Ayatollah Rafsanjani, former president of Iran, dead at 82

Left to right, Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, unnamed NYC mannequin

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/world/middleeast/ayatollah-rafsanjani-dead.html?_r=0

"Iran Executes Nuclear Scientist Who Was Convicted of Spying"

Iran Executes Nuclear Scientist Who Was Convicted of Spying.

Shahram Amiri defected to the U.S. at the height of Western efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. When he returned in 2010, he was welcomed with flowers by government leaders and even went on the Iranian talk-show circuit. Then he mysteriously disappeared. 

He was hanged the same week that Tehran executed a group of militants, a year after Iran agreed to a landmark accord to limit uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. 

Amiri first vanished in 2009 while on a religious pilgrimage to Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia. A year later, he reappeared in a series of contradictory online videos filmed in the U.S. He then walked into the Iranian-interests section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington and demanded to be sent home. 

In interviews, he described being kidnapped and held against his will by Saudi and American spies. U.S. officials said he was to receive millions of dollars for his help in understanding Iran’s nuclear program.

Then there’s this:

Hillary Clinton used her private email server to discuss details of the Iranian nuclear scientist who has executed for giving information to the CIA. 

Shahram Amiri, who was hanged on Sunday for ‘revealing secrets to the enemy’, was in the US and allegedly informing on Tehran’s extensive nuclear program during the Democrat’s controversial reign as Secretary of State. 

At the time she stressed researcher had been there of his ‘own free will’ and was described as ‘our friend’ in correspondences. 

But he maintained he had been kidnapped by intelligence agents.
Emails sent by Clinton’s advisers point to the scandal involving Amiri – suggesting it was a ‘diplomatic, psychological issue’, but not a ‘legal one’. 

One aide also warned he would lead to ‘problematic news stories’.

Via Instapundit.

Andrew McCarthy: Obama's Cash Payment to Iran Broke Criminal Law

"The President hoped to camouflage what he knew to be against the law"

Did it ever occur to President Obama to ask why he couldn’t just cut a check to the Iranian regime?

Outrage broke out this week over the revelation that Obama arranged to ship the mullahs piles of cash, worth $400 million and converted into foreign denominations, reportedly in an unmarked cargo plane. The hotly debated question was whether the payment, which the administration attributes to a 37-year-old arms deal, was actually a ransom paid for the release of American hostages Tehran had abducted.

It is a waste of time to debate that point further. The Iranians have bragged that the astonishing cash payment was a ransom — and Obama has been telling us for months that we can trust the Iranians. The hostages were released the same day the cash arrived. One of the hostages has reported that the captives were detained an extra several hours at the airport and told they would not be allowed to leave until the arrival of another plane — inferentially, the unmarked cargo plane ferrying the cash. The reason American policy has always prohibited paying ransoms to terrorists and other abductors is that it only encourages them to take more hostages. And, as night follows day, Iran has abducted more Americans since Obama paid the cash. No matter how energetically the president tries to lawyer the ransom issue, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .

More worth examining is why the transaction took the bizarre form that it did. To cut to the chase, I believe it was to camouflage — unsuccessfully — the commission of felony law violations. (more)

Kerry and Defense Sec Ashton Carter Called Iran?

Has Obama normalized relations with Iran on his own? What's going on?

"10 U.S. sailors detained by Iran freed"

CNN: The wait for the sailors' release Wednesday morning dragged on for hours, with Iranian officials interrogating the sailors about their motives and demanding a U.S. apology.

But an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman told state-run media the boats strayed into Iranian waters by accident.

"The evidence suggests that they unintentionally entered the Iranian waters because of the failure of their navigational system," IRGC spokesman Ramazan Sharif said.

So on Wednesday afternoon, the sailors traveled on their two boats to a rendezvous point in the Persian Gulf, a U.S. official said. They were escorted by Iranian boats, which turned back when they reached the rendezvous point in international waters.

The sailors then boarded the guided missile cruiser USS Anzio, where they were undergoing medical checks Wednesday.

"There are no indications that the Sailors were harmed during their brief detention," the U.S. Navy said in a statement.

Link to story

The Navy said it will investigate how the sailors ended up in Iranian territory.

Secretary of State John Kerry expressed "gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation ‎in swiftly resolving this matter," in a statement Wednesday.

"As a former Sailor myself, I know the importance of naval presence around the world and the critical work being done by our Navy in the Gulf region," he said

Nothing to see here: "2 U.S. Navy boats held by Iran but will be returned"

USA Today: Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told The Associated Press that the boats were moving between Kuwait and Bahrain when the U.S. lost contact with them.

“We have been in contact with Iran and have received assurances that the crew and the vessels will be returned promptly,” Cook said.

on CNN, Earnest is now saying these new Iranian hostilities is exactly why the Obama WH pursued the nuclear deal w Iran.

— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) January 12, 2016

Earnest refers to Josh Earnest, the White House Spokesman.

