twitter:

L0gg0l twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:53:58 ROUHANI: WILL WAIT A NUMBER OF WEEKS FOR NEGOTATIONS WITH OTHER NATIONS BEFORE ENRICHING URANIUM AGAIN AT PREVIOUS LEVELS reageer retweet

twitter:

L0gg0l twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:53:01 PENTAGON SEES INDICATIONS IRAN PREPARING TO STRIKE ISRAEL -- CNN reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 20:59 schreef remlof het volgende:
Trump stuurt aan op oorlog omdat ie een impeachment ziet naderen.
Ik vrees dat het zo simpel is.

twitter:

RichardGrenell twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:42:28 As @realDonaldTrump said, US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately. reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:02 schreef Stabiel het volgende:
De Amerikaanse ambassadeur in Duitsland bedreigt even Duitse bedrijven:

twitter:

RichardGrenell twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:42:28 As @realDonaldTrump said, US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately. reageer retweet

Imperialistische arrogantie ten top.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 20:59 schreef remlof het volgende:
Trump stuurt aan op oorlog omdat ie een impeachment ziet naderen.
Ik vrees dat het zo simpel is.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:02 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Nee, Obama heeft de deal gemaakt. Dus die moet kapot. Dat is reden 1.
Reden 2 is dat goede vriend Netanyahu Iran onschadelijk wil maken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:05 schreef remlof het volgende:
Zowel Trump als Netanyahu zien hun macht thuis afbrokkelen door gerechtelijke stappen tegen hen en sturen nu aan op oorlog om daarvan af te leiden. Heel smerig dit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:02 schreef Whiskers2009 het volgende:

[..]

Nee, Obama heeft de deal gemaakt. Dus die moet kapot. Dat is reden 1.
Reden 2 is dat goede vriend Netanyahu Iran onschadelijk wil maken.

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:57:45 BREAKING: Iran's president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium 'more than before ... in next weeks' reageer retweet

twitter:

rezahakbari twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:51:19 Rouhani: What Trump did tonight was a phycological war & restart of economic pressures. History will prove that such attempts will be useless in harming the great nation of #Iran. #JCPOA reageer retweet

twitter:

QalaatAlMudiq twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:13:54 Breaking. Explosions S. of #Damascus. Air Defense in action. https://t.co/BNwpFTgecQ reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:13 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

AP twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:57:45 BREAKING: Iran's president says if negotiations fail, Islamic Republic will enrich uranium 'more than before ... in next weeks' reageer retweet

Tijd tikt voor Europa om miljarden over te maken naar het regime.

Heeft iemand de bankpas van Sigrid al afgepakt?

twitter:

rezahakbari twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:51:19 Rouhani: What Trump did tonight was a phycological war & restart of economic pressures. History will prove that such attempts will be useless in harming the great nation of #Iran. #JCPOA reageer retweet

Iran schijt wel in de broek van TRUMP "phycological war"

of zoals Scott Adams zou zeggen, Master Persuasion.

twitter:

QalaatAlMudiq twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:13:54 Breaking. Explosions S. of #Damascus. Air Defense in action. https://t.co/BNwpFTgecQ reageer retweet

Bibi is alvast aan het kijken of de Russische raketjes nog werken (spoiler: nee dus)

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:21 schreef Stabiel het volgende:
Iran gaat de eerstkomende weken onderhandelen met de EU, China en Rusland over de toekomst van de deal. Als Europa geen garanties kan leveren over toekomstige economische handel, zal Iran de deal ook verlaten en overgaan tot het verrijken van industrieel-graad uranium.

De EU zal moeten laten zien uit welk hout het gesneden is.

quote:

Joint statement from Prime Minister Theresa May, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron following President Trump’s statement on Iran.
It is with regret and concern that we, the Leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom take note of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Together, we emphasise our continuing commitment to the JCPoA. This agreement remains important for our shared security. We recall that the JCPoA was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2231. This resolution remains the binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute about the Iranian nuclear programme. We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility. (bron).

SPOILER

According to the IAEA, Iran continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPoA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world is a safer place as a result. Therefore we, the E3, will remain parties to the JCPoA. Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement.

We urge the US to ensure that the structures of the JCPoA can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal. After engaging with the US Administration in a thorough manner over the past months, we call on the US to do everything possible to preserve the gains for nuclear non-proliferation brought about by the JCPoA, by allowing for a continued enforcement of its main elements.

We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements. The IAEA must be able to continue to carry out its long-term verification and monitoring programme without restriction or hindrance. In turn, Iran should continue to receive the sanctions relief it is entitled to whilst it remains in compliance with the terms of the deal.

There must be no doubt: Iran’s nuclear program must always remain peaceful and civilian. While taking the JCPOA as a base, we also agree that other major issues of concern need to be addressed. A long-term framework for Iran’s nuclear programme after some of the provisions of the JCPOA expire, after 2025, will have to be defined. Because our commitment to the security of our allies and partners in the region is unwavering, we must also address in a meaningful way shared concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising regional activities, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We have already started constructive and mutually beneficial discussions on these issues, and the E3 is committed to continuing them with key partners and concerned states across the region.

We and our Foreign Ministers will reach out to all parties to the JCPoA to seek a positive way forward.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:21 schreef Stabiel het volgende:
Iran gaat de eerstkomende weken onderhandelen met de EU, China en Rusland over de toekomst van de deal. Als Europa geen garanties kan leveren over toekomstige economische handel, zal Iran de deal ook verlaten en overgaan tot het verrijken van industrieel-graad uranium.

De EU zal moeten laten zien uit welk hout het gesneden is.

twitter:

FaghihiRohollah twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:21:23 Al-mayadeen quotes Russian Douma's officials as saying there is no obstacle in the way of selling S400 to Iran reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:24 schreef Tchock het volgende:
Ja, logische reactie vanuit Iran. Hopen dat de EU in staat is om, samen met de Britten, de garanties te geven die nodig zijn om Iran binnenboord te houden. Al betwijfel ik zoals eerder gezegd of dat mogelijk is.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:28 schreef Stabiel het volgende:

[..]

Wel mogelijk denk ik, maar dat zou een serieuze geopolitieke breuk met de VS betekenen. Ik zie Europa niet een dergelijke koers nemen, maar je weet het natuurlijk nooit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:25 schreef Stabiel het volgende:

twitter:

FaghihiRohollah twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:21:23 Al-mayadeen quotes Russian Douma's officials as saying there is no obstacle in the way of selling S400 to Iran reageer retweet

Ook weer zo'n fantastische gevolg. Rusland en China zullen nu wel meer bereid zijn om geavanceerde wapens te leveren aan Iran om een mogelijke aanval in de toekomst beter te kunnen pareren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:35 schreef Falco het volgende:
Misschien wel een leuk moment voor Putin om eens wat tapes uit dat Ritz-hotel te gaan lekken btw

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:35 schreef Falco het volgende:
Misschien wel een leuk moment voor Putin om eens wat tapes uit dat Ritz-hotel te gaan lekken btw

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:35 schreef Falco het volgende:
Misschien wel een leuk moment voor Putin om eens wat tapes uit dat Ritz-hotel te gaan lekken btw

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:39 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:
Ondertussen zit Pompeo in een vliegtuig richting Pyongyang.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:35 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Dezelfde wapens waar de Amerikanen en Israeli's rondjes omheen vliegen in Syrie?

twitter:

IsraelHatzolah twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:42:56 DEVELOPING: Israeli air strike reported targeting Iranian weapons convoy in Damascus. reageer retweet

twitter:

michaelh992 twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:37:20 Initial/unconfirmed reports suggest a convoy may have been targeted rather than an actual base. There's an Iranian base near al-Kiswah (targeted by #Israel in the past) #Syria reageer retweet

twitter:

adamdavidson twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:32:00 Trump's concerns about Iran are new. From 2012 through 2016 he was in business with a family he knew was likely laundering money for Iran's Revolutionary Guard. https://t.co/i5fLaIfFUe reageer retweet

quote:

Donald Trump’s Worst Deal
The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Heydar Aliyev Prospekti, a broad avenue in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, connects the airport to the city. The road is meant to highlight Baku’s recent modernization, and it is lined with sleek new buildings. The Heydar Aliyev Center, an undulating wave of concrete and glass, was designed by Zaha Hadid. The state oil company is housed in a twisting glass tower, and the headquarters of the state water company looks like a giant water droplet. “It’s like Potemkin,” my translator told me. “It’s only the buildings right next to the road.” Behind the gleaming structures stand decaying Soviet-era apartment blocks, with clothes hanging out of windows and wallboards exposed by fallen brickwork. (New Yorker).

