scandal, but has not received coverage from the press, no more so than a similar arrest of arrival during the elections in Cambodia. However, unlike Cambodia, which has been shifting in China's direction in months leading up to the elections, Bangladesh's formerly secular Awami Party claims continuous close cooperation with the United States.  In reality, Bangladesh's, Sheikha Hasna is pulling a fast one over the administration, continuing the pattern of the past several years - at the cost to the country's poor population, minorities, and political opposition. 

Human rights attorneys and activists are doing a poor service to the concerns of the most vulnerable in failing to bring to our attention the continuously deteriorating human rights situation in Bangladesh.  As human rights reports produced by such human rights workers who risked their lives inside the country as Shipan Kumer Basu, who have had to flee the country due to threats to their lives show,  under the auspices of the ruling Awami League party, the political opposition has been suffering brutality, facing extrajudicial assassinations and disappearances on a daily basis, has been deprived of due process at show trials, has seen the proliferation of fabricated and forced confessions to spurious charges, has been dealt unspeakable tortures in remand and in prisons, and is being systematically defamed in the press. As such, there is no meaningful alternative or check and balance inside the government, whether with respect to domestic issues or to foreign policy.

The roots of this grave and unsustainable situation go back to the history of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the formation of the Awami League. The Soviet Union has backed this overtly leftist party, which despite the stated secularism, has shown proclivities for violence and chaos more characteristic of totalitarian regimes than liberal democracies. Its historic rivalry with BNP, the leading opposition party, has been marked by mutual violence and distrust. However, the last few years have shown a drastic growth in attacks not merely on the BNP and other rival parties, but the attacks on the parliamentarian model of governance, and thus, on the fabric of the otherwise largely moderate and stable civil society.  The brutal suppression of any criticism under the pretense of counterterrorism, as well as the chaotic situation around the elections two years ago, led to allegations of widespread electoral fraud and BNP’s withdrawal from participation. Arguably, the current government is completely illegitimate, due to the failure of its leading opposition party to participate in the last elections.

However, with the elimination of its chief rival, the Awami League, led by the strongwoman Sheikh Hasina, only intensified its attacks on the opposition and other leaders. Such attacks have been highly damaging to Bangladesh’s claims to democratic governance and participation in respected international organizations alongside the United States. Last year, the then- newly appointed co-secretary of the BNP, Aslam Chowdhury has been arrested and put under remand, which has been extended, under the trumped charges of sedition. His alleged crime? Mr. Chowdhury happened to have been invited to India’s BJP party youth conference, where an Israeli lobbyist also was in attendance. The two interacted with each other, as well as with hundreds of other participants. Bangladesh does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Still, an incidental meeting has been used to accuse BNP, as well as other rival parties, of sedition and conspiracy to overturn the existing government. Several BNP activists and leaders including Mr. Chowdhury have been arrested in a very public manner. Under the remand, the accused, who have recently been officially charged, have no access to lawyers, and their communication with the outside world is extremely limited. They are allowed no visitors, and their condition is quite grave. Torture is a widespread method of extracting false confessions from individuals under remand, as countless accounts of victims have shown.  Already, the Awami League has threatened to utilize Mr. Chowdhury’s alleged comments in remand to arrest his alleged accomplices and to undermine the very existence of BNP, in essence opening a witch hunt against the entirety of Bangladesh’s opposition and leading the country in a very dangerous direction.

