Freed Lebanese Pilgrims Arrive in Beirut, Turkish Pilots Released
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October/A plane carrying the nine freed Lebanese pilgrims and General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim on Saturday landed in Beirut around 10:35 p.m. after a brief delay at the airport in Turkey over logistical reasons, state-run National News Agency reported. Earlier on Saturday, a Qatari plane carrying two Turkish pilots abducted in August in Lebanon took off from Beirut's airport, carrying the freed men home, as part of a swap deal also involving Syrian women prisoners. A Lebanese military helicopter flew the two pilots from the Riyaq airport in the Bekaa to Beirut's airport.
"The freed pilgrims are in my custody and there are no obstacles and the takeoff of the plane has been delayed over some logistical reasons," Ibrahim told al-Jadeed television earlier, after several media reports said that the plane had already taken off. "The two Turkish pilots are now in the custody of the Lebanese General Security and are on their way to Beirut's airport" after they were freed by their abductors, NNA reported earlier on Saturday.
Turkey's state news agency also confirmed the release of the pilots. Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, several MPs and the families of the nine pilgrims received the freed men at Beirut's airport. Representatives of caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati, Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam and ex-PMs Saad Hariri and Fouad Saniora were also at the airport, according to NNA. Several media reports said Gen. Ibrahim and Qatar's Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiya were on the same plane with the nine men. The Syrian regime's handing over of a number of women prisoners to mediators, which was the abductors' main demand, led to finalizing the swap deal, LBCI television reported. In remarks to al-Jadeed, Syrian MP Sharif Shahadeh confirmed the release of the Syrian women. Eleven Lebanese pilgrims were kidnapped in Syria's Aleppo region in May 2012 as they were making their way back to Lebanon by land from pilgrimage in Iran. Two of them were released in late 2012. The abductors, the rebel Northern Storm Brigade, had demanded the release of 282 women detainees from Syrian prisons in return for the nine remaining men. On August 9, gunmen abducted two Turkish pilots after ambushing a bus carrying Turkish Airlines crew from Rafik Hariri International Airport to a hotel in Beirut. The families of the Lebanese abductees had accused Turkey of being behind the kidnapping. They, however, have denied any involvement in the abduction of the Turkish pilots.
“The release of the pilots and the women from Syrian prisons are part of the deal to free the nine men,” Minister Charbel said in remarks to As Safir newspaper.
A previously unknown group calling itself Zuwwar Imam al-Rida claimed the abduction, and demanded that Turkey use its influence with Syrian rebels it backs to secure the release of the nine pilgrims. Lebanese authorities have since arrested three suspects and charged them in connection with the pilots' abduction.

Report: Nine Pilgrims Released in Exchange for 150 Million Dollars
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/Progress in the release of the nine Lebanese pilgrims held in Syria's Aazaz region was achieved by Qatar on Wednesday, reported al-Liwaa newspaper on Saturday. A Turkish source told the daily that Qatar crowned its negotiations with the kidnappers by paying them 150 million dollars for the release of the pilgrims who were abducted in Syria's Aleppo region in May 2012. The deal also included that General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim and Qatari Foreign Minister Khaled al-Attiya would accompany the pilgrims from Turkey, where they were released, to Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport.Ibrahim had said on Friday that the pilgrims could be in Lebanon within 48 hours. He had traveled to Istanbul during the week in order to put the finishing touches to the captives' release. Al-Liwaa added that as part of the deal, Qatar sought to receive guarantees from Ibrahim that the two Turkish pilots kidnapped in Lebanon in August were doing well. The consequent release of a video of the pilots on Tuesday was part of that deal, the Turkish source told the daily. Eleven Lebanese pilgrims were kidnapped in Syria's Aleppo region in May 2012 as they were making their way back to Lebanon by land from pilgrimage in Iran. Two of them were released in late 2012. The abductors, the rebel Northern Storm Brigade, had demanded the release of 282 women detainees from Syrian prisons in return for the nine remaining men. On August 9, gunmen abducted two Turkish pilots after ambushing a bus carrying Turkish Airlines crew from Rafik Hariri International Airport to a hotel in the city. The families of the Lebanese abductees accuse Turkey of being behind the kidnapping. They, however, have denied any involvement in the abduction of the Turkish pilots. A previously unknown group calling itself Zuwwar Imam al-Rida claimed the abduction, and demanded that Turkey use its influence with Syrian rebels it backs to secure the release of the nine pilgrims. Lebanese authorities have since arrested three suspects and charged them in connection with the pilots' abduction.