SPOILER

As you approach the city center, a tower at the end of the avenue looms in front of you. Thirty-three stories high and curved to resemble a sail, the building was clearly inspired by the Burj Al Arab Hotel, in Dubai, but it is boxier and less elegant. When I visited Baku, in December, five enormous white letters glowed at the top of the tower: T-R-U-M-P.

The building, a five-star hotel and residence called the Trump International Hotel & Tower Baku, has never opened, though from the road it looks ready to welcome the public. Reaching the property is surprisingly difficult; the tower stands amid a welter of on-ramps, off-ramps, and overpasses. During the nine days I was in town, I went to the site half a dozen times, and on each occasion I had a comical exchange with a taxi-driver who had no idea which combination of turns would lead to the building’s entrance.

The more time I spent in the neighborhood, the more I wondered how the hotel could have been imagined as a viable business. The development was conceived, in 2008, as a high-end apartment building. In 2012, after Donald Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, signed multiple contracts with the Azerbaijani developers behind the project, plans were made to transform the tower into an “ultra-luxury property.” According to a Trump Organization press release, a hotel with “expansive guest rooms” would occupy the first thirteen floors; higher stories would feature residences with “spectacular views of the city and Caspian Sea.” For an expensive hotel, the Trump Tower Baku is in an oddly unglamorous location: the underdeveloped eastern end of downtown, which is dominated by train tracks and is miles from the main business district, on the west side of the city. Across the street from the hotel is a discount shopping center; the area is filled with narrow, dingy shops and hookah bars. Other hotels nearby are low-budget options: at the AYF Palace, most rooms are forty-two dollars a night. There are no upscale restaurants or shops. Any guests of the Trump Tower Baku would likely feel marooned.

The timing of the project was also curious. By 2014, when the Trump Organization publicly announced that it was helping to turn the tower into a hotel, a construction boom in Baku had ended, and the occupancy rate for luxury hotels in the city hovered around thirty-five per cent. Jan deRoos, of Cornell University, who is an expert in hotel finance, told me that the developer of a five-star hotel typically must demonstrate that the project will maintain an average occupancy rate of at least sixty per cent for ten years. There is a long-term master plan to develop the area around the Trump Tower Baku, but if it is implemented the hotel will be surrounded for years by noisy construction projects, making it even less appealing to travellers desiring a luxurious experience—especially considering that there are many established hotels on the city’s seaside promenade. There, an executive from ExxonMobil or the Israeli cell-phone industry can stay at the Four Seasons, which occupies a limestone building that evokes a French colonial palace, or at the J. W. Marriott Absheron Baku, which has an outdoor terrace overlooking the water. Tiffany, Ralph Lauren, and Armani are among the dozens of companies that have boutiques along the promenade.

A former top official in Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Tourism says that, when he learned of the Trump hotel project, he asked himself, “Why would someone put a luxury hotel there? Nobody who can afford to stay there would want to be in that neighborhood.”

The Azerbaijanis behind the project were close relatives of Ziya Mammadov, the Transportation Minister and one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs. According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Azerbaijan is among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its President, Ilham Aliyev, the son of the former President Heydar Aliyev, recently appointed his wife to be Vice-President. Ziya Mammadov became the Transportation Minister in 2002, around the time that the regime began receiving enormous profits from government-owned oil reserves in the Caspian Sea. At the time of the hotel deal, Mammadov, a career government official, had a salary of about twelve thousand dollars, but he was a billionaire.

The Trump Tower Baku originally had a construction budget of a hundred and ninety-five million dollars, but it went through multiple revisions, and the cost ended up being much higher. The tower was designed by a local architect, and in its original incarnation it had an ungainly roof that suggested the spikes of a crown. A London-based architecture firm, Mixity, redesigned the building, softening its edges and eliminating the ornamental roof. By the time the Trump team officially joined the project, in May, 2012, many condominium residences had already been completed; at the insistence of Trump Organization staffers, most of the building’s interior was gutted and rebuilt, and several elevators were added.

After Donald Trump became a candidate for President, in 2015, Mother Jones, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and other publications ran articles that raised questions about his involvement in the Baku project. These reports cited a series of cables sent from the U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan in 2009 and 2010, which were made public by WikiLeaks. In one of the cables, a U.S. diplomat described Ziya Mammadov as “notoriously corrupt even for Azerbaijan.” The Trump Organization’s chief legal officer, Alan Garten, told reporters that the Baku hotel project raised no ethical issues for Donald Trump, because his company had never engaged directly with Mammadov.

According to Garten, Trump played a passive role in the development of the property: he was “merely a licensor” who allowed his famous name to be used by a company headed by Ziya Mammadov’s son, Anar, a young entrepreneur. It’s not clear how much money Trump made from the licensing agreement, although in his limited public filings he has reported receiving $2.8 million. (The Trump Organization shared documents that showed an additional payment of two and a half million dollars, in 2012, but declined to disclose any other payments.) Trump also had signed a contract to manage the hotel once it opened, for an undisclosed fee tied to the hotel’s performance. The Washington Post published Garten’s description of the deal, and reported that Donald Trump had “invested virtually no money in the project while selling the rights to use his name and holding the contract to manage the property.”

A month after Trump was elected President, Garten announced that the Trump Organization had severed its ties with the hotel project, describing the decision to CNN as little more than “housecleaning.” I was in Baku at the time, and it had become clear that the Trump Organization’s story of the hotel was incomplete and inaccurate. Trump’s company had made the deal not just with Anar Mammadov but also with Ziya’s brother Elton—an influential member of the Azerbaijani parliament. Elton signed the contracts, and in an interview he confirmed that he founded Baku XXI Century, the company that owns the Trump Tower Baku. When he was asked who owns Baku XXI Century, he called it a “commercial secret” but added that he “controlled all its operations” until 2015, when he cut ties to the company. Elton denied having used his political position for profit.

An Azerbaijani lawyer who worked on the project revealed to me that the Trump Organization had not just licensed the family name; it also had signed a technical-services agreement in which it promised to help its partner meet Trump design standards. Technical-services agreements are often nominal addenda to licensing deals. Major hospitality brands compile exhaustive specifications for licensed hotels, and tend to approve design elements remotely; a foreign site is visited only occasionally. But in the case of Trump Tower Baku the oversight appears to have been extensive. The Azerbaijani lawyer told me, “We were always following their instructions. We were in constant contact with the Trump Organization. They approved the smallest details.” He said that Trump staff visited Baku at least monthly to give the go-ahead for the next round of work orders. Trump designers went to Turkey to vet the furniture and fabrics acquired there. The hotel’s main designer, Pierre Baillargeon, and several contractors told me that they had visited the Trump Organization headquarters, in New York, to secure approval for their plans.

Ivanka Trump was the most senior Trump Organization official on the Baku project. In October, 2014, she visited the city to tour the site and offer advice. An executive at Mace, the London-based construction firm that oversaw the tower’s conversion to a hotel, met with Ivanka in Baku and New York. He told me, “She had very strong feelings, not just about the design but about the back of the hotel—landscaping, everything.” The Azerbaijani lawyer said, “Ivanka personally approved everything.” A subcontractor noted that Ivanka’s team was particular about wood panelling: it chose an expensive Macassar ebony, from Indonesia, for the ceiling of the lobby. The ballroom doors were to be made of book-matched panels of walnut. On her Web site, Ivanka posted a photograph of herself wearing a hard hat inside the half-completed hotel. A caption reads, “Ivanka has overseen the development of Trump International Hotel & Tower Baku since its inception, and she recently returned from a trip to the fascinating city in Azerbaijan to check in on the project’s progress.” (Ivanka Trump declined requests to discuss the Baku project.)

Jan deRoos, the Cornell professor, developed branded-hotel properties before entering academia. He told me that the degree of the Trump Organization’s involvement in the Baku property was atypical. “That’s very, very intense,” he said.

The sustained back-and-forth between the Trump Organization and the Mammadovs has legal significance. If parties involved in the Trump Tower Baku project participated in any illegal financial conduct, and if the Trump Organization exerted a degree of control over the project, the company could be vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Tom Fox, a Houston lawyer who specializes in anti-corruption compliance, said, “It’s a problem if you’re making a profit off of someone else’s corrupt conduct.” Moreover, recent case law has established that licensors take on a greater legal burden when they assume roles normally reserved for developers. The Trump Organization’s unusually deep engagement with Baku XXI Century suggests that it had the opportunity and the responsibility to monitor it for corruption.