This disturbing series of events threatens the stability of Bangladesh and its neighbors, and places strain on the development of future relations between Bangladesh and the United States. Bangladesh participates in such institutions as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. The countries engage in a strong trade relationship. Bangladesh is the beneficiary the largest assistance by the United States in Asia outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The current predicament puts the wisdom of such assistance in question.  Deterioration of human rights, suppression of political opposition, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions and arrests point in the direction of increased political risk in investment and trade. Much of the assistance that is meant to go towards the development of the country and counterextremism measures is likely being misused towards mass arrests of political opponents and critics of the government’s harsh measures and failure to observe the minimal due process. Rather than fighting terrorism, the Awami League fights the critics that keep its own foreign and domestic policy excesses in check. Governments that are largely authoritarian are not reliable partners in security, in trade, or in political processes. The increasing centralization of power in Bangladesh is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, be they opposition to extremism, peaceful development of relations with India, which is increasingly concerned by Sheikh Hasina’s erratic actions, and the stabilization and strengthening of the region vis-à-vis aggressive overtures from China. 

Furthermore, by engaging in public and widespread conspiracy theories against U.S. allies, such as Israel and India, the Awami League betrays the trust the U.S. government is placing into its growing partnership with this allegedly West-oriented party. The Awami League’s fearmongering and defamation against outside scapegoats can only lead to internal destabilization, ethnic clashes, and deterioration in diplomatic relations with other allies and partners.  Whether this current development is merely a natural succession to the last few years’ increase in centralization and Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial tendencies, or whether the current witch hunt against the opposition is a concerted attempt to distract from other, more disturbing developments, leaving such developments to continue unchecked will lead to further disrespect for the U.S. position, assistance, and diplomatic involvement in the country and the region.

I speak for 160 million Bangladeshis who surely deserve better than this untenable political situation when I call on  Congress and the administration to utilize their  collective strength, respect, and wisdom to exert influence on the course of events, before the Awami League’s disastrous actions render irreversible damage on Bangladesh-U.S. relations, and turn Bangladesh from a stable, developing, and moderate country into the Syria of South Asia, an outcome we simply cannot afford.  

 Please consider engaging in applying appropriate political pressures on the Awami League to

demand the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Aslam Chowdhury . Mr. Miltun Chowdhury,and other political prisoners. demand that the government of Bangladesh cease and desist from any further politically motivated arrests, arbitrary detentions, conspiratorial statements and comments to the press, extrajudicial killings and assaults, and other unconscionable attacks on individual and political freedom

demand the review of any funding or other forms of assistance that go towards Bangladesh’s alleged counterextremism efforts and hold the ruling party accountable for any misuse of the U.S. goodwill, trust, and assistance.

Also, speaking on behalf of all the unjustly detained, all the tortured, all the disappeared and murdered individuals, I ask you to hold a public hearing focused on the increasingly authoritarian situation in Bangladesh, and the potential for Awami League to become a regional security threat and a force of aggression and destabilization in the area.

A an U.S. human rights lawyer,  I surely speak with reason when I say that the U.S. taxpayers deserve better than to subsidize an illegitimate authoritarian government which defames our allies, tortures and murders opposition, and misuses the funding that should be going towards the fight against terrorist groups to go after legitimate critics of its policies.

Obama, Trump, foreign policy, and the Amazing Party Support Switcheroo

Obama and the Iran Deal.

The left: Obama is playing the long game.

The Right: Obama is endangering US national security, Israel, and world stability.

Trump ignoring Iran as it makes progress throughout the Middle East; Hamas and Hizbullah making deals.

The left: Trump has no idea what he's doing; this is a disaster.

The right: Trump is playing the long game; he knows what he's doing, you just don't have all the information. He'll first take out ISIS, and then he'll deal with Iran.

ISIS is taken out.

The left: So what about Iran and all the oil

The Right: Don't worry about it; Trump will take care of everything.

This sort of "logic" didn't work for me under Obama, and it doesn't work for me now.

I see no reason to trust the government, when the government is clearly being short-sighted and/or incompetent.

Character Matters

Why character matters even in politics:

* Even if people are corrupted by power, why start with someone who is already fully corrupted? Can it really get better from there? No, it will only get worse.

* It's much easier to "use" someone with low character and poor reputation as a tool for various hostile agendas - through smear campaigns, through dwelling on personal flaws etc. WHy give free ammunition to your opposition?