"It's called the rose garden effect"

"Army officer recommends US soldier Bowe Bergdahl be spared prison"

Defence lawyer Eugene Fidell said Lt. Col. Mark Visger has decided Bergdahl's case should go to a military system similar to civilian courts that handle misdemeanor charges. It limits the maximum punishment to reduction of rank, a bad conduct discharge and a short jail term, though that isn't being sought, Mr Fidell said.

Paul Boyce, a spokesman for the US Army's Force Command, released a statement Saturday that didn't confirm Visger's decision.

"As legal action is ongoing, we continue to maintain careful respect for the military-judicial process, the rights of the accused, and ensuring the case's fairness and impartiality," Boyce said.

Meanwhile Obama's new buddies in Iran say a verdict has been reached on a Washington Post reporter they accuse of spying.

An Iranian judiciary spokesman said Sunday that a verdict has been reached in the espionage case of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, though he offered no details and it was uncertain what the verdict is and whether there is a sentence.

“The ruling on this case has been issued,” Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei said in a regularly scheduled televised news conference. “There is still the possibility of this ruling being appealed, and it is not final.”

Rezaian, The Post’s Tehran correspondent, has become a symbol of the lack of press freedom in Iran since he was arrested July 22, 2014. His closed-door trial on espionage and related charges ended two months ago, and the delay in a verdict has never been explained.

The Post has vehemently disputed the allegation that Rezaian was a spy.

"Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel"

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”"

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi,” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha,” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval,” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

Do you think the NY Times would put it in their best seller list, should the book become available outside Iran and sell in large enough quantities?

"Trust me."

That is impossible. Iran leadership is equally untrustworthy. There is nothing to trust in both parties save for untrustworthy characteristics. So, no. We do not trust you. We trust grownups to repair the damage you insist upon. 

I heard his challenge by accident while deep cleaning that had me so cross so immediately my impulse is punch the guy for the haughty arrogant delivery. What little I saw of it.  I do not like listening to this man one single bit. I've never in my life had a president demand so much attention, insist on being heard so much as this man, Honest to God, listening back for the challenge the hissing extended sibilants with emphasis jabbed my eardrums and rattled the little bones in there. It is actual torture.

He chided a one-time Fox reporter for his use of the word "content" as in contentment, the same way George Takei latched onto the word dignity and ran with it inappropriately so that the issue at hand is deflected to his Highness taking umbrage. "You should know better." 

Just answer the question and spare us what better things we should know. Magisterial deflection rejected. It was a bad deal and from a position of dire immediate need and of weakness and not of the actual strength of our position, if deal you must and for reasons unexplained. He traded off the country's efforts. He is a bad deal maker. So no, he is not trusted. 

The bit that I am looking for sounded fairly good at first blush, argumentatively, if you hadn't bothered with his dissimilation before and if the chief interest is scoring polemical points and not in developing understanding and agreement with his royal subjects. He is not interested in that. So no, he is not trusted.

The exchange is right before he departed abruptly not taking anymore questions this morning. 

I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. 

And if the alternative is that we should bring Iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. And that will be an honest debate.

All right.

Very well, we will read the agreement. And we will explain specifically where it fails to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and much worse than that as you know, and your appeal to authority is rejected when common sense supervenes whoever the authority or from wherever they hail. And when the rest of the world tells you their shit sandwich is delicious we'll  still question their judgement and "this notion" that a new treaty is necessary is entirely your own, for reasons your own, so no, we do not need to offer you an alternative. You can leave it alone or turn up the heat. And lastly the choice you present between this treaty and opponents suggesting war is discarded to the heap of previous Obama tagged sophomoric false dilemma sophistry.

That is allowing only a few seconds.

Text of speech Washing Post.

"Family Pleads for Marine Veteran Held Over 3 years by Iran"

 

"Family Pleads on Capitol Hill for Marine Vet Held 1,340 Days by Iran"

Bush: Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal

Does Obama govern like the mayor of Baltimore?

The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in "retreat" around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.

According to the attendee's transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He's smooth," Bush said. "And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Ted Cruz Defends the Letter

 

Link in case video play difficulties

Instapundit: "Two things people are missing about Netanyahu speech"

"(1) He didn’t just make a case for why the U.S. should be harder on Iran. He made the case for unilateral Israeli military intervention too, sub silentio."

"(2) The most damaging thing to Obama here isn’t even the substance, but the contrast in style. Netanyahu, as someone said on Twitter, was better in his second language than Obama is in his first. And he presented himself as a leader who cares about his country, rather than one, like Obama, who makes excuses for its enemies."

Via Instapundit 

"Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei accuses US police of 'oppressing' black community"

The Telegraph: In comments on a Twitter account maintained by his staff, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the recent racial tensions sparked by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson was yet more proof of how America was run by "tyrants".

"#Jesus endured sufferings to oppose tyrants who had put humans in hell in this world & the hereafter while he backed the oppressed," said one Tweet, accompanied by the "#Ferguson" hashtag.

Here is Iran (story link) hanging gays by the neck until they are dead. Not exactly a civil rights heaven, unless you were in a strange place called Obama's mind.