Before signing a deal with a foreign partner, American companies, including major hotel chains, conduct risk assessments and background checks that take a close look at the country, the prospective partner, and the people involved. Countless accounting and law firms perform this service, as do many specialized investigation companies; a baseline report normally costs between ten thousand and twenty-five thousand dollars. A senior executive at one of the largest American hotel chains, who asked for anonymity because he feared reprisal from the Trump Administration, said, “We wouldn’t look at due diligence as a burden. There certainly is a cost to doing it, especially in higher-risk places. But it’s as much an investment in the protection of that brand. It’s money well spent.”

Alan Garten told me that the Trump Organization had commissioned a risk assessment for the Baku deal, but declined to name the company that had performed it. The Washington Post article on the Baku project reported that, according to Garten, the Trump Organization had undertaken “extensive due diligence” before making the hotel deal and had not discovered “any red flags.”

But the Mammadov family, in addition to its reputation for corruption, has a troubling connection that any proper risk assessment should have unearthed: for years, it has been financially entangled with an Iranian family tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the ideologically driven military force. In 2008, the year that the tower was announced, Ziya Mammadov, in his role as Transportation Minister, awarded a series of multimillion-dollar contracts to Azarpassillo, an Iranian construction company. Keyumars Darvishi, its chairman, fought in the Iran-Iraq War. After the war, he became the head of Raman, an Iranian construction firm that is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard. The U.S. government has regularly accused the Guard of criminal activity, including drug trafficking, sponsoring terrorism abroad, and money laundering. Reuters recently reported that the Trump Administration was poised to officially condemn the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

I asked Garten how deeply the Trump Organization had looked into the Mammadov family’s political connections. Had it been concerned that Elton Mammadov, as a sitting member of parliament, might exploit his power to benefit the project? How much money had Ziya Mammadov invested in Elton’s company? Garten noted that he didn’t oversee the due-diligence process. “The people who did are no longer at the company,” he said. “I can’t tell you what was done in this situation.” He would not identify the former employees. When I asked him to provide documentation of due diligence, he said that he couldn’t share it with me, because “it’s confidential and privileged.”

A 2014 Instagram post of Ivanka Trump at the Baku tower. Photo Illustration by The New Yorker Photo Illustration by The New Yorker

No evidence has surfaced showing that Donald Trump, or any of his employees involved in the Baku deal, actively participated in bribery, money laundering, or other illegal behavior. But the Trump Organization may have broken the law in its work with the Mammadov family. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, passed in 1977, forbade American companies from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government official in exchange for material benefit or preferential treatment. The law even made it a crime for an American company to unknowingly benefit from a partner’s corruption if it could have discovered illicit activity but avoided doing so. This closed what was known as the “head in the sand” loophole.

As a result, American companies must examine potential foreign partners very carefully before making deals with them. I recently spoke with Alexandra Wrage, who runs Trace International, a consortium of three hundred corporations that do business overseas. Trace helps these firms avoid violating the F.C.P.A., and it has a division that can be hired by individual clients to assess potential foreign partners. To comply with the law, Wrage noted, an American company must remain vigilant even after a contract is signed, monitoring its foreign partner to be sure that nobody involved is engaging in bribery or other improprieties.

Wrage pointed out that corrupt government leaders often use their children or their siblings to distance themselves from illicit projects. Such an official creates a company in the relative’s name which appears to be independent but is controlled by the official. To lessen the likelihood of an F.C.P.A. violation when working with a company that is owned by a child or a sibling of a government minister, Wrage told me, “you’d need to show that the child has real expertise, real ability to do the work.” Otherwise, Wrage said, “the assumption is that they are a partner entirely because of their ability to use their parent’s power.” Before Elton Mammadov became a member of parliament, in 2000, he was a maintenance engineer who had no experience in real-estate development. When the Trump Organization joined the Baku project, it barred a Mammadov-owned company from doing construction work, because it was deemed incompetent.

Wrage said that a U.S. company looking to make a deal with a foreign partner should be confident that the partner has a reasonable likelihood of making a profit from the venture. If the project seems almost guaranteed to lose money, it could well be a bribery scheme or some other criminal operation. The partner also should uphold modern accounting standards.

“It’s simple,” she said. “Will money flow through this business because it offers a compelling product at a decent price, or will the money come because of an illicit relationship with someone who uses their power?”

Wrage told me that, in 2009, an American entrepreneur was successfully prosecuted for his part in a corruption conspiracy in Azerbaijan. Frederic Bourke, the co-founder of Dooney & Bourke, the handbag company, had invested in a project in which a foreign partner paid bribes to Azerbaijani government officials and their family members. Bourke was sentenced to a year in prison for violating the F.C.P.A.; he appealed the conviction, claiming ignorance of the corruption. Two years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction, saying that, regardless of whether he had known about the bribes, “the testimony at trial demonstrated that Bourke was aware of how pervasive corruption was in Azerbaijan.” The F.C.P.A., they said, also criminalized “conscious avoidance”—a deliberate effort to remain in the dark about any transgressions a foreign partner might be involved in. After Bourke’s conviction, Wrage said, U.S. companies were well aware of the dangers of making careless deals in Azerbaijan.

Even a cursory look at the Mammadovs suggests that they are not ideal partners for an American business. Four years before the Trump Organization announced the Baku deal, WikiLeaks released the U.S. diplomatic cables indicating that the family was corrupt; one cable mentioned the Mammadovs’ link to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. In 2013, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project investigated the Mammadov family’s corruption and published well-documented exposés. Six months before the hotel announcement, Foreign Policy ran an article titled “The Corleones of the Caspian,” which suggested that the Mammadovs had exploited Ziya’s position as Transportation Minister to make their fortunes.

The Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty investigation revealed that Baku XXI Century, the company controlled by Elton, had at least two other stakeholders. One of them was a company called zqan, an acronym for the family members of the Transportation Minister: Ziya Mammadov; Qanira, his wife; Anar, his son; and Nigar, his daughter. Anar is the official head of zqan. Another stakeholder in Baku XXI Century was the Baghlan Group, a company run by an Azerbaijani businessman who is known to be close to Ziya Mammadov.

Baku XXI Century, zqan, and Baghlan have so many overlapping interests that they often seem to operate as a single concern. According to the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty investigation, the companies all prospered largely through contracts with the Transportation Ministry. The Trump Tower Baku complex was built partly on land controlled by the ministry. A Baghlan subsidiary received a contract from the ministry to import a thousand London-style cabs to Baku. Soon afterward, ministry inspectors began preventing competing taxi services from parking in the city center or at subway stops. Another new rule required all taxi owners to pay taxes and license fees at the Bank of Azerbaijan, a private entity that at the time was owned jointly by Anar Mammadov and Baghlan.

Anar’s net worth has been estimated at a billion dollars, but he is not a self-made man. According to the Associated Press, zqan was founded in 2000, when he was in his late teens. He began studying in England that year, and remained there until 2005; during that period, the company that he ostensibly ran experienced explosive growth. Trump Organization officials, as well as others familiar with the Baku project, told me that during the tower’s construction Anar was barely involved, and was often travelling abroad. (He flies on a Gulfstream G450 private jet.) An American who did business in Azerbaijan told me, “It’s common knowledge there that Ziya Mammadov controls zqan.”

One of the cables sent in 2010 by the U.S. Embassy in Baku noted that, “with so much of the nation’s oil wealth being poured into road construction,” the Mammadovs had become disproportionately powerful in Azerbaijan. Another cable suggested that Ziya controlled zqan, the country’s “largest commercial development company.” This cable described Ziya as being the object of “many allegations from Azerbaijani contacts of creative corrupt practices.”

Much of the land occupied by the Trump Tower Baku complex was once packed with houses. In 2011, residents received letters from the local government authority informing them that their homes were to be demolished to make way for a project of crucial government significance. Thirty families were evicted. One resident, Minaye Azizova, told me that the government gave her eighteen thousand dollars in compensation for a home that, by her estimation, was worth five times as much. After she discovered that her home had been condemned so that Baku XXI Century could build a luxury tower, she sued the government.
“Turns out the sound of the squeaky toy was coming from inside the house.”

Construction of the building began in 2008. I have spoken with more than a dozen contractors who worked on it. Some of them described behavior that seemed nakedly corrupt. Frank McDonald, an Englishman who has had a long career doing construction jobs in developing countries, performed extensive work on the building’s interior. He told me that his firm was always paid in cash, and that he witnessed other contractors being paid in the same way. At the offices of Anar Mammadov’s company, he said, “they would give us a giant pile of cash,” adding, “I got a hundred and eighty thousand dollars one time, which I fit into my laptop bag, and two hundred thousand dollars another time.” Once, a colleague of his picked up a payment of two million dollars. “He needed to bring a big duffelbag,” McDonald recalled. The Azerbaijani lawyer confirmed that some contractors on the Baku tower were paid in cash.

Two people who worked on the Trump Tower Baku told me that bribes were paid. Much of the graft was routine: Azerbaijani tax officials, government inspectors, and customs officers showed up occasionally to pick up envelopes of cash.