Charbel Says Three-Way Deal Led to Release of Nine Pilgrims
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel stressed on Saturday that the case of the Lebanese pilgrims, who were kidnapped last year in Syria, has reached an end. “We are waiting for the Turkish authorities to hand them over to us... The process will be discussed on Saturday in Ankara,” Charbel said in comments published in As Safir newspaper. The release came after General Security Chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim traveled to Damascus to discuss a prisoner exchange deal to free the group, who were abducted in Syria's northern Aleppo province in May 2012 as their families said they were returning from a pilgrimage to Iran. Charbel pointed out that two Turkish Airlines pilots, who were kidnapped in Beirut in August, are expected to be heading to Turkey in the upcoming hours. The pilots were abducted by a previously unknown group, Zuwwar Imam al-Rida, which said it had seized the pair to secure the release of the nine men held captive in Syria. The relatives of the nine Lebanese pilgrims have denied responsibility for kidnapping the pilots, though they said they were happy to see additional pressure placed on Ankara. They had accused Turkey of not doing enough to win the release of their loved ones from Syrian rebels. The complicated three-way deal also include the release of women detainees from Syrian prisons will be released in return for the nine men, Charbel said. “The release of the pilots and the women from Syrian prisons are part of the deal to free the nine men,” he added.

Officials Laud Release of Nine Lebanese Pilgrims
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/Lebanese officials expressed relief on Saturday over the near return of the nine Lebanese pilgrims, who were kidnapped by rebels in Syria last year.  Speaker Nabih Berri congratulated the nine men and their relatives. “We thank the state of Qatar for following up the case and mediating, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Turkey for cooperating with the exerted efforts to secure their safe return,” Berri said. The pilgrims were part of a group of 11 hostages taken by a rebel faction in northern Syria in May 2012. Two were later released, but the nine had been held since, causing friction in the region and sparking the August kidnapping in Beirut that saw two Turkish Airlines pilots abducted. In Beirut's southern suburbs, the families of the nine Lebanese gathered Friday night at a travel agency that they went to Iran with, some of them weeping. Meanwhile, Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam followed up the measures taken to safely return the nine men back to Lebanon with caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, who in turn briefed him on the efforts made to end the case. Salam congratulated the men and their families and thanked all the sides that helped secure their release. He also praised the efforts exerted by General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim. The release came after Ibrahim traveled to Damascus to discuss a prisoner exchange deal to free the group. For his part, former Prime Minister lauded the release of the men, hoping that the sufferings of other prisoners and abductees would also end.Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel also praised the efforts exerted to end the abduction of the nine men.

Saniora Holds 'Positive, Constructive' Talks with Berri in Ain al-Tineh
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/Speaker Nabih Berri on Saturday held a two-hour meeting with head of al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc ex-PM Fouad Saniora in Ain al-Tineh. “The meeting is a continuation of the talks we held more than two weeks ago. We discussed a large number of key issues that are of interest to the Lebanese and the dialogue was positive, beneficial and constructive,” Saniora said after the meeting. “We agreed that it is useful to continue these meetings and God willing, consecutive talks will be held very soon,” Saniora added. Asked whether parliament will resume its sessions, the ex-PM said the issue would be discussed on Tuesday. Asked about Berri's dialogue initiative, Saniora said he discussed it with the speaker and that more consultations will take place. The former premier also noted that they tackled the issue of the cabinet formation process.

Residents of Wata el-Msaytbeh Protest Removal of Illegal Construction
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/Several residents of the Beirut neighborhood of Wata el-Msaytbeh blocked the road, burning tires and trash bins, to prevent Internal Security Forces from quelling illegal construction in the area. According to the state-run National News Agency, the residents of al-Tannak neighborhood blocked the road and plumes of black smoke engulfed the area. In the past month, a crackdown on illegal construction has sparked fury among residents. The campaign has led to the injury of several people, including policemen, and the death of others. Lebanon witnessed over the years illegal construction in several areas. But powerful politicians shield violators.

Residents of Abboudiyeh Block Road to Protest Syrian Gunfire
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/The residents of the Akkar border town of al-Abboudiyeh briefly blocked the international highway on Saturday to protest the Syrian gunfire in the area. The state-run National News Agency reported that the angry residents blocked the road to protest the continuous gunfire that is targeting their houses in the area. On August 8, heavy gunfire from Syria targeted al-Abboudiyeh, forcing residents to flee the area en masse. The National News Agency said volleys of machinegun fire hit the Lebanese territory along the northern border, from al-Abboudiyeh to Hakr Janin.

Report: Al-Nusra Front Threatens to Target Hizbullah Strongholds in Lebanon
Naharnet Newsdesk 19 October 2013/An official in the fundamentalist al-Nusra Front has threatened to target Hizbullah strongholds in Lebanon in response to the party's involvement in the fighting in Syria alongside the country's regime, reported the Kuwaiti al-Seyassah daily on Saturday. He vowed that the front will respond to the killing of Syrians by targeting Hizbullah strongholds of Dahieh in Beirut, the Bekaa city of Baalbek, and southern Lebanon, a military leader of the Syrian opposition quoted him as saying. Meanwhile, Lebanese security authorities told the daily that the security forces and army's deployment the southern Beiurt suburbs of Dahieh will not prevent car bombings from targeting the area. They said: “The deployment in over 16 Hizbullah security zones will not prevent such attacks because those seeking to harm the party are already in the area.”
In July, al-Nusra Front leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani hit out at Hizbullah for its intervention in the Syrian conflict, warning “Shiites in Lebanon against allowing Hizbullah to drag them into a proxy war in Syria on behalf of its Iranian backers.” "I say that abandoning Hizbullah and disowning it will save you from woes and disasters that you would do without,” he added. In September, a joint force of 800 men composed of soldiers from the army and security services began their deployment in Dahieh, where they will take over security at checkpoints set up by Hizbullah in the wake of two bombings that hit its stronghold.