The Mullahs’ Gulag for Gays

"Iranian blogger found guilty of insulting Prophet Mohammad on Facebook sentenced to death"

"Article 262 of the Islamic Penal Code states insulting the Prophet carries a punishment of death, however, article 264 of the Penal Code says if a suspect claims to have said the insulting words in anger, in quoting someone, or by mistake, his death sentence will be converted to 74 lashes."

The anonymous source claims: “Unfortunately, despite this Article and the explanations provided, the judges issued the death sentence.

“They didn’t even take any notice of Soheil’s statements in court in which he repeated several times that he wrote the posts under poor [psychological] conditions, and that he is remorseful.”

Any clues as to how the legal minds arrived at 74 lashes?

"Iran just let 15 death row prisoners go free because they were able to memorize the Quran"

"[I]f you’re a death row convict in the Islamic Republic, a little rote learning could be your path to freedom, because Iranian prisoners are seeing their sentences commuted, or even earning their release, by memorizing and reciting holy text."

"Effectively, this is time off for good behavior, and entirely discretionary. At present, the policy of Quranic reprieve is more de facto than de jure; there is no law on the books in Iran specifying sentence reduction for memorizing the Quran. In reality, the decision on who among the hufaaz (a term used by modern Muslims for those who’ve memorized the entire Quran) receives a pardon may depend on a variety of factors, namely the nature of the crime and the political will of the authorities. For example, convicted rapists and political saboteurs probably stand less of chance at gaining their freedom than burglars or even murderers whose crimes involved no distinct political motive. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, the following crimes are punishable by death in Iran: murder, rape, child molestation, sodomy, drug trafficking, armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism and treason."

Vocativ via Drudge.

Summing Up the Iran Agreement

Going to Iran

At RCP George Friedman of Stratfor recounts the reason we went to China (to counterbalance Soviet aggression), and why it is important we go to Iran.  Although they consider us the Great Satan who staged a 1953 coup against them, and we consider them religious extremists who have worked with other countries to thwart us, he brings home the point that pragmatism trumps ideology saying, "In the early days of the Islamic republic, whenever Tehran was confronted with  American interests, it would pull closer to the Soviet Union, an atheistic country...a counterweight to the United States and put ideology aside, even in its earliest, most radical days."

Concerning the recent breakdown in nuclear talks, he believes the actual goal of the talks will be restructuring the balance of power:

The real negotiations will come after the nuclear and sanctions issues are addressed. They will pertain to U.S.-Iranian relations more broadly. Each side will use the other to its advantage. The Iranians will use the United States to repair its economy, and the Americans will use the Iranians to create a balance of power with Sunni states. This will create indirect benefits for both sides. Iran's financial woes will be an opportunity for American companies to invest. The Americans' need for a balance of power will give Iran weight against its own enemies, even after the collapse of its strategy. 

The region will of course look different but not dramatically so. The balance of power idea does not mean a rupture with Saudi Arabia or Israel. The balance of power only works if the United States maintains strong relationships on all sides. The Saudis and Israelis will not like American rebalancing. Their choices in the matter are limited, but they can take comfort from the fact that a strictly pro-Iranian policy is impossible for the United States. The American strategy with China in the 1970s was to try to become the power that balanced the Soviet Union and China. After meeting with the Chinese, Henry Kissinger went to Moscow. Thus, in terms of bilateral relationships, U.S.-Saudi and U.S.-Israeli relations can stay the same. But it now creates another relationship and option for the United States. In the end, Iran is still a secondary power and the United States is the primary power. Iran will take advantage of the relationship, and the United States will manage it. 

The U.S., Iran, Israel, Russia, China, and Europe all have problems with Sunni radical extremism, and as Saudi Arabia is a large exporter of it, this shifting of power will likely be of great benefit. 

"Exclusive: Obama’s Secret Iran Détente"

The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September.

While those negotiations now appear on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran—relief from crippling sanctions—began quietly and modestly five months ago.

A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

The Daily Beast (for reaction read more)

Dont Go Wobbly On Iran

"For the past 10 years, world powers have been talking to Iran. Meanwhile, Iran has been creating facts on the ground by building the elements of a nuclear weapons program and the long-range missiles needed to deliver a nuclear warhead."

Yet once again, the Obama administration is asking Congress to hold off on additional sanctions to give time for diplomacy to work. Tougher sanctions, we are warned, could upset the delicate balance inside Iran and poison the well for a deal.

I disagree. Tough sanctions are exactly what has brought Iran to the table now, and tightening sanctions as we engage diplomatically affords us the opportunity to apply further pressure and force Iran’s leaders to choose between regime survival and a nuclear weapon.

... we should take this opportunity to meet with Iran. We should test out the sincerity of Iran’s proposals, but our patience must be limited. The past decade should give us little optimism and great skepticism about Iranian intentions.

It is far too premature to let up the pressure.

Portions of a Marco Rubio piece on Politico