The executive at Mace, the construction firm, told me that the Mammadovs handled payments and all interactions with the Azerbaijani government. “Were people bribed?” he said. “I don’t know. Maybe. We didn’t check.” (A spokesman for Mace said that the firm was “not involved” in any corruption.)

Pierre Baillargeon, the architect whom the Mammadovs hired to alter the tower’s original design, is a Canadian who runs a studio in London. He has often worked in parts of the world known for corruption, including Sudan and Syria, and has done several projects in Azerbaijan. In a phone interview, Baillargeon said that he knew nothing about corruption and was “just a designer.” I asked him why he thought the hotel had been built in such an inhospitable part of Baku. “Every project has detractors,” he said. When I asked him if he had seen large payments being made in cash, he hung up. (He did not respond to later calls.)

Alan Garten, the Trump Organization lawyer, did not deny that there was corruption involved in the project. “I’m not going to sit here and defend the Mammadovs,” he said. But, from a legal standpoint, he argued, the Trump Organization was blameless. In his opinion, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act doesn’t apply to the Baku deal, even if corruption occurred. “We didn’t own it,” he said of the hotel. “We had no equity. We didn’t control the project. The flow of funds is in the wrong direction.” He added, “We did not pay any money to anyone. Therefore, it could not be a violation of the F.C.P.A.”

“No, that’s just wrong,” Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at George Washington University Law School, who specializes in the F.C.P.A., said. “You can’t go into business deals in Azerbaijan assuming that you are immune from the F.C.P.A.” She added, “Nor can you escape liability by looking the other way. The entire Baku deal is a giant red flag—the direct involvement of foreign government officials and their relatives in Azerbaijan with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Corruption warning signs are rarely more obvious.”

Tillipman explained that the F.C.P.A. defines corruption as “the payment of money or anything of value” to a foreign official. Last year, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay two hundred and sixty-four million dollars to settle charges that it had violated the F.C.P.A.; the bank had given jobs and internships to relatives and friends of government officials in Asia. Tillipman, along with several other F.C.P.A. experts, told me that the Trump Organization had clearly provided things of value in the Baku deal: its famous brand, its command of the luxury market, its extensive technical advice.

In May, 2012, the month the Baku deal was finalized, the F.C.P.A. was evidently on Donald Trump’s mind. In a phone-in appearance on CNBC, he expressed frustration with the law. “Every other country goes into these places and they do what they have to do,” he said. “It’s a horrible law and it should be changed.” If American companies refused to give bribes, he said, “you’ll do business nowhere.” He continued, “There is one answer—go to your room, close the door, go to sleep, and don’t do any deals, because that’s the only way. The only way you’re going to do it is the other way.”

It is unclear how the Trump Administration plans to approach F.C.P.A. enforcement. Jay Clayton, Trump’s choice to run the Securities and Exchange Commission, co-authored a paper in 2011 arguing that American companies were at a severe disadvantage because of the U.S. government’s “singular strategy of zealous enforcement.” But Jeff Sessions, the new Attorney General, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings that he will continue to uphold the F.C.P.A.

After 9/11, prosecuting financial corruption acquired new political importance. The C.I.A. and other intelligence services came to believe that preventing illicit money from flowing through the global financial system was a necessary tactic in preventing future terrorist attacks, and the U.S. led an international effort to enforce financial transparency. Banks and other financial entities were required to vet their clients aggressively and to report any suspicious activity. Prosecutions for money laundering, bribery, and other financial crimes rose significantly. In 2000, the government launched three prosecutions under the F.C.P.A. Last year, it initiated fifty-four.

Investigators of financial fraud like to say that government corruption, money laundering, and other illicit behavior often form a “nexus” with even more troubling activity, such as financing terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction. This appears to be true in the Baku deal. As the Mammadovs were preparing to build the tower, the family patriarch, Ziya, was cementing his financial relationship with the Darvishis, the Iranian family with ties to the country’s Revolutionary Guard.

At least three Darvishis—the brothers Habil, Kamal, and Keyumars—appear to be associates of the Guard. In Farsi press accounts, Habil, who runs the Tehran Metro Company, is referred to as a sardar, a term for a senior officer in the Revolutionary Guard. A cable sent on March 6, 2009, from the U.S. Embassy in Baku described Kamal as having formerly run “an alleged Revolutionary Guard-controlled business in Iran.” The company, called Nasr, developed and acquired instruments, guidance systems, and specialty metals needed to build ballistic missiles. In 2007, Nasr was sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in Iran’s effort to develop nuclear missiles.

The cable said that Kamal and Keyumars were frequent visitors to Azerbaijan; Kamal had recently established “a close business relationship/friendship” with Ziya Mammadov, and, with Mammadov’s assistance, had been awarded “at least eight major road construction and rehabilitation contracts, including contracts for construction of the Baku-Iranian Astara highway.” (Keyumars also seems to have been involved in these deals.) The cable added, “We assume Mammedov [sic] is a silent partner in these contracts.”
“Does the No. 1 stop here and does that go to Penn Station and can I get a train there to Philadelphia and then how do I get to Walnut Street?”

Iran has two militaries. The Iranian Army is a conventional force whose mission is to protect the country. The Revolutionary Guard is an independent force of about a hundred and fifty thousand soldiers, whose duty is to protect the country’s Islamic system and to preserve the power of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Revolutionary Guard has its own air force and navy, and it has a unit known as the Quds Force, which the United States has identified as a major supporter of Hezbollah and other international terrorist groups. The Guard has developed a shadow economy within Iran to fund its activities and expand its power. It controls all official border crossings and runs several unofficial ports, solely for its own use. The Revolutionary Guard smuggles into the country everything from consumer goods blocked by sanctions to drugs. It also owns seemingly legitimate companies in construction, energy, telecommunications, auto manufacturing, and banking. According to the United States Institute of Peace, the Guard is linked “to dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of companies that appear to be private in nature but are run by [Revolutionary Guard] veterans.”

J. Matthew McInnis, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, who served as a consultant to Michael Flynn when Flynn was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told me that owners of Revolutionary Guard-related businesses often become rich. But there is a catch: from time to time, they should expect to be asked to serve the needs of the Guard. “When the Revolutionary Guard says, ‘We need to move some illicit stuff,’ or ‘We need new parts for our missiles,’ they reach out to these guys,” McInnis explained. “It’s a soft network that can do all sorts of things that are very hard to trace.”

Keyumars Darvishi once ran Raman, a construction firm that is owned by the Islamic Revolution Mostazafan Foundation. According to the United Nations, the foundation is a major financial arm of the Revolutionary Guard. Keyumars left Raman to run Azarpassillo, the putatively independent construction company that received multiple road contracts in Azerbaijan. According to Azarpassillo’s Web site, it was incorporated in 2008. In recent years, Keyumars has also served as the acting director of the Tehran Metro Company, filling in for his brother Habil.

Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a political scientist at Syracuse University, who studies the political, economic, and military élite of Iran, said, “It looks like Azarpassillo is a front organization for the Revolutionary Guard.” He found it inconceivable that Keyumars Darvishi, after working for years in a company controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, would quit, raise large amounts of capital on his own, and then become the head of a fully independent company that competed against Revolutionary Guard fronts for contracts. Khatam Al-Anbia, an Iranian construction giant that is controlled by the Guard and is under U.S. sanctions, has subcontracted Azarpassillo on at least two major infrastructure projects in Iran. The Tehran Metro Company is also involved in both projects. McInnis told me, “If you see a connection with Khatam Al-Anbia, you would assume the connections to the Revolutionary Guard are there. The suspicion of Azarpassillo being a front company is certainly worth investigating. It would fit a normal pattern.”

Alan Garten told me that the Trump Organization checks to see if potential Trump partners are on “watch lists and sanctions lists,” and that the company knew nothing of Ziya Mammadov’s relationship to the Darvishis until 2015, when it learned that “certain principals associated with the developer may have had some association with some problematic entities.” And yet, by that point, the U.S. Embassy cables had been online for four years. Garten insisted that the Trump Organization still has no idea if the association between the Mammadovs and the Darvishis is real, or if it’s simply an allegation “spread by the media.” I recently spoke with Allison Melia, who until 2015 was one of the C.I.A.’s lead analysts of Iran’s economy; she now works for the Crumpton Group, a strategic advisory firm whose services include conducting due diligence for companies. She told me that her team could have compiled a dossier on the Mammadovs and their connection to the Revolutionary Guard in “a couple of days.” She said that any reputable investigative firm conducting a risk assessment would have advised a U.S. company to avoid a deal with a family connected to the Revolutionary Guard.