Hariri Says al-Hasan Killers Will be Brought to Justice Sooner or Later
Naharnet Newsdesk 18 October 2013/Former Premier Saad Hariri on Friday compared “the wound” caused by the 2012 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan to the wound caused by the assassination of his father, ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. “We have always called for justice and for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon regarding the assassination of Premier Rafik Hariri, and now we have the same demands regarding the assassination of Brigadier General al-Hasan,” the slain commander of the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau. “We have full confidence in the Tribunal, and no one should think that those who assassinated him will get away with it no matter what,” Hariri stressed during a prerecorded interview on Future TV which commemorated the first anniversary of al-Hasan's assassination.  “For me, the assassination of Wissam trespassed many red lines, and he was targeted because of his belief in the path of Rafik Hariri and because of his success and great achievements at the head of the Intelligence Bureau, whether in uncovering the Mamlouk-Samaha network or in pursuing and arresting several Israeli and terrorist networks,” the ex-PM noted. He added: “We know who their friends are, and who killed him, and they will be punished sooner or later although they feel very strong today.”
Hariri pointed out that the slain officer faced “the most heinous political and media campaigns” prior to his assassination, noting that the Intelligence Bureau “is still being targeted, but it will go on and continue the institutional work he established in it.”“They fought him because he was working to build the state,” said Hariri. The former premier said at the end of the interview that he would soon return to Lebanon. He said that the assassination of al-Hasan “showed once again that the criminals are targeting symbols in Lebanon” and therefore his return was postponed. But he added: “Many don’t want me to return, but I will, and I hope that Lebanon will again be as it was, and as Rafik Hariri, Wissam al-Hasan, Pierre Amin Gemayel and all the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution wanted it to be.”

Saudi U.N. draft condemns Syrian regime, Hezbollah
October 19, 2013/By Adla Massoud The Daily Star
NEW YORK: As a stunned world watched Saudi Arabia spurn a seat on the U.N Security Council, the Gulf state has been quietly circulating a General Assembly draft resolution that condemns Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria and the regime’s use of chemical weapons and heavy aerial bombardment against the population. “All massacres in the Syrian Arab Republic, including most recently the massacre in the Al-Ghouta region on 21 Aug., 2013, which caused appalling civilian casualties in which government forces are suspected to have used chemical weapons which are prohibited under international law, amount to a serious crime,” the draft says.
The resolution also “condemns the intervention of all foreign combatants in Syria, including those fighting on behalf of the regime and in particular Hezbollah,” and demands that “the Syrian government implement the relevant resolutions of United Nations bodies.” Saudi Arabia angrily rejected a Security Council seat Friday, only hours after it won the position – a first for the kingdom.
A statement from the Saudi Foreign Ministry accused the U.N. body of “double standards” over the Syria war. “Therefore, Saudi Arabia ... has no other option but to turn down Security Council membership until it is reformed and given the means to accomplish its duties and assume its responsibilities in preserving the world’s peace and security,” it added. The government said “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill and burn its people” with chemical weapons is “irrefutable evidence and proof of the inability of the Security Council to carry out its duties and responsibilities.”
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told reporters that it would be for U.N. member states to decide how to replace Saudi Arabia, but added: “I would like to caution you that I have received no official notification” from the Saudi government. Saudi Arabia was one of five nations elected by the Assembly Thursday to start a two-year term on the Security Council. No country has ever won a seat and then refused to take it up.
Entitled “Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Republic,” the Saudi-sponsored draft resolution has gained the support of Qatar, Turkey, the UAE, Jordan, Britain, France and the U.S., according to unconfirmed reports.
The draft resolution is still under discussion and is scheduled for a vote next month. It is the second time this month that Saudi Arabia, a founding member of the U.N., has made a public gesture over what it sees as the body’s failure to take action to stop the civil war in Syria. During the General Assembly meeting in September Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal refused to address the world or even hand out a copy of his speech.
The shock move Friday reflected the kingdom’s dissatisfaction with the positions of the international organization on Arab and Islamic issues, particularly the issue of Palestine and the Syrian crisis. Saudi Arabia’s frustration is mostly directed at the U.S., its oldest international ally, which has pursued policies in the Middle East that Saudi rulers have bitterly opposed, according to analysts.
“This is a protest from the Saudis, not really against the UNSC, [but] rather against U.S. policies – without having to explicitly attack the U.S. In practical terms, it denies the U.S. an allied vote on other issues at the UNSC,” Tony Badran, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told The Daily Star. Russia criticized the decision, saying its attack on the Council over Syria was “particularly strange.” But France said it shares Saudi Arabia’s “frustration” at the council’s “paralysis.”

Assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan: Enduring legacy
October 19, 2013/The Daily Star
Another somber commemoration will take place in Lebanon Saturday, as officials mark the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces.The judiciary has yet to come to any conclusions in the case, meaning Hasan’s assassination, for now, is one of the many politically motivated killings of the last decade that remains unpunished. But to focus on this aspect of the explosion in Ashrafieh which took the lives of Hasan, his bodyguard and a bystander does not do justice to Hasan’s legacy. Hasan was a polarizing figure, since he was identified with one of the rival political camps in Lebanon. But irrespective of whether one loved or loathed the man, he was instrumental in seeing the ISF’s Information Branch play a leading role on the security scene. Under Hasan’s guidance the branch was instrumental in uncovering a number of networks of Israeli agents operating in Lebanon, and some believe Israel has yet to recover from this series of deadly blows to its intelligence capabilities, and thus war-making capabilities, against Lebanon. The Information Branch has of course been active on a number of fronts, and purely domestic, non-political crime has been an important area of achievement. But the agency’s work in the realm of “political,” more sensitive crime stands out. Under Hasan, the Information Branch exposed a bombing plot allegedly masterminded by Syrian intelligence officials, which netted former Lebanese Minister Michel Samaha as one of the conspirators. Most recently, the Information Branch detained a suspect in the deadly twin car bomb attacks in Tripoli in August, which took nearly 50 lives. The fact that the Information Branch remains a force to be reckoned with is a testament to Hasan’s legacy. Some might focus on the political roles he played during his career, mediating between various sides, but his contribution to building an institution is infinitely more valuable. Whether in Lebanon or the wider Arab world, the death of a leading figure is often followed by decay and collapse in the institution that such people head. In Hasan’s case, the institution he was associated with has survived him and maintained a record of achievements. No state agency, especially in the realm of intelligence and security affairs, is likely to be completely free of politics and division. But the Information Branch that flourished under Hasan should serve as a stark reminder to the Lebanese that if their politicians largely stay out of the business of such institutions, such institutions might have a chance to shine, if guided by the right kind of individuals. Politicians must ensure that such government bodies receive the level of funding that they require, and be led by the kind of people who can build for the future.

Report: Source reveals details of Iranian offer at nuclear talks

By JPOST.COM STAFF/LAST UPDATED: 10/18/2013
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Report-Source-reveals-alleged-details-of-Iranian-offer-at-nuclear-talks-329123
Plan includes halt on production of enriched uranium, vow to convert arsenal of fuel rods, pledge to hand over used nuclear fuel. Delegations from Iran, other world powers during closed-door nuclear talks on October 15, 2013. Delegations from Iran, other world powers during closed-door nuclear talks on October 15, 2013. Iran has reportedly proposed a new offer on its nuclear program to increase confidence that it would remain bound to requirements to ensure it doesn't produce nuclear weapons, Al-Monitor on Thursday cited an Iranian sources as saying.According to the source, the Islamic Republic's proposal to world powers during recent talks in Geneva included a halt on the production of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, a vow to convert its arsenal of fuel rods and a pledge to hand over used nuclear fuel for an unfinished heavy water reactor.
The package, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, also allegedly allows for increased monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The offer supposedly consists of two stages, each to last at least six months, the source, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the secrecy surrounding the Geneva talks, told Al-Monitor. Iran, in the first stage of the plan, would reportedly cease production of 20% enriched uranium and "try to convert the stock" so-far amassed to fuel rods for a research reactor. Other elements of the proposal supposedly include: Iran's willingness to relinquish more information on the Arak heavy water reactor; allowance of full inspection of the Fordow underground enrichment plant; engagement in talks on curbing the scope of production at the Natanz enrichment plant; and Iran's signing of the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Despite the various ideas presented, Al-Monitor stated that the plan did not meet various demands made previously by the United States, such as its insistence that Tehran to remove its stock of 20% enriched uranium from the country. The Middle East news site listed other calls made by the US that the plan did not address, like the complete suspension of activity at Frodow and Arak, and the country's increasing production of low-enriched uranium. Meanwhile, Channel 2 on Friday reported the US in recent days had assured Israel that sanctions on Iran would not be eased until Tehran takes significant steps on its nuclear program.
Officials in Washington have reportedly briefed their counterparts in Jerusalem concerning the nuclear talks held in Geneva earlier this week between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers.
"They were exploratory talks," Channel 2 quoted a US official as saying. "The Iranians have signaled that they are willing to talk about everything, but have not yet offered anything tangible," the official added.
On Thursday, The New York Times quoted a senior Obama administration official as saying the US was weighing the possibility of unfreezing billions of dollars of Iranian assets in response to potential concessions by Tehran on its nuclear program discussed at the recently concluded nuclear talks in Geneva. Israel has stated that it would only accept a deal if it meant a total dismantling of the nuclear program similar to what was carried out in Libya.