* For those still making excuses for Putin or Erdogan, if you keep justifying alliances of convenience with no evidence that those alliances actually help in any way, with murderous thugs who seek to destabilize and corrupt everything around them, you yourself will end up becoming part of the problem. If you still think Putin or Erdogan are allies in ANY sense of the world, you are standing with bloodthirsty murderers who are enemies to freedom and who are seeking to destroy the United States.

A Further Perspective Visa Reexamination: A Wide-Ranging Overhaul Is Needed

My article published in the American Spectator:

https://spectator.org/visa-reexamination-a-wide-ranging-overhaul-is-needed/

November 3, 2017, 12:05 am

But is the State Department even up to it?
The recent terrorist attack in New York City, which took the lives of eight people, and was perpetrated by an Uzbek Uber driver, in the United States on diversity visa, has led to the latest heated reexamination of our immigration system. President Trump accused Democratic minority leader and New York Senator Chuck Schumer of masterminding the diversity visa, which helps bring in random people, and he asked Congress to drop this type of green card lottery admission, in favor of a merit-based system. Others take issue with the family reunification visas that allow family members of citizens and permanent residents to apply for visas, under the premise that families should be kept intact, because families build stronger communities and support each other through difficult times in their new home. What’s missing from the evaluation of various types of visas on security grounds is the most obvious point: any type of visa can be exploited by frauds, criminals, terrorists, or spies if there are no proper vetting procedures in place.

Clifford Smith of the Middle East Forum, writing last summer, suggested that screening for ideology, particularly Islamism, which presents as much of a threat to today’s Western societies as Communism once did, would help prevent the exploitation of these visa structures by clever actors with ulterior motives. The Middle East Forum’s analysis of more effective screening procedures have made their way into a proposed immigration bill. I would suggest that such commissions should stay away from theological discussions on what constitutes “radical” or moderate Islam, and focus instead on three objective security criteria: the actor’s past activities and associations, ideology (i.e. proclivity for violence, attitude towards women and minorities), and goals.

Such an objective scheme would do away with any chance for personal bias, and could also apply in a wide variety of circumstances, not just with respect to any particular ideology, religion, or worldview. As we know, threats shift, ideologies evolve, and religious fervor rises and falls as other movements replace it — and our immigration system and national security apparatus should be flexible enough to accommodate whatever is the most troublesome at the moment. The good news is, such a screening approach would work well with any type of visa, so that in the future consideration of various types of visa, security could be taken out of the equation as a distinct consideration, and other goals of the immigration systems could be reexamined and addressed dispassionately.

Others argue that no amount of background research can work without behavioral screening, which has been particularly successful in Israel. Specially trained airport agents examine people of all backgrounds for consistency in response to a variety of questions, developed by experts. Notice that terrorist attacks in Israel come from the domestic context rather than from terrorists flying in from outside. Knowing what to look for and situational awareness as to suspicious behavior or lying has managed to screen out many a bad apple. I would argue that whichever system or combination of systems one prefers, the central concern is as much about who is doing the screening as who is being screened. Unfortunately, the discussion not currently on the table is that the State Department is not necessarily sending well trained and aware professionals to stamp passports and grant visas.

This dilettantish approach to security results in many “good people” getting stuck in places they really don’t want to be, whereas clever manipulators familiar with the systems know just what to show and to say to get by — and sometimes don’t even have to go so far. Overwhelmed, low level consulate and embassy workers are frequently unfamiliar with the languages, culture, or unique security issues of many of the countries they work in and simply lack the skills for high level “extreme vetting.” There should be nothing extreme about taking common sense factors into consideration. Fair screening ideally involves a high degree of professionalism, education, familiarity with the issues, as well as skills for dealing with all types of people, rather than the minimal general briefing these consulate workers frequently get. That means, however, a long overhaul of the entire State Department system and culture, for which there is a need of a devoted high level administrator, situational awareness of all the factors involved, and how they appear, and most importantly, political will.