The U.S. has imposed various sanctions on Iran since the Islamic Revolution, in 1979. In recent years, U.S. and international efforts have focussed on isolating Iran from the global financial system, in order to prevent it from funding terrorist groups and contributing to worldwide instability. In 2015, the U.N., spurred by the Obama Administration, reached an agreement with Iran, and lifted some sanctions in return for a slowdown of the country’s nuclear program. However, according to the Congressional Research Service, many sanctions against Iran remain in effect, because of the country’s “support for terrorism, its human-rights abuses, its interference in specified countries in the region, and its missile and advanced-conventional-weapons programs.” In December, 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives imposed additional sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard and its associated businesses.

American companies must insure that they are not receiving funds that originated with any sanctioned entity. Ignorance is not a defense, especially if there is ample warning that a foreign partner could have a link to such an entity. Most firms, upon hearing of even a slight chance of Iranian involvement, conduct due diligence that is much more extensive than what is typical for F.C.P.A. compliance. Erich Ferrari, an attorney who specializes in sanctions-related legal cases, said that before the Trump Organization cashed any checks it should have been certain of “the source of the funds”—“not only the bank it was remitted from but how the Mammadovs actually earned the money they paid.” He said of the Baku deal, “It takes a lot to shock a lawyer, but I’ve had very few clients do so little due diligence.”

The nexus between the Mammadovs and the Darvishis suggests both opportunism and desperation. Ziya Mammadov is sixty-four, and in recent years the family’s position in Azerbaijan has begun to weaken. President Aliyev has systematically isolated, and then fired, longtime members of the regime in order to make way for his own cronies. From 2008 to 2014, Ziya Mammadov, perhaps fearing his ejection from political office, vastly increased his personal wealth.

During the same period, mounting international sanctions made it far more difficult for Iran to sell oil abroad, receive foreign funds, and import products. International banks became increasingly reluctant to accept funds from businesses owned by the Revolutionary Guard, severely limiting its ability to support allies such as Hezbollah and the Syrian government. At a moment when Iran was struggling to find ways to send money outside the country, Keyumars Darvishi joined Azarpassillo and began making one deal after another in Azerbaijan.

Ziya Mammadov apparently had complete discretion with regard to Azarpassillo’s projects. On April 6, 2007, Anne Derse, then the U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, wrote in a cable that Charles Redman, at the time a senior vice-president for the American construction firm Bechtel, had recently met with Ziya Mammadov. Redman was looking for business, and knew that Azerbaijan was planning several major new roads. Bechtel could build them, he said, at an average cost of six million dollars per kilometre. Mammadov complained to him that this was too expensive. Bechtel ended up building nothing. Instead, much of the roadwork was done by Azarpassillo—at a much higher cost. According to a 2012 report by Azerbaijan’s Center for Economic and Social Development, an independent think tank, road construction during Mammadov’s tenure was “the most expensive in the world,” costing an average of eighteen million dollars per kilometre. (Derse declined to comment; Redman did not respond to e-mails.)

The available evidence strongly suggests that Ziya Mammadov conspired with an agent of the Revolutionary Guard to make overpriced deals that would enrich them both while allowing them to flout prohibitions against money laundering and to circumvent sanctions against Iran. Based on Ziya Mammadov’s past, it seems reasonable to assume that his main motive was profit. Like most Azerbaijanis, he is a secular Shiite Muslim, and he has no known ties to hard-line factions in Iran. Why did the Darvishis want to work with the Mammadovs? It might have caught their attention that the Mammadovs had their own private bank—one that had unfettered access to the global financial system.

While Azarpassillo was making deals with the Transportation Ministry, the Mammadovs were investing heavily in a series of large construction projects. Money launderers love construction projects. They attract legitimate funds from governments and private investors, and they require frequent payouts to legitimate subcontractors: cement factories, lumberyards, glass manufacturers, craftsmen. In the Trump Tower Baku project, money was going in and out of the U.S., the United Kingdom, Turkey, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, and several other countries. With such projects, it can be exceedingly difficult to detect the spread of illicit funds.

At the same time, the Mammadovs’ money was flowing through holding companies in offshore banking centers. According to leaked documents in the Panama Papers, companies controlled by the family have opened accounts in such places as the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and Panama. The shell companies that list Mammadovs as beneficiaries or officers have bland names such as Trans-European Leasing Group and 1st Rate Investment, and many of them are owned by other shell companies.

In 2009, a year after Baku XXI Century began building the tower, the company opened the Baku International Bus Terminal, an enormous station that includes a shopping mall and a hotel. During this period, the Mammadov family also began building a hotel, a golf course, and a spa in the mountains north of Baku.

Meanwhile, the Mammadovs spent lavishly on themselves. Ziya built a mansion in one of the most expensive neighborhoods of Baku, and, on the beach, a villa whose walls are decorated to resemble ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs. Elton’s son, Aynar, became famous for having a collection of expensive cars, including a Ferrari, a Maserati, and a Lamborghini. Anar began using the Gulfstream G450, which typically costs forty-one million dollars, and bought a seven-bedroom home in London. He also spent millions of dollars on an effort to promote Azerbaijan in Washington, D.C., hosting galas for members of Congress and other powerful figures. A former associate of the Trump Organization told me that in 2012, on one of Anar’s trips to America, he visited Trump Tower, in New York, to meet with Donald Trump and company executives. (The Trump Organization would not confirm the visit.) Around this time, the contracts for the Baku project were issued.

Between 2004 and 2014, Mammadov family businesses spent more than half a billion dollars on large construction projects. They also poured money into a major construction-materials company, an insurance firm, and a new headquarters. It’s not clear how the Mammadovs funded such enormous investments while spending so much on themselves. They may have received loans, or secretly owned profitable businesses that supported the flurry of spending. Another explanation is that some of the investment money came from the Revolutionary Guard, through Azarpassillo.

Calls and e-mails to Azarpassillo, the Iranian Mission to the U.N., and the Azerbaijani government were not returned. Ziya and Anar Mammadov did not respond to requests for comment. Donald Trump has not addressed the Baku deal since becoming President. A Department of Justice spokesperson would not comment on the possibility of its investigating the Trump Tower Baku deal. The White House declined to comment.

If, as Alan Garten told me, the Trump Organization learned in 2015 about “the possibility” that the Mammadovs had ties to the Revolutionary Guard, it is striking that the company did not end the Baku deal until December, 2016. During this period, Garten told me, the Trump Organization never asked its Azerbaijani partners about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but it did send several default notices for late payments.

Throughout the Presidential campaign, Trump was in business with someone that his company knew was likely a partner with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In a March, 2016, speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Trump said that his “No. 1 priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” Calling Iran the “biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world,” he promised, “We will work to dismantle that reach—believe me, believe me.” In the speech, Trump lamented that Iran had been allowed to develop new long-range ballistic missiles. According to Iran Watch, an organization that monitors Iran’s military capabilities, much of the technology to make the missiles was provided by Nasr, the company once run by Kamal Darvishi.

I asked Garten why the Trump Organization hadn’t cancelled the Baku contract in 2015. He said that there was “no rush,” because “the project had already stalled and was showing no signs of moving forward.” The Azerbaijani lawyer who worked on the project has seen the hotel’s interior, and told me that it is almost finished. In an interview with the magazine Baku, published in April, 2015, Ivanka Trump said that she was eager to enjoy the hotel’s “huge spa area,” and promised that the hotel would open “in June.”

Moreover, Garten said, the Trump Organization had signed binding contracts with the Mammadovs and couldn’t simply abandon its agreements. But Jessica Tillipman, the law-school assistant dean, told me, “You can’t violate sanctions just because you have a contract with someone.” According to Erich Ferrari, the lawyer who specializes in sanctions, companies that learn of a possible sanctions violation typically commission a “look-back” investigation that “reviews all payments you received, to make sure they didn’t originate with a sanctioned entity.” He added, “All the big four accounting companies do them routinely.” The Trump Organization did not commission a look-back.

The Baku deal appears to be the second time that the Trump Organization has turned a blind eye to U.S. efforts to sanction Iran. In 1998, when Donald Trump purchased the General Motors Building, in Manhattan, he inherited as a tenant Iran’s Bank Melli. The following year, the Treasury Department listed Bank Melli as an institution that was “owned or controlled” by the government of Iran and that was covered by U.S. sanctions. (The department later labelled Bank Melli one of the primary financial institutions through which Iran was funnelling money to finance terrorism and to develop weapons of mass destruction.) The Trump Organization kept Bank Melli as a tenant for four more years before terminating the lease.
“He says he loves me, but he still uses his first wife’s birthday as his password.”