Sanctions Relief for Iran Without Congressional Approval
By: Washinton Institute/Patrick Clawson

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/sanctions-relief-for-iran-without-congressional-approval

If he is willing to pay the political price, President Obama can give Iran as much economic relief as he wishes by simply not enforcing existing sanctions.
Among the participants in the October 15-16 Iran nuclear talks in Geneva was the U.S. official who administers most of Washington's sanctions against the regime -- Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). His presence, and the agreement that sanctions experts would have a follow-up meeting before the next round of negotiations on November 7, was a sign that the United States is willing to discuss easing sanctions if Tehran takes steps to scale back the troubling parts of its nuclear program. The U.S. government has imposed many different sanctions on Iran under many different legal authorities -- some by executive order, some by legislation -- raising questions about what relief the president could provide without congressional approval. In addition to obvious measures such as lifting executive orders and using his waiver authority to bypass restrictions imposed by law, the president has other options should he find it necessary to offer timely sanctions relief in exchange for substantive Iranian compromises.
THE ILSA PRECEDENT
To better understand these options, it is useful to examine how the executive branch has provided sanctions relief to Iran in the past. The most important example concerns the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which mandated that one or more of a menu of sanctions be imposed in the event of large foreign investments in Iran's oil and gas industry. The law also provided for presidential waivers, either for individual investment projects or for all investments from a given country.
The Clinton administration was unwilling to impose ILSA sanctions in the face of strong European objections that they were extraterritorial applications of U.S. law. Accordingly, it used its project waiver authority for the only project ever targeted under ILSA (the South Pars gas development initiative, designated in 1998). And although the administration was unwilling to make use of its country waiver for political reasons, it found another way to avoid sanctioning certain allies -- in April 1997, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs Stuart Eizenstat negotiated an agreement with European representatives under which Washington signaled that it would not impose any ILSA sanctions on European firms.
Many in Congress were displeased by this sidestep, viewing it as a pledge not to enforce the law. In renewing ILSA in 2001 and passing subsequent laws that replaced it, Congress tried to ensure enforcement, but these efforts were in vain for years (until September 2010). Although Congress forced the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to spend much time justifying their Iran policy -- arguing that their successes, such as they were, would be jeopardized if ILSA's provisions were enforced -- at the end of the day, sanctions were not applied. In a 2007 report, Congressional Research Service analyst Kenneth Katzman identified at least $11 billion in investments that were subject to ILSA, but penalties were never imposed. The State Department's Bureau of Economic Affairs continued to report to Congress every six months that it was investigating but had not determined that any of these projects met the ILSA criteria. In many cases, administration officials correctly noted that press reports about investments are often inaccurate, though that hardly explained the failure to designate upon further investigation. Such practices, so common during the Clinton and Bush administrations, only changed under Obama.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH
The U.S. government's practice has long been to respect the discretion of investigators and prosecutors in prioritizing law enforcement. It is therefore a well-established norm that certain federal crimes are not prosecuted in the event of small-scale violations. For instance, U.S. Attorneys typically set minimum thresholds for prosecution of narcotics cases. President Obama has followed past practice in discussing this process of discretion and prioritization. As he told Rolling Stone in 2012 regarding marijuana laws, "I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.'"
Indeed, his administration has made extensive use of the prosecutorial-discretion argument in situations where Congress has not acted on proposed legislative changes. In June 2012, for example, after Congress repeatedly failed to pass the DREAM Act and other measures regarding the immigration status of individuals who came to the United States illegally as children, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 immigrants who arrived in America before age sixteen and met other criteria. It took this action despite strong objections from many in Congress.
While the president may have to pay a heavy political price for not enforcing a given law, some in Congress might prefer that the White House bear that responsibility. In the case of Iran, such an approach could allow Washington to reach a nuclear accord without Congress having to vote on rescinding, even temporarily or conditionally, certain sanctions. No matter how stiff and far-reaching sanctions may be as embodied in U.S. law, they would have less bite if the administration stopped enforcing them.
For instance, the Obama administration could turn a blind eye by following the ILSA precedent, claiming that it is unable to verify press reports that a particular country is purchasing Iranian oil. Or it could take a more subtle approach by simply easing up on its enforcement efforts. Implementing the many Iran sanctions has required much work to ferret out front companies, and the resources currently being committed represent a drastic increase from past years (e.g., a 2007 Government Accountability Office report criticized OFAC for opening more investigations and imposing more penalties on individuals found carrying Cuban cigars at U.S. airports than for violations of Iran sanctions). If the administration were to scale back the resources devoted to enforcing these sanctions, they would be less effective.
To be sure, major businesses have changed their internal procedures and norms to comply with sanctions rules over the past decade. Given the large fines imposed for past violations, they may be hesitant to test U.S. laws against doing business with Iran even if the administration relaxes its enforcement efforts.
HOW WOULD IRAN REACT TO DE FACTO SANCTIONS RELIEF?
Ideally, Iran would no doubt prefer formal legislative sanctions relief over de facto relief via nonenforcement. In practice, however, that distinction may not matter much to Iranian decisionmakers, even if they claim otherwise in negotiations.
Iran has years of experience in evading U.S. sanctions. Long after the ban on nearly all U.S. exports other than food and medicine, Iranian importers were able to procure American goods without great difficulty through front companies and intermediaries in third countries. Based on this track record, Tehran was confident that it could evade the new sanctions Congress enacted in 2011-2012. Ali Akbar Salehi, the foreign minister at the time, noted recently that senior officials waved off his warnings that the new restrictions would bite hard. What these officials may not have realized was that the tougher laws would be accompanied by much more vigorous enforcement.
Iran would obviously prefer full access to U.S. markets and the U.S. financial system, which could only be attained through formal lifting of all sanctions. But that will not happen even if a nuclear deal is reached, since many of the sanctions in question are at least partly based on the regime's support for terrorists and massive violations of human rights.
OBAMA CAN DO AS HE SEES FIT
The extent to which President Obama can provide sanctions relief to Iran is largely a political question. He may find it advantageous -- either for domestic political reasons or as a bargaining technique with Tehran -- to complain that his hands are tied by Congress. Although that argument would be true in terms of the law, it is definitely not true with regard to de facto sanctions relief. If the administration deems it necessary to erode sanctions in order to reach a nuclear deal, reducing enforcement and eschewing action against the many new front companies Iran is constantly creating would do the trick.
**Patrick Clawson is director of research at The Washington Institute.