And political will is the factor that is currently lacking. A prime example of that is the death by inaction of the effort to reform the controversial EB-5 investor visa. The requirements for the visa are as follows:

To qualify as an immigrant investor, a foreign national must invest, without borrowing, the following minimum qualifying capital dollar amounts in a qualifying commercial enterprise: $1,000,000 (U.S.); or. $500,000 (U.S.) in a high-unemployment or rural area, considered a targeted employment area.
Moreover,

EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. USCIS administers the EB-5 Program. Under this program, entrepreneurs (and their spouses and unmarried children under 21) are eligible to apply for a green card (permanent residence) if they:

• Make the necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States; and

• Plan to create or preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers.

This program is known as EB-5 for the name of the employment-based fifth preference visa that participants receive.

Congress created the EB-5 Program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. In 1992, Congress created the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as the Regional Center Program. This sets aside EB-5 visas for participants who invest in commercial enterprises associated with regional centers approved by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth.
To put it very simply, the idea is that if you invest a substantial amount of money into the U.S. economy, you get an automatic path to citizenship. This concept was developed in the 1990s as a way to boost the flailing economy, gained a great deal of backing in the 2000s, and fell into disfavor in the last few years, as a host of economic downsides and security problems came to the surface. Some of the factors that brought forth skepticism about this visa on efficacy and security grounds from such people as Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, included:

• A tendency for uneven investment, with some of the poorer areas of the country getting no attention, whereas big urban centers getting the bulk of the profit.

• Exploitation by frauds thanks to malleable and amorphous language in the body of the screening forms.

• The fact that up to 84% percent of these visas in recent years went to Chinese nationals.

• The discovery by the Department of Homeland Security of a number of Chinese and Iranian individuals with links to intelligence in their countries utilizing these visas for the purpose of espionage, active measures, and other activities undermining U.S. national security.

The State Department’s tendency to favor investment considerations over other factors led to what may be a widespread mismanagement of the system. To date, this is the only type of visa for which there is no accounting of how many people and from which countries are granted the green card annually. We simply have no idea who and how many of such people are in the U.S. thanks to EB-5. Perhaps the State Department keeps track of everyone who is granted this visa, but this information is not available to the public, and makes any sort of study of individuals taking advantage of this opportunity nearly impossible.

As a result of heated discussions between more critical lawmakers like Grassley, and strong supporters, such as the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, there was some limited consensus towards reform of the system, which would include more effective screening procedures, a higher security threshold, a quota restriction by country, and other such measures. However, with the uncertainty of a heated presidential election, it was decided to wait for cues from the next administration, which, as we now know, shifted the focus of the discussion towards other immigration reform issues, such as the crackdown on illegal immigration, the renewal of DACA, refugee admission policy, temporary immigration restriction on a country basis, and restrictions on the work visas.

In light of the recent renewal in discussing the placement of a better screening system for immigrants, it is time to return to this EB-5 question. Danger to our country’s security may come just as much from educated engineers, such as highly ideological 9/11 terrorists, as from poor Uber drivers. And the danger can be as immediate and violent as a terrorist attack and as imperceptible as the building of IRGC-linked Shi’a “cultural centers” and mosques by wealthy Iranian investors in California, where individuals are brainwashed into supporting positions counter to U.S. interests. Let’s face it, a country in which all the wealth is distributed by the government, like North Korea, and the yearly salary of an average government employee does not exceed $15,000 per year, who can afford to pay $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a visa? The answer is, someone very powerful, who, without a doubt, is connected to the regime and pursuing goals that further that regime’s agenda. It is our job to push for reexamination of such irresponsible policies, which let in hundreds, if not thousands, of wealthy promoters of the regime’s policies who “invest” in our country’s economy by sponsoring anti-American education or building gathering centers for extremists, and to go back and scrutinize anyone who came into the country under such a visa, provided the State Department has not already “expunged” these records.