The Baku project is hardly the only instance in which the Trump Organization has been associated with a controversial deal. The Trump Taj Mahal casino, which opened in Atlantic City in 1990, was repeatedly fined for violating anti-money-laundering laws, up until its collapse, late last year. According to ProPublica, Trump projects in India, Uruguay, Georgia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have involved government officials or people with close ties to powerful political figures. A few years ago, the Trump Organization abandoned a project in Beijing after its Chinese partner became embroiled in a corruption scandal. In December, the Trump Organization withdrew from a hotel project in Rio de Janeiro after it was revealed to be part of a major bribery investigation. Ricardo Ayres, a Brazilian state legislator, told Bloomberg, “It’s curious that the Trumps didn’t seem to know that their biggest deal in Brazil was bankrolled by shady investors.” But, given the Trump Organization’s track record, it seems reasonable to ask whether one of the things it was selling to foreign partners was a willingness to ignore signs of corruption.

To this day, the Trump Organization has not provided satisfying answers to the most basic questions about the Baku deal: who owns Baku XXI Century, the company with which they signed the contracts; the origin of the funds with which Baku XXI Century paid the Trump Organization; whether the Mammadovs used their political power to benefit themselves and the Trump Organization; and whether the Mammadovs used money obtained from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to fund the Trump Tower Baku.

At one point, Garten allowed me to review the Trump Organization’s original contract with the Mammadovs. It authorizes the company to order an independent audit of Baku XXI Century’s financial records at any time—a provision likely included to insure that the Mammadovs didn’t hide profits that were supposed to be shared with the Trump Organization. Such an audit could well have exposed illicit activity. Garten refused to say if an audit had been conducted.

In dealing with the Mammadovs, the Trump Organization seems to have taken them entirely at their word. Garten pointed me to a provision in one contract in which Anar Mammadov represented himself as the sole owner of Baku XXI Century. Given that Elton Mammadov told me that he controlled the company, and that its ownership was a “commercial secret,” what proof did the Trump Organization have that Anar’s claim was true? Garten could not say.

Garten has been the company’s chief legal officer only since January. His predecessor was Jason Greenblatt, whose name appeared on the contract I reviewed. Greenblatt was in charge of the Trump Organization’s due diligence and contracting work. He is now employed at the White House, as the President’s special representative for international negotiations. He did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

In recent months, American officials have expressed concern that Trump Administration figures might be blackmailed by foreign entities. U.S. law-enforcement investigators and congressional staffers have probed claims that Russian government officials possess compromising information about President Trump, which might be used to blackmail him. (The President maintains that there is no such information.) In January, the Department of Justice informed the White House that Michael Flynn—then the national-security adviser—was vulnerable to being blackmailed by the Russians because he had lied about having spoken with the Russian Ambassador. Flynn subsequently resigned.

In Azerbaijan, the power and the influence of the Mammadovs has declined sharply. Elton lost his seat in parliament in 2015. In February, Ziya was abruptly removed from his ministry. Anar has settled in London, an associate of his told me, and is living on a fraction of his former wealth. Meanwhile, in Iran, government officials are likely facing additional sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If the Mammadovs or powerful Iranians have evidence that the Trump Organization broke laws, they might be tempted to exploit it.

The best way to determine if a crime was committed in the Baku deal would be a federal investigation, which could use the power of subpoena and international legal tools to obtain access to the contracts, the due diligence, internal e-mails, and financial documents. The Department of Justice routinely sends investigators to other countries to pursue possible F.C.P.A. and sanctions violations.

Senator Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, who is the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, said, in an e-mail, that a federal investigation was warranted: “The Trump Organization’s Baku project shows the lack of ‘extreme vetting’ Mr. Trump applied to his own business dealings in corruption-plagued regimes around the globe. . . . Congress—and the Trump Administration itself—has a duty to examine whether the President or his family is exposed to terrorist financing, sanctions, money laundering, and other imprudent associations through their business holdings and connections.”

More than a dozen lawyers with experience in F.C.P.A. prosecution expressed surprise at the Trump Organization’s seemingly lax approach to vetting its foreign partners. But, when I asked a former Trump Organization executive if the Baku deal had seemed unusual, he laughed. “No deal there seems unusual, as long as a check is attached,” he said. ♦

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the J. W. Marriott hotel in Baku.

Adam Davidson is a staff writer at The New Yorker.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:45 schreef Houtenbeen het volgende:

twitter:

IsraelHatzolah twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:42:56 DEVELOPING: Israeli air strike reported targeting Iranian weapons convoy in Damascus. reageer retweet

twitter:

michaelh992 twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 21:37:20 Initial/unconfirmed reports suggest a convoy may have been targeted rather than an actual base. There's an Iranian base near al-Kiswah (targeted by #Israel in the past) #Syria reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:50 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Ik hoop dat het nog even rustig blijft. Ik zit op dit moment tussen Iran en Israël in.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:45 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik dacht dat jij altijd zei dat Europa zo bang moest zijn voor het superieure Russische leger.

Maar inmiddels hebben ze alleen maar troep.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:51 schreef Houtenbeen het volgende:

[..]

Is het leuk in Jordanië?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:52 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Ja hoor, prachtig land, leuke mensen. Wel slecht weer laatste tijd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:51 schreef remlof het volgende:
AFP: EU ‘determined to preserve’ Iran nuclear deal: Mogherini

“As long as Iran continues to implement its nuclear related commitments, as it is doing so far, the European Union will remain committed to the continued full and effective implementation of the nuclear deal”

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:51 schreef remlof het volgende:
AFP: EU ‘determined to preserve’ Iran nuclear deal: Mogherini

“As long as Iran continues to implement its nuclear related commitments, as it is doing so far, the European Union will remain committed to the continued full and effective implementation of the nuclear deal”

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:53 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Goedzo. Helaas is Rusland nogal een loose cannon.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:53 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Ook al in Wadi Rum geweest?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:55 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Heb ik voor morgen op de planning staan!

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben reuzebenieuwd wat dit betekent als de VS er voor kiest om bedrijven uit de EU die ook wat zaken in de VS doen te sanctioneren ...

Weet iemand trouwens of bedrijven als Facebook en Google gezien worden als Iers ipv Amerikaans? Zou wel interessant als het Iers zou zijn...

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:54 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben reuzebenieuwd wat dit betekent als de VS er voor kiest om bedrijven uit de EU die ook wat zaken in de VS doen te sanctioneren ...

Weet iemand trouwens of bedrijven als Facebook en Google gezien worden als Iers ipv Amerikaans? Zou wel interessant als het Iers zou zijn...

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:56 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Hier ben ik inderdaad ook wel benieuwd naar. Maar zo'n vaart zal het niet lopen, toch?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:57 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Als Amerikaans. En de EU kan Amerikaanse bedrijven keihard terugpakken. En waarom zouden we dat niet doen begin ik me langzamerhand af te vragen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:56 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Hier ben ik inderdaad ook wel benieuwd naar. Maar zo'n vaart zal het niet lopen, toch?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:58 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Omdat we daar uiteindelijk ook zelf vrij veel last van gaan hebben? Een wereldwijd circus van sancties en handelsblokkades is echt in niemands voordeel.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:58 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Omdat we daar uiteindelijk ook zelf vrij veel last van gaan hebben? Een wereldwijd circus van sancties en handelsblokkades is echt in niemands voordeel.

quote:

To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran

(...)

The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

(...)

https://mobile.nytimes.co(...)-bomb-bomb-iran.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:56 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Hier ben ik inderdaad ook wel benieuwd naar. Maar zo'n vaart zal het niet lopen, toch?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:33 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
Wat zou Kim denken nu Trump de Iran-deal opblaast? Denk niet dat het positief is voor de onderhandelingen daar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:33 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
Wat zou Kim denken nu Trump de Iran-deal opblaast? Denk niet dat het positief is voor de onderhandelingen daar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:23 schreef Nibb-it het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:51 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Ik snap het wel, maar dit was WEER een kans om Europa met 1 mond te laten spreken via de vertegenwoordiger van Europa ipv via de individuele staatslijders.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:52 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Mogherini heeft een uitgebreide reactie gegeven hoor

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:56 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Het punt wat ik maakte was niet goed gemaakt. Ik linkte verkeerd. Waar ik naar wilde linken was een gemeenschappelijk statement van Macron (President), Merckel (Premier) en May (Premier). Ik vind het fijn dat zij dat doen, maar ik vind eigenlijk dat Tusk en Juncker dat moeten doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:35 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
"Geef je atoomwapens en technologie op, in ruil heffen we de sancties op en zullen we nooit aanvallen, echt niet, heus niet, je kunt ons vertrouwen!"