Israeli Intelligence minister, Steinitz to US: Don't ease financial pressure on Tehran
By TOVAH LAZAROFF 10/19/2013/J.Post
United States is considering freeing frozen assets as a gesture to Iran, should it curb part of its nuclear program. Intelligence minister will warn the US that Iran is compromising only out of financial fear.
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz plans to ask the US not to ease the financial pressure on Iran when he visits Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday as part of a pre-arranged strategic dialogue that occurs between the two countries every six months. "The only reason the Iranians are ready to talk and to agree to some compromises is because of the enormous [economic] pressure against them," Steinitz told The Jerusalem Post before leaving Israel on Saturday night. Israel is worried that the six world powers that met with Iran in Geneva last week to find a diplomatic solution to halt Tehran's nuclear weapons' program, would agree to repeal some of the economic sanctions that have been leveled against Iran before its program has been dismantled. The New York Times on Friday speculated that the US is considering freeing frozen Iranian overseas financial assets as a gesture to Iran, should it curb some aspects of military nuclear program. Such a move is not considered to be an easing of sanctions and it could be reversed if need be. Sanctions once lifted, would be more difficult to put back in place.
"Any easing of the prssure will reduce the chances of success [for a diplomatic solution]," Steinitz asid. "The greater the economic pressure, the greater the chances for success," he added. "Our position is that there is no reason to give Iran any permission not to fully fulfill and to fully comply with already existing UN Security Council resolutions," Steinitz said. This resolutions have stipulated that Iran must stop the enrichment of uranium and dismantle the apparatus that gives it the capacity to enrich that uranium, he said. According to the UN Security Council Iran also has to stop building a heavy water reactor in Arak, Steinitiz said.
Economic concessions should be offered to Iran only once these requirements have been met, Steinitz said. Israel and the US have a good collaborative working relationship with regard to Iran, even if there are some minor differences, Steinitz said. The same is true with France, Germany and Great Britain. "It is a very close and friendly collaboration," he said.
On Friday, he said, the British delegation that had participated in the Geneva talks flew to Israel to update officials here.
In Washington, Steinitz said, he will meet with the US team in Geneva, including its leader and chief negotiator with regard to Iran, undersecretary of state Wendy Sherman. Before arriving in the US, Steinitz will visit Canada on Sunday and Monday where he will meet that country's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and its Defense Minister Rob Nicholson. Both in Canada and the US he will discuss other regional issues such as Syria and Turkey.
In Washington on Friday, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki denied reports that the US would ease economic pressure against Iran before tangible results were achieved.
While the Geneva talks with Iran were more "serious and substantive" than in the past, no agreement was made in Geneva with regard to sanctions relief, Psaki said.
More to the point, she noted, it is not certain that the talks will be successful. "We’re not taking steps to relieve sanctions. Iran will have to agree to meaningful, transparent, and verifiable actions before we can seriously consider taking steps to ease sanctions. So discussions of specific types of relief at this point is premature and speculative," she said. She clarified that the issue of unfreezing Iranian was similarly premature.
"There are many more discussions, meetings at the technical level, which will be the next step, which need to happen before a determination is made," she said. "Of course, there will be a range of discussions in the coming weeks within the Administration on the national security team and with Congress about how to work together and where we should go from here," Psaki said. In statements made after the conclusions of last week's Geneva talks, Iran has insisted that it has a right to continue to enrich uranium. It has explained that this uranium can also be used for its nuclear power program. Israel has said that such a nuclear power program is not dependent on enriched uranium.A senior western diplomat cautioned on Thursday that any breakthrough in diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program was not "close", seeking to dampen expectations the next round of talks on Nov. 7-8 could lead to a deal.Despite the improved atmosphere, diplomats said major differences remained between western governments, which suspect Iran's nuclear work has covert military goals, and Tehran, which denies that and demands the lifting of crippling economic sanctions. In a series of meetings with Iran since last year, envoys from six world powers - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - have demanded that it abandon enrichment of uranium to 20 percent fissile purity, an important step on the way to producing weapons fuel, in return for modest sanctions relief. Tehran has spurned their offer and demanded that major restrictions on trade in oil and on its banking sector are eliminated first. Under Rouhani, Iran appears keen to push for a deal. Sanctions have drastically reduced the OPEC producer's oil export revenues and helped cut the value of its rial currency. But Tehran remains in contravention of UN Security Council demands that it halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activities. Few details have emerged from the talks in Geneva this week, but in a sign of a dramatic shift from confrontation to dialogue, the two sides issued a joint statement to say that Tehran's proposals presented at the meeting were an "important contribution". Nuclear experts and sanctions specialists from Iran and the six nations, led in diplomacy with Iran by the European Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, will meet in the coming weeks to prepare the next round of negotiations in Geneva.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Obama’s potential release of $12bn of frozen Iranian assets would be followed by $35 billion from Europe
http://www.debka.com/article/23370/Obama’s-potential-release-of-12bn-of-frozen-Iranian-assets-would-be-followed-by-35-billion-from-Europe
DEBKAfile Special Report October 18, 2013/Tehran stands to gain access to nearly $50 billion if the Obama administration decides to free up $12 billion of frozen Iranian assets in the US, inevitably followed by Europe’s release of another $35 billion. The White House was reported Friday, Oct. 18 to be weighing a proposal to offer Iran access to these funds “in installments” against "steps to cut down on its nuclear program."debkafile’s intelligence sources: This plan offers Barack Obama a way to ease sanctions on Iran, while avoiding political and diplomatic fallout in Congress and from Jerusalem that would result from an attempt to get the sanctions legislation repealed or amended. US lawmakers and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continue to call for harsher measures against Iran, after the Geneva conference last week failed to achieve any breakthrough in the controversy on Iran’s nuclear program. Although its delegation avoided any pledge to suspend uranium enrichment and offered no plan to dismantle its enrichment facilities, US officials complimented the Iranian position as “more candid and substantive” than in previous diplomatic encounters. Indeed, according to our sources, the Iranian delegation advised the six world powers on the opposite side of the table to simply accept Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fatwa as an ironclad pledge of the Islamic Republic’s commitment to refrain from developing a nuclear weapon and continue to pursue a peaceful program.
As for a substantial proposal to cut back on their nuclear operations, the Iranian negotiators said firmly: Sanctions relief first; concessions only at the end of the road.
Ahead of the next round of talks on Nov. 7-8, the Obama administration hopes to warm world opinion to the proposition that Iran’s leaders, especially President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his deputy Abbas Araghchi, need more incentives for concessions. They must be able to show their doctrinaire colleagues at home that diplomacy and smiles win more than intransigence.
Even before the Geneva conference, the White House was already putting in place the plan for relieving sanctions by the release of frozen funds - which is why the US delegation included for the first time the Director of the OFAC (the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control), Adam Szubin. Asked by CNN what Szubin was doing there, senior US negotiator Undersecretary Wendy Sherman said:
“The purpose of having our sanctions team here with us is because … Iran wants to get sanctions relief. But they also have to understand what the range of our sanctions are, what they require, how they work, what it takes to implement sanctions relief, what sanctions we believe need to stay in place.”Even this gesture failed to elicit from the Iranian delegates any concrete concessions. The obviously fed-up senior Russian delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, summed up his impression of the conference by commenting sourly that it was “…better than Almaty" (where the last round of talks took place in April) but offered “no guarantee of future progress.”
Nevertheless, President Obama is determined to keep up his strategy of appeasing Tehran and showing Congress and the Israeli prime minister that they are wasting their time by trying to stop him easing sanctions on Iran, because he will bypass them with presidential decrees. Most of all, Obama is set against allowing himself to be persuaded by Netanyahu’s arguments of the terrible danger posed by a nuclear Iran.
Foreign Minister Zarif put his oar into the conflict between Washington and Jerusalem Friday with this comment: “There is a high possibility that the talks will be disturbed by various efforts on the part of Israel,” he said. “This reflects Israel’s frustration and warmongering.”