Extreme Vetting? Not If You Don't Have Specialists

After today's terrorist attack in New York (which President Trump called an act of a sick and deranged person), perpetrated by an Uzbeki here on a diversity visa, the president stated that he instructed the Department of Homeland Security to step up extreme vetting.

Uzbekistan has portions of the country that are hotbeds of terrorist activity.

No offense, Mr. President, but our DHS knows zilch, zip, nada about Uzbekistan or other Central Asian countries.

We couldn't find enough Russian language specialists in the State Department to translate one button correctly.

Who are we kidding here?

Trump, Don't Be Obama

My article was published in Israel HaYom, and republished on Instapundit.org

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/trump-dont-be-obama/

Irina Tsukerman

Trump, don't be Obama
Eight months into the Trump administration, it is time to stop making excuses. The Obama administration holdovers are not exclusively responsible for everything going wrong with U.S. foreign policy. Multiple agencies doubling down on foreign policy are a clear indication that the policy in question comes from the top, not from some rogue employee in one agency.

These actions by the U.S. are doing nothing but damaging its credibility and relationships.

First, the United States contributes free weapons to the Lebanese Air Force, which are then shared with Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a fearsome Iranian proxy that has now grown to the size of a standing army and plays a distinctive and influential role in Lebanese politics. It has also attacked Americans, Israelis, and other targets over the course of the last several decades in a number of locations, and has played a destructive role in Syria. That has not worked out so well with the branch of the Afghani mujahedeen that has grown into the Taliban, and arming Hezbollah is likewise not likely to contribute to peace and stability in the world.

Second, U.S. policy in Syria, which has focused only on ISIS, has essentially allowed Iran to step in uninhibited.

Admittedly, this policy started under former U.S. President Barack Obama; however, no clear explanation has ever been provided as to why the Trump administration should go along with the terrible policies of its predecessor. The White House let Iran build a land corridor to Lebanon, which will facilitate arms and drug trafficking and offer passage for terrorists. All the while, Iran is looking to build bases in Syria and gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has essentially sidelined the U.S.

Third, Trump's capitulation to Iraqi and Turkish demands on opposing Kurdistan independence emboldened Iran in its interventionism policy in Kurdistan. And it's no excuse to say that the U.S. clarified well in advance that it won't support Kurdish aspirations. The Republican-led Congress has failed to repeal the law against directly arming Kurds. As a direct result of the heavy-handed U.S. pressure on the Kurds to postpone their referendum, Iraq's government openly invited the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to plan the takeover of Kirkuk, which, by use of some force, displaced over 170,000 people, murdered over 400 civilians and injured hundreds more. And it did not stop at Kirkuk. Faced with the administration's "neutrality" policy, Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani entered Kirkuk freely on numerous occasions, and opened headquarters and military bases, solidifying Iran's presence in the area.

Iranians and Iraqis continue their punitive march past Kirkuk, placing minorities, such as the Yazidis, in harm's way. The Iraqi army refuses to take control or responsibility for these militias, which are wreaking havoc, and, coupled with Baghdad's harsh, isolationist policies, are ruining the region's economy. Further, Iraq, armed with U.S. weapons, ignored U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's gentle admonition that Iranian militias should go home. Iraq has now found a new, stronger ally, and the U.S. is being pushed out.

Fourth, Tillerson and Trump both said that there was no plan to try to stop America's European partners from doing business in Iran. And despite the positive indication that Trump will not allow a major Boeing deal with Iran to go through, such statements send, at best, a mixed signal. It was the complete isolation of Iran that forced it to seek relief from sanctions by way of the nuclear deal in the first place. Now, not only is Iran flush with money and investments, but continued business with other countries will make U.S. sanctions a mere drop in the bucket. U.S. sanctions alone will not affect Iran's economy, it won't diminish the strength of the Revolutionary Guards, nor will it hamper Iran's geopolitical ambition. Instead, the U.S. will be at a distinct business and economic disadvantage vis-à-vis European states. Disunity among allies is sure to be exploited by the Iranian regime, which thrives on the divide-and-conquer approach to dealing with its adversaries.