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:58 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dan moet buitenlandbeleid eerst een exclusieve bevoegdheid van de EU worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:58 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dan moet buitenlandbeleid eerst een exclusieve bevoegdheid van de EU worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:56 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Het punt wat ik maakte was niet goed gemaakt. Ik linkte verkeerd. Waar ik naar wilde linken was een gemeenschappelijk statement van Macron (President), Merckel (Premier) en May (Premier). Ik vind het fijn dat zij dat doen, maar ik vind eigenlijk dat Tusk en Juncker dat moeten doen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:58 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dan moet buitenlandbeleid eerst een exclusieve bevoegdheid van de EU worden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 23:00 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Mogherini spreekt namens de Commissie.

En dat gezamenlijke statement van Macron, Merkel en May is natuurlijk omdat zij tot de onderhandelingspartners behoorden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 23:04 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Dit tover je ergens vandaan. Ik volg het minder goed dan jij, waar kan ik vinden dat Mogherini namens de Commissie spreekt de duiding van Macron, Merkel en May is voor jezelf en lijkt me wat simplistisch.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 23:07 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Mogherini is Hoge Vertegenwoordiger op buitenlandbeleid en vicepresident van de Commissie. Haar statement is hier:

https://eeas.europa.eu/he(...)s-president-trump_en

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 23:07 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Mogherini is Hoge Vertegenwoordiger op buitenlandbeleid en vicepresident van de Commissie. Haar statement is hier:

https://eeas.europa.eu/he(...)s-president-trump_en

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 22:59 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Hoezo exclusief? De onderlinge tijdelijke afspraak kan best zijn dat hij dat doet. en dan 2 weken later het zelf doen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 00:05 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Tweet van Avenatti:

After significant investigation, we have discovered that Mr. Trump’s atty Mr. Cohen received approximately $500,000 in the mos. after the election from a company controlled by a Russian Oligarc with close ties to Mr. Putin. These monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment.

Is Trump blut?

quote:

A shell company that Michael D. Cohen used to pay hush money to a pornographic film actress received payments totaling more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the Trump administration, according to documents and interviews.

Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions totaling at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show.

Among the previously unreported transactions were payments last year totaling about $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm in New York whose biggest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, the Russian oligarch. A lawyer for Columbus Nova, in a statement Tuesday, described the money as a consulting fee that had nothing to do with Mr. Vekselberg.

Other transactions described in the financial records range from hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments by Fortune 500 firms with business before the Trump administration, to small amounts related to unexplained activities in foreign countries.

References to the transactions first appeared in a document posted to Twitter on Tuesday by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film star who was paid $130,000 by Essential Consultants to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump. The lawyer’s six-page document, titled “Preliminary Report of Findings,” does not explain the source of his information but describes in detail dates, dollar amounts and parties involved in various dealings by Mr. Cohen and his company.

The Times’s review of financial records confirmed much of what was in Mr. Avenatti’s report. In addition, a review of emails and interviews shed additional light on Mr. Cohen’s dealings with the company connected to Mr. Vekselberg, who was stopped and questioned at an airport earlier this year by investigators for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel examining Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Taken together, the Times’s reporting and Mr. Avenatti’s document offer the most detailed picture to date on Mr. Cohen’s business dealings and financial entanglements in the run-up to and aftermath of the election. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating Mr. Cohen for possible bank fraud and election-law violations, among other matters, according to people briefed on the investigation. Stephen Ryan, a lawyer representing Mr. Cohen, declined to comment.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 02:05 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Ik kan echt niet wachten tot Guiliani weer op tv verschijnt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 21:02 schreef Stabiel het volgende:
De Amerikaanse ambassadeur in Duitsland bedreigt even Duitse bedrijven:

twitter:

RichardGrenell twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 20:42:28 As @realDonaldTrump said, US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately. reageer retweet

Imperialistische arrogantie ten top.

quote:

By reneging on the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump has said, he will be able to get an even better deal, one that will also control Iran’s ballistic missiles and its regional influence.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the same kind of gesture toward a better, smarter deal that Mr. Trump made when he pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, the same sort of empty promise he made in saying he would supply plans for Middle East peace and better, cheaper, more accessible health care. So far, again and again, he has shown himself to be adept at destroying agreements — a relatively easy task for a president — and utterly lacking in the policy depth or strategic vision and patience to create new ones.

When it comes to the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, there is no sign Iran or any of the other major powers in the existing and so far successful pact will simply fall in line with Mr. Trump’s notional new plan. More likely, his decision, announced on Tuesday, will allow Iran to resume a robust nuclear program, sour relations with close European allies, erode America’s credibility, lay conditions for a possible wider war in the Middle East and make it harder to reach a sound agreement with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program.

In other words, par for the course. This man who, apparently because of one book and a reality television show, has a reputation as a deal maker despite a skein of bankruptcies and lawsuits, has been piling up quite a record of scuttled agreements that he suggests “never, ever should have been made” and broken promises for a “better deal.”

Consider the Paris agreement, approved by President Barack Obama in 2016. Mr. Trump labeled it a “con job” that is unfair to the United States, and in June he declared his intention to withdraw from it. Mr. Trump suggested he was open to renegotiating this voluntary agreement but has done nothing about it. Meanwhile his administration is chipping away at environmental protections through deregulation even as the nearly 200 countries that signed the deal remain committed to it.

Or take DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also established by Mr. Obama. It provides temporary work permits and reprieves from deportation for about 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Mr. Trump ended it but said he was open to fixing it. But he hasn’t, ordering instead a crackdown by federal immigration agents that has torn countless families apart and left millions of other undocumented people in limbo.

Similarly, the southern border wall, the centerpiece of his presidential campaign that was supposed to be paid for by Mexico, is more mirage than reality — and whatever parts are being built are being paid for by America.

He promised a better deal on health care, with cheaper costs and universal coverage. He never proposed one. Instead, after Congress failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he attacked it administratively, increasing the number of people without insurance and raising premiums.

One of his first moves in office was to withdraw from the United States-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he had called “a rape of our country.” Last month he raised the possibility of rejoining it but then stepped back again.

Then there is Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the United States, Mexico and Canada have been unable to agree on amending after months of negotiations.

As for China, which Mr. Trump promised to browbeat into offering trade concessions, recent negotiations ended with few signs of progress toward avoiding a trade war.

The one agreement on which he forced new negotiations and seems to have scored modest success is the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea. Even so, the president has suggested he might delay finalizing the pact because it gives him a card to play, presumably with Seoul, while negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear program.

Mr. Trump often seems to be consumed with overturning the legacies of his predecessor, but few of the agreements so stoked his disdain as the Iran nuclear deal, Mr. Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement. Signed in 2015 by five major powers as well as the United States and Iran, it committed Iran to significantly curtailing its nuclear program in return for a lifting of sanctions.

International inspectors along with American and Israeli intelligence and security officials have repeatedly judged that Iran is abiding by its obligations. That doesn’t matter to Mr. Trump, allied with the anti-Iran hard-liners in his administration, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who all seem to believe their problems with Iran can best be solved by driving out the regime through economic crisis or military action.

Ahead of his decision on Tuesday to impose the “highest level of economic sanctions” on foreign countries doing business in Iran, Mr. Trump put the onus on France, Germany and Britain to address what he considered “flaws” in the accord. For months the Europeans argued this could be done in a side agreement, while keeping the nuclear deal intact, but the effort ultimately collapsed because of Mr. Trump’s insistence on reopening the accord itself. It’s doubtful that Mr. Trump was ever serious about finding a compromise. The Europeans and Iranians, who say they will continue adhering to the deal, hope to manage the fallout, but despite his assurance that he is “ready, willing and able” to negotiate a new agreement, Mr. Trump has no obvious plan B, except ratcheting up the pressure on Iran.

It seems an oddly dissonant and counterproductive message as Mr. Trump has shifted from warmongering to diplomacy on North Korea and prepares to meet its leader, Kim Jong-un, to get him to abandon his nuclear program, with an arsenal of 20 to 60 weapons.

And why should the North Koreans now believe the Americans, over the long haul, will honor a deal any president strikes?

While the stakes with Iran are high, with North Korea they are even higher. Will that be another deal too far for Mr. Trump?

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 23:37 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Er komt een EU summit, dan moeten alle regeringsleiders het eens worden. Orban en Polen gaan natuurlijk nooit een vuil woord over Amerika in een statement zetten.

De enige reden dat de EU zo in paniek is, komt door investeringen in Iran die gevaar lopen door de sancties. Vandaar dat Bolton ze op dat punt gelijk klem zet. Geen Europese regeringsleider die nu een economische crisis (laat staat een handelsoorlog) riskeert met de VS.