Egypt and the US Dispute
By: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
No one would have thought that relations between Egypt and “Mother America” would strain. On the contrary, relations with Washington were expected to deteriorate when the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power, not after their ouster. Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy confirmed relations were shaky between the two countries. But is this a storm in a teacup? The new Egyptian leadership invokes history and the Cold War’s symbols of hostility with the United States by refining the image of former leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. While Americans did not only criticize the Egyptian authorities, they also cut military aid. The financial impact of this sent a far stronger political message.  The dispute may last for up to a year until the end of Egyptian legislative and presidential elections, and might extend and lengthen if the parties escalate their differences and drift further apart. The one big mistake made by the Americans was to undermine Egypt’s pride in itself, its country, and its government. It is clear that Egyptian leadership is criticizing Washington out of hurt pride more than speaking from a political standpoint. It criticizes a US government which has begun courting Iran and negotiating with the Taliban, yet is waging battles against its friends: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. It criticizes the US dealing with Egypt, the largest Arab country—larger than Iran—as if it were a small country.The region is holding the US accountable for its actions rather than its words. It believes that Washington is asking Arabs to buy into electoral contests, and engage in the democratic systems yet, in the end, Washington is avoiding bearing the consequences of this. In Iraq, for example, the United States has conducted its largest operation to establish democracy in the region. Spending millions of dollars for millions of Iraqis to vote, only to give birth to a new dictatorial government, similar to that of Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, who has been in power since 2006, has turned into a dictator running the whole country out of his office. He manages security services, prisons, the army, intelligence services, and the financial system. Parliament and the coalition government no longer have any value since Maliki decides on the oil contracts, arms, and state projects. Furthermore, he has signed execution decrees and accused his political opponents to the point that many of them are either dead or fleeing the country to avoid persecution.
If the US government had shown some courage in Iraq, as it is doing in Egypt today, it would have probably been able to say that it is consistent in its policy. However, what it is actually doing is the opposite. The US did not punish the government in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood prevented courts from being convened, tried to disable the judiciary, persecuted the media, and attempted to dominate the entire regime. If Washington was really interested in democracy, it would have demonstrated this in its positions and stances. It does not make sense that it has remained silent regarding the heinous violations of the democratic regime in Iraq, but at the same time pursues Egypt with sanctions after just one year. Of course, we mustn’t completely absolve Egypt of blame, as it has been excessively sensitive towards Washington’s stance. It must note that the American political system is not like Arab political systems, ruled by one single person. In the US, the country has more than one voice and decisions are made by multiple parties. The positions of the US Congress does not reflect those of the White House, nor those of other state institutions and civil society.