Fifth, the U.S. is allowing Hamas to do business with Iran, even as it is facilitating Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas and trying to work out a peace deal with Israel. Iran is encouraging the worst possible behavior in Hamas and praises the return to the destructive rhetoric that makes any sort of coexistence with Israel, much less normalization, impossible. Funding from Iran will also serve to nullify any effect from the Taylor Force Act, which would curb U.S. taxpayer funding of the Palestinian Authority in response to its continuous incitement to terrorism.

Separately, each of these policies, continuing under Trump, not Obama, is destructive enough. Together, they create a pattern of paying lip service to decertification and opposing Iran's military expansion across the Middle East and beyond, while tacitly allowing Iran and its proxies to profit from the U.S. defense industry and sacrificing American allies – a familiar pattern from the preceding administration. It is time for the Trump administration to stop finger-wagging while de facto perpetuating Obama's outdated and failed policies and refocus its energy on finding solutions.

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.

Comey's Lies

Back in March, watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Comey, I was struck at his blatant lies, not just about the facts related to his investigation, but as to the applicable provisions of the Espionage Act, which admittedly, is long and complex.

 At the time, I thought that Comey was merely trying to embarrass the senators by taking advantage of the fact that most of them have a very full plate, and unless they have spent many years as prosecutors in the national security arena (out of the whole bunch that might only be applicable to Sen. Blumenthal, but I don't think he practiced in that area, and anyway, as a Democrat, he focused more on the Russia probe anyway), they wouldn't necessarily be familiar with all the nuances of all the applicable charges - and neither would their staffers on the Committee, all fine lawyers, but likely with experience in less exotic areas of law.

In retrospect, it seems that the more likely reason is that Comey, who had failed to conduct a full investigation before drawing his conclusion, simply didn't want to be questioned about how is it that he failed to apply all the relevant charges to the facts.

Accused of Spying for Refusing to Spy

There's a slew of cases where highly educated Iranians with dual citizenships, upon returning to Iran for lectures or to visit families, are arrested and are forced to engage in espionage. If they refuse, they are tortured, forced to confess to spying for Israel or the United States, and imprisoned or executed. These men and women who refuse to engage in spying for Iran and for promoting its evil agendas deserve our full support. Please be aware that this is a frequent occurrence, and don't go to Iran, even if you receive an official invitation for conferences or other professional engagements.

No Such Thing As Coincidences

I doubt that Bill Browder's visa revocation is an accident.

More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.

Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.

How US Emboldens Iran Through Inept Foreign Policy

Hamas pays Tehran a visit. Again.

Could it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that IRGC is traveling everywhere unrestricted and the president just gave Europe permission to do business in Iran?

Nah, couldn't possibly be.

We're Living An Old Joke About the Nazis

Rex Tillerson: It's time for Iranian militias to go home.

IRGC + Iranian militias immediately picked up their marbles and went home.

Or not. No, they actually didn't even blink.

Article Published on JerusalemOnline

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/blogs/irina-tsukerman/op-ed-when-allies-fight-america-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-31888

Op-Ed: When allies fight - America between a rock and a hard place
Irina Tsukerman explains how the Iraqi incursion into the Kirkuk province has sparked a problematic situation for the US. However, she argues that the Iranian aid that Baghdad is receiving should have triggered the Trump administration to end its “hands-off approach” to the issue.

