Iran’s Quiet Ties to Biden

Iran’s leaders continue to pledge “Death to America,” and are working diligently to develop a nuclear arsenal. They have killed U.S. citizens, and have fired on American ships. They fund terrorism throughout the globe.

Why does President Biden, as did his predecessor Barack Obama, assist, appease, and finance this dangerous rogue nation?

Sources indicate that Iran managed to deeply influence sources close to both Obama and Biden. There are concerns both within the State Department and the Department of Defense.

The Clarion Project reports that Robert Malley, the now-suspended Iran envoy in the Biden administration, is alleged to have funded, supported, and directed an Iranian intelligence operation designed to influence the U.S. and allied governments, according to leaked Iranian government emails.

The emails also reveal that Malley helped infiltrate Ariane Tabatabai, an Iranian agent of influence, into sensitive positions in the U.S. government, first at the State Department and then at the Pentagon. In a letter to defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) states “I write … to express my deep concern with the Department’s hiring of Ariane Tabatabai as the Chief of Staff for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC). Ms. Tabatabai’s past employment history and close ties to the Iranian regime are alarming and should be disqualifying for anyone seeking such a sensitive position of trust within the United States Department of Defense…The office of ASD SO/LIC oversees many of the Department’s most sensitive operations and programs, to include those to counter Iran’s malign activities throughout the world. It is the adamant position of the House Armed Services Committee that no person who aligns themselves with an adversary such as Iran, or who acts as a foreign agent of influence, wittingly or unwittingly, should wield any such influence over United States policy, or have access to such sensitive information.”

According to American Military News, “Iran is reported to have established a network of influential researchers and academics throughout the United States and Europe. “…the Iran Experts Initiative, …is believed to have provided diplomats working for Iranian president Hassan Rouhani with access to influential policy circles during former President Barack Obama’s administration, [In which Biden served as Vice President and key advisor for the Middle East] used the Institute for Political and International Studies think tank to promote positive messages surrounding discussions of a nuclear between Iran and the United States.”

Rep. Rogers, who serves as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, emphasizes that “The Iranian regime poses one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, their proxies have killed Americans, and they are actively trying to assassinate multiple former U.S. officials.”

A Gatestone study found that “The regime is now finally at the threshold of making all the nuclear weapons it desires, along with missiles to launch them at their enemies in the Middle East, Europe and America…The Biden administration has totally failed to curb Iran’s nuclear program – but then again evidence shows it had never intended to. The ‘sunset clause’ in then President Barack Obama’s 2015 JCPOA ‘nuclear deal’assured Iran’s rulers that in a few years, they could legitimately have as many nuclear weapons as they desired…”

It is believed that in return for a deal containing all the same flaws as the JCPOA agreement, which allowes Iran to build ta nuclear arsenal after a number of years, Biden would unfreeze $20 billion for the mullahs.

Senator Blackburn (R-Tenn,) notes that “Iran, which has declared its desire to destroy the U.S. and Israel, poses a greater threat every day. Tehran has reportedly amassed enough uranium for five nuclear weapons. Moreover, Iran has largely blocked the International Atomic Energy Agency from investigating undeclared nuclear material found in the country in 2019 and refused to let the agency install more cameras in its facilities. Instead of putting enormous pressure on the regime, Biden is offering Iran a sweetheart…”

The failure of Biden’s appeasement approach is clear. In addition to the fast-paced program to produce nuclear weapons, Iran has been instrumental in the stunningly brutal Hamas attack on Israel. According to the Daily Mail, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards devised land, air and sea assault that has left the Middle East on the brink of all-out war.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.