The Obama State Department is convinced that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his regime’s cronies are financing terrorism.
Well, because they conduct business in cash.
In fact, in its most recent annual report on state sponsors of terrorism, State frets
“that 60 percent of all business transactions [in Syria] are conducted in cash and that nearly 80 percent of all Syrians do not use formal banking services.”This has created a “vast black market,” the components of which are exploited by “some members of the Syrian government and the business elite . . . in terrorism finance schemes.”
Interesting thing about that:
There are only three countries on the list of state sponsors of terrorism — Syria, Sudan, and Iran.
That last one is worth highlighting.
Iran, after all, is not just the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism; it is also the world’s leading state sponsor of . . . Syria — providing it with lots of that cash the State Department is so concerned about.
Oh, I nearly forgot: Iran also happens to be the jihadist regime that President Obama just gave $1.7 billion to . . . in cash.
Or should I say, at least $1.7 billion.
It is hard to decide what is the most appalling thing about Obama’s $1.7 billion payoff to the mullahs:
the ransom for the release of American hostages, which has predictably induced Tehran to take more hostages;
the pallets of untraceable currency loaded on multiple planes of the national airline regularly used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to arm Assad and facilitate terror;
the withdrawals from a shadowy Treasury Department fund structured in a manner designed to conceal that money was being transferred to Iran.
The transaction is so shocking, one can easily forget that it is just the latest in a long series of payoffs.
The payoffs were made in Obama’s pursuit of legacy adornment — the nuclear deal with Iran he coveted at any cost.
Beginning in January 2014 and continuing for a year and a half — the period during which the president was quietly folding at the negotiation table on every bold campaign-trail vow to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — the administration released $700 million per month in escrowed oil funds to the jihadist regime.
In congressional testimony last week, Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) did the math:
That’s $11.9 billion.
But that, literally, may not be the half of it.
In July, U.S. government officials told the Associated Press that Iran had repatriated a sum approaching $20 billion in the half-year following implementation of the nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA).
Is that $20 billion from the JCPOA in addition to the pre-JCPOA $11.9 billion in oil revenues?
Is it in addition to the $1.7 billion “settlement of a failed 1970s arms deal” (a.k.a. the ransom for American hostages)?
The “most transparent administration in history” is not saying.
But as Dubowitz runs the numbers, the “worst-case scenario” is that Iran has gotten its mitts on $33.6 billion — and “worst” assumes that we know about every shady backroom deal, which seems unlikely.
That staggering figure would amount to about 8 percent of Iran’s entire annual GDP.
Whatever the true amount is, were the billions transferred in cash?
Remember, when the news first broke of the $400 million cash payment on the same day our hostages were released, the president looked us in the eye and told us he had to pay the mullahs that way — he couldn’t wire the funds or send a check because, owing to his professed respect for sanctions in American law, there is no banking relationship between the U.S. and Iran.
As I explained at the time, this was simply false:
The cash transfer violated the sanctions every bit as much as a check or wire transfer would have. Plus, the sanctions allow for presidential waivers, so Obama could easily have wired the money. He sent cash only because he chose to send cash.Obama could easily have wired the money to Iran. He sent cash only because he chose to send cash.
So if the administration loaded up planes with $1.7 billion in foreign currency for the settlement/ransom, was a similar method used in connection with the $11.9 billion in escrowed oil funds?
How about the $20 billion in JCPOA sanctions relief?
Again, the administration won’t say — apparently relying on a nonexistent privilege of confidentiality in international relations to justify withholding such information from Congress and the public.
One sadly hilarious aspect of this spectacle is the administration’s tortured claims about Iran’s use of its Obama windfalls.
The White House and State Department grudgingly admit that they cannot know for certain how much Iran has diverted to the terrorist activities that the administration even more grudgingly admits Iran continues to underwrite.
But rest assured, Obama strongly suspects that very little money makes its way to the jihad, since Tehran must prioritize paying down crushing debt.
It is pointless to track how particular dollar streams are spent by a terrorist regime.
Iran had crushing debt and crumbling infrastructure before Obama started lining its pockets; yet it was committed to exporting revolutionary jihad, so it spent its sparse resources on terrorism anyway.
Consequently, if the new dollars Iran is reeling in are ostensibly spent on infrastructure or debt, the dollars that would otherwise have been spent on those activities are freed up for terrorist activity.
The logic is unassailable:
Because money is fungible, not a thin dime can safely be given to an entity that supports terrorism.
In the case of Iran, however, we need not rely on logical deduction; we know Iran is channeling funds to the jihad.
As the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Saeed Ghasseminejad reports, the Iranian regime requires the transfer to its military of funds it receives from settling legal disputes with foreign countries and companies. That means, for example, that the $1.7 billion settlement that Obama paid when the hostages were released has gone to the IRGC. That brings us back full-circle to the State Department’s annual report on state sponsors of terrorism.
As the report explains, the IRGC, through its notorious Qods Force, “is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.”