Iraqi forces in Kirkuk Photo Credit: EPA-EFE
The current standoff between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's national sovereignty claims in taking over the Kirkuk province and gaining control of the oil-rich fields has placed the US in a difficult position of having to mediate between allies in an attempt to preserve a semblance of stability in a region already plagued by diverse and persistent conflicts. Another NATO ally, Turkey, is likewise placing pressure in an already complicated situation. The US is bound by the terms of a defense treaty to defend other NATO members from all attacks, but Turkey sees even countries outside its own borders as its spheres of influence and has been increasingly aggressive in intervening in the course of events in areas it claims as its territory or potential for future conflicts.

Whether such an expansive interpretation of national interests merits support from other NATO members certainly merits reexamination, but in the instant case, the predicament is directly contributing to further complications and forces the US to have to juggle competing claims of legitimacy in a way that is inching closer to being unresolvable. However, Baghdad's incursion into Kirkuk has crossed the lines of discussion and created a situation where discussing the conflicting interests of various parties in a diplomatic setting is becoming increasingly moot.

Reports of Kurds being forcibly displaced, coupled with actions that caused the Kirkuk's Kurdish governor to flee the area altogether, defy Baghdad's claim that the operation is in place merely to prevent the dissolution of the country. Likewise, Vice President Al-Maliki's comments placing the blame for the creation of ISIS on Erbil in order to break up the country add disturbing and disingenuous undertones to this course of events.

Through it all, the US continues to issue statements claiming that it's "closely monitoring the situation" and trying to mediate among all sides. Without a question, it's in the US' interests to avoid any action that would lead to deterioration of any possibility of returning to a diplomatic track or further destabilizing the region. However, the current hands-off approach not only plays into the hands of its enemies but emboldens action that goes far beyond the securing of Baghdad's perceived interest in preserving its territorial integrity.

How should, then, the US act in situations where its allies - one, a state armed directly with US weaponry, and another, a courageous nation that has been an important asset in the war against ISIS - are in a state of conflict? I would posit that the resolution of the instant scenario should be guided by the same norms the US utilizes in evaluating any situation where its allies come to a head.

First, how does the situation affect US national interests, in particular, any security considerations?

Second, does the US have binding defense treaties with either of the allies and what are the terms of those treaties? In the event that there is no such agreement, or where the agreement amounts to little more than arms trade or promises of assistance in the event of an invasion by outside forces, what is the nature of the relationship between the US and that ally?

Third, has either party involved in the conflict been the aggressor or violated any international laws, norms, or committed any acts deemed unconscionable during the course of the conflict?

Fourth, what role can the US constructively play in order to preserve good relations with both sides, and to mitigate possible damages, including minimizing the number of any casualties, property damage, population displacement and political and economic complications?

Fifth, are there any other factors to be taken into consideration, such as involvement of third parties, such as state and non-state actors, and their role in this conflict, and goals with respect to the US’ own interests and agendas?

Sixth, how are this situation and the US action or inaction affect US relations with other allies, who are likely to be affected by the conflict?

In the past, the US has tried to keep its involvement to a minimum or even stay completely neutral during wars between Pakistan and India, even when those wars took place during the Cold War and Pakistan was largely US-oriented while India had a far stronger relationship with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the nature of the US outlook on the matter was affected by the fact that the US-Pakistani relationship at the time was largely governed by the view that Pakistan played a role as part of buffer states and that US interests included backing any state that could either potentially fall under Soviet influence or could be helpful in preventing Soviet expansionism.

At the moment, however, the situation in the Middle East is in flux, and our stated goals and unarticulated considerations are far from black and white. Our limited goal of defeating ISIS in the area has been largely met with the help of both Baghdad and the Kurds. The next issue looming large on the minds of the administration and policy experts alike has been the containment of Iran's aggression. Whether containment is the best way to characterize the current stand on Iran, whether it's feasible, or the best possible course of action in the current climate are all questions deserving of independent evaluation. However, there is no doubt that Iran's aggressive actions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere have given cause to concern in the White House, so much so that just a week ago, Trump placed the IRGC on the list of global terrorists.