Russia Today between Reality and Fantasy
By: Bakir Oweida/Asharq Alawsat
On the evening of the first day of Eid [Al-Adha] I sat down to relax after a long day of travelling. I picked up the remote control to follow the latest world news. I tuned in to the English-speaking Russia Today television channel, waiting for what I thought was a commercial— accompanied by soft and dreamy music which seemed somewhat romantic to my ears—to end, only to discover that I was the one who was dreaming. Rather than a commercial, it became apparent that this was a disclaimer that Russia Today was undergoing “scheduled maintenance” between 8.00 PM and 6 AM the following day. I recovered from the surprise, only to awake to another one. This was strange as I have never heard of any TV channel suspending broadcast in order to carry out so-called “scheduled maintenance.” It appears that the festive mood of Eid prevailed that day, and I thought to myself: “Perhaps the channel’s staff in Moscow are taking the day off to celebrate Eid!” Well, let’s leave this lighthearted story behind and become more serious. Indeed, the issue of Russia today—I mean the country not the TV channel—is a noteworthy one which should be given the degree of attention it deserves from think tanks in the Arab world. Although the Arab decision-making circles are granting Russia the attention it deserves, it remains necessary to seek the expertise of scholars belonging to the different schools of strategic thought. Without in-depth analysis, understanding remains superficial. Logically speaking, the last thing that any politician wants is for their decisions to be described as superficial or random. It is clear that Putin’s Russia has made its presence felt in the world’s political arena. The developments in the Arab world during 2011 and 2012 flung open the doors for Russia’s strong return to the region in 2013. Is it possible to imagine that the implementation of any resolution in the Middle Eastern political arena can pass without the Kremlin giving a response that exceeds words? I do not think so. By this, I do not just mean the resolutions drafted in the UN Security Council, as this is taken for granted, but also the ones put forward by regional powers.
The surprise of Russia defusing the crisis surrounding possible US strikes on Syria by proposing the destruction of Damascus’s chemical arsenal proves this. This step proved that Russia’s “Czar,” who is today confronting his international rivals as part of a new Cold War, did not hesitate to push for the de-clawing of his Syrian ally. This took place regardless of whether these chemical weapons were used in consultation with Russia—which is unlikely—or not. Russia’s role in international politics began to improve since the era of Boris Yeltsin, remained active during the term of Dmitry Mevedev, and can no longer be overlooked at this time, during Vladimir Putin’s second presidency. However despite all this, it is not realistic to have exaggerated expectations of Russia’s role. It can be noted that some Arab voices speak about what is expected from Russia’s decision today, specifically regarding the Arab situation, as if Leonid Brezhnev were still in power. In other words, some bid on the possibility of Moscow going to any length regardless of its interests only to satisfy its Arab friends. No, this is a thing of the past. It is just as important that we don’t underestimate Russia’s role, as it is that we don’t overestimate it and make unrealistic predictions.