Balancing respect for the right to peaceful self-determination with the national sovereignty and territorial integrity rights of others would be a complicated matter under the best of circumstances, but there is one factor that shifts the tenor of the discussion altogether - the role of Iran and the IRGC in Baghdad's forcible takeover of the Kirkuk province.

Baghdad had invited Iran's tanks to its borders days prior to the invasion, so Iran's involvement in the matter should come as no surprise. Those who have been following the events closely should be well aware that Iran's interest in the matter is preventing similar secessionism from taking root among its own minorities, including the Kurds, who have grown restless and have had long-standing conflicts with the Iranian regime.

A joint operation between Iran and Iraq in this matter would be concerning enough, but the fact that Iran sent the IRGC, rather than its military or police forces, to participate in this operation should have been the red line for the US, changing the calculus of conflict. Baghdad's invitation of the IRGC and continued involvement with Qasem Soleimani after the US had designated the IRGC a terrorist organization is an act of betrayal of whatever defense interests we have with Baghdad. It is indisputably a strike to our national security interests - because the US President has deemed that it is so and because the executive branch has taken decisive action in making clear that IRGC is a security threat. Admittedly, the administration sent some mixed signals with respect to the level of seriousness as to the enforcement of the new policy.

For instance, the administration seems to disregard the fact that the IRGC, as all other entities in Iran, get their marching orders directly from the Supreme Leader-guided regime. The IRGC is not an independent entity. It's not a non-state terrorist organization. It is a central part of the Islamic Republic. So when Secretary of State Tillerson makes comments that the US will not interfere in the European trade with Iran, he is, in essence, saying that despite the fact that the US finds that Iran directly sponsors terrorism, it is okay for its allies to trade with Iran and that somehow it's possible to separate trade and investment, from Iran's other activities. The argument that has not worked in the designation of all of Hezbollah (interestingly, an Iranian proxy) as a terrorist entity is somehow still being applied to the Islamic Republic. It's not helpful.

Nevertheless, the new policy is what it is, and as such, requires some level of intervention if the IRGC directly and opens threatens US national security interests, which is exactly what it is doing at the moment. That becomes an overarching consideration. If other allies, including Turkey and Baghdad, refuse to recognize why the IRGC involvement is such a central concern to the United States and ignore this issue, their status as allies comes into question. Any actor that openly cooperates with the US enemies and aids and abets activity by US-designated terrorist organizations in a way that will likely directly impact US interests and security is not acting as a friend.

All other questions, under such circumstances, fade into the background. The first and foremost concern should be: how does this affect the US? The answer is simple: it is harmful to the US, the presence of its troops in the region, its relationship with other allies, and it's most certainly detrimental to its new policy and the goals of countering Iranian aggression. The news that the IRGC, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose forces pressured PUK into giving up control of Kirkuk behind KRG leader Barzani's back, has now established five military bases and headquarters in Kirkuk is both a disaster and an embarrassment. Continuing to deny Iran's involvement will not make it so. Rather, by taking no action to deter the IRGC from spreading its influence in the area, we are openly contradicting our own policy, violating our own laws, betraying our own constituents who are relying on the US government for protection against enemies, and emboldening the openly adversarial Iranian regime. And that is all before we even get to our practical and moral obligations to the Kurds, our other important relationships in the region, or any other considerations.

We are showing ourselves to have no principles, to be a lawless nation, that is incapable of consistently enforcing its own national security strategies, and by failing to stop the incursion of the IRGC into the Kirkuk province, we are opening ourselves to future attacks

JOL Blogger | Irina Tsukerman

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. Her focus of interests ranges from assisting liberal dissidents and persecuted minorities to international geopolitics to relationship-and coalition building between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New York and internationally. In addition to Jerusalem Online, her articles have appeared in a range of publications including PJ Media, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and Morocco World News. She has also appeared on Moroccan media and Fox Business.

Click Here for more reports by Irina Tsukerman