John Botlon weet precies hoe dat allemaal in elkaar steekt en heeft de EU zogezegd bij de ballen. Dan kan zo'n doos als Mogrini roepen wat ze wil.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 05:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Tsjechie, Slowakije, en ongetwijfeld nog wat landen staan volledig achter Israel. Als die landen als Frankrijk Duitsland en het VK echt iets willen moeten ze het buiten de EU om doen maar zelfs dan moet je hun bedrijven zo ver zien te krijgen Amerikaanse sancties te riskeren.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 06:54 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Zoveel dwang is daar niet voor nodig. Voor veel bedrijven kan het ook waarschijnlijk gewoon echt niet anders. Zeker gezien bepaalde eerder gemaakte afspraken met Iran en eventuele oliebaten etc.

Maar nee, het is mij allang duidelijk waar dit heen gaat. Een regelrechte oorlog met Iran. Netanyahu heeft het immers zo bevolen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:01 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt me zeer sterk dat welk Europees bedrijf zich afhankelijk heeft gemaakt van de Iraanse oliemarkt, dat is best wel oliedom, het lijkt me logischer dat je een verlies in Iran, als bedrijf, bereidt bent te lijden als je belangrijke andere markten maar niet verliest zoals Amerika of Arabische staten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:13 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Volgens de geleerden is het instellen van secundaire sancties extreem onwaarschijnlijk, dus het zal uiteindelijk wel meevallen voor Europese bedrijven.

quote:

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 20:40 schreef rockstah het volgende:

[..]

Zolang ze niet op het Westen kunnen rekenen om hun integriteit te beschermen en ze de Russen om historische redenen nog steeds voor geen meter vertrouwen is de machtspositie van de IRGC vrijwel gegarandeerd, dat kan niet anders in die situatie.

quote:

Het grotere punt is dat de Amerikaanse sancties sinds '79 er al prima in slaagden om ze in een economische misère te storten. Al ver voordat de VN en EU er ook aan begonnen. Ondanks dat de zware EU sancties officieel opgeheven zijn zie je nog steeds nauwelijks tot geen westerse producten in Iraanse winkels verschijnen en blijven investeringen en toerisme grotendeels uit. Wat er vooral verhandeld werd, en wordt, is Olie. Met olie komt corruptie en militarisme. Daar heeft het volk inderdaad geen snars aan maar de machthebbers des te meer. Bovendien is het makkelijk om te stellen dat ze dat geld in de economie moeten steken, maar hoe gaan ze dat doen als er niemand is die Iraanse producten kan kopen? Ze investeren al jaar en dag ruim genoeg in scholing maar het enige wat het tot zo ver oplevert is een nog hardere braindrain.
Het gros van wat er nu aan buitenlandse producten binnenstroomt komt uit China, datzelfde China die als grootse importeur van Iraanse Olie de invoer aan het halveren is terwijl grote Chinese techbedrijven hun markt in Amerika dreigen te verliezen o.a. wegens het negeren van Amerikaanse sancties betreffende Iran. Ook Europa loopt dit gevaar, vandaar dat bedrijven ook hier het land links laten liggen. Uitzonderingen zijn natuurlijk de oliebedrijven die wat dat betreft nog steeds een beetje boven de politieke macht zijn blijven staan.

quote:

Die wil is wanende, er is optimisme maar die is in grote mate gebaseerd op de hoop die ze in Europa gevestigd hebben. Die gaan dus niet thuis geven naar mijn idee. Niemand wil de betrekkingen met de VS voor de langere termijn op het spel zetten zeker wanneer er nog het idee leeft dat Trump een soort anomalie zal blijven. We worden door dreigende economische sancties aan het lijntje gehouden nu.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 05:51 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Tsjechie, Slowakije, en ongetwijfeld nog wat landen staan volledig achter Israel. Als die landen als Frankrijk Duitsland en het VK echt iets willen moeten ze het buiten de EU om doen maar zelfs dan moet je hun bedrijven zo ver zien te krijgen Amerikaanse sancties te riskeren.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:25 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Het volgende EU budget moet nog goedgekeurd worden. Wie zijn de grote betalers ook alweer?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:23 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:
Goed gedaan Trump! De ayatollah's stonden op wankelen. De bevolking van Iran is de onderdrukking en het stenigen van overspelige vrouwen plus het ophangen van homoseksuelen al lang beu. Het regime werd nog geholpen met die vele miljarden die Obama hun schonk. Hopelijk is het nu met nieuwe sancties snel gedaan met dat fundamentalistisch Iran en kunnen we daar binnen een paar jaar een seculier Iran gaan verwelkomen met meer respect voor mensenrechten en minder terreur in de regio

quote:

So Trump has wrecked one of the most successful arms-control deals in modern history, destroyed any possible leverage to negotiate a new one, further disrupted unity with our allies, further damaged U.S. credibility, strengthened hard-line factions in Iran, exacerbated instability in the Middle East, and possibly boosted the chance of war--which some of Trump's abettors desire. Quite the deal-maker.

quote:

Of all the arguments for the Trump administration to honor the nuclear deal with Iran, none was more risible than the claim that we gave our word as a country to keep it.

“Our”?

The Obama administration refused to submit the deal to Congress as a treaty, knowing it would never get two-thirds of the Senate to go along. Just 21 percent of Americans approved of the deal at the time it went through, against 49 percent who did not, according to a Pew poll. The agreement “passed” on the strength of a 42-vote Democratic filibuster, against bipartisan, majority opposition.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and it is not a signed document,” Julia Frifield, then the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote then-Representative Mike Pompeo in November 2015, referring to the deal by its formal name. It’s questionable whether the deal has any legal force at all.

Build on political sand; get washed away by the next electoral wave. Such was the fate of the ill-judged and ill-founded J.C.P.O.A., which Donald Trump killed on Tuesday by refusing to again waive sanctions on the Islamic Republic. He was absolutely right to do so — assuming, that is, serious thought has been given to what comes next.

In the weeks leading to Tuesday’s announcement, some of the same people who previously claimed the deal was the best we could possibly hope for suddenly became inventive in proposing means to fix it. This involved suggesting side deals between Washington and European capitals to impose stiffer penalties on Tehran for its continued testing of ballistic missiles — more than 20 since the deal came into effect — and its increasingly aggressive regional behavior.

But the problem with this approach is that it only treats symptoms of a problem for which the J.C.P.O.A. is itself a major cause. The deal weakened U.N. prohibitions on Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles, which cannot be reversed without Russian and Chinese consent. That won’t happen.

The easing of sanctions also gave Tehran additional financial means with which to fund its depredations in Syria and its militant proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere. Any effort to counter Iran on the ground in these places would mean fighting the very forces we are effectively feeding. Why not just stop the feeding?

Apologists for the deal answer that the price is worth paying because Iran has put on hold much of its production of nuclear fuel for the next several years. Yet even now Iran is under looser nuclear strictures than South Korea, and would have been allowed to enrich as much material as it liked once the deal expired. That’s nuts.

Apologists also claim that, with Trump’s decision, Tehran will simply restart its enrichment activities on an industrial scale. Maybe it will, forcing a crisis that could end with U.S. or Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. But that would be stupid, something the regime emphatically isn’t. More likely, it will take symbolic steps to restart enrichment, thereby implying a threat without making good on it. What the regime wants is a renegotiation, not a reckoning.

EDITORS’ PICKS

In Puerto Rico, Waiting for Power, for Tourists, for the Flowers

How Trump’s Lawyer Built a Business Empire in the Shadows

The Pleasure and Pain of Being the World’s 5th-Largest Economy
Why? Even with the sanctions relief, the Iranian economy hangs by a thread: The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported “hundreds of recent outbreaks of labor unrest in Iran, an indication of deepening discord over the nation’s economic troubles.” This week, the rial hit a record low of 67,800 to the dollar; one member of the Iranian Parliament estimated $30 billion of capital outflows in recent months. That’s real money for a country whose gross domestic product barely matches that of Boston.

The regime might calculate that a strategy of confrontation with the West could whip up useful nationalist fervors. But it would have to tread carefully: Ordinary Iranians are already furious that their government has squandered the proceeds of the nuclear deal on propping up the Assad regime. The conditions that led to the so-called Green movement of 2009 are there once again. Nor will it help Iran if it tries to start a war with Israel and comes out badly bloodied.

All this means the administration is in a strong position to negotiate a viable deal. But it missed an opportunity last month when it failed to deliver a crippling blow to Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s puppet in Syria, for his use of chemical weapons. Trump’s appeals in his speech to the Iranian people also sounded hollow from a president who isn’t exactly a tribune of liberalism and has disdained human rights as a tool of U.S. diplomacy. And the U.S. will need to mend fences with its European partners to pursue a coordinated diplomatic approach.

The goal is to put Iran’s rulers to a fundamental choice. They can opt to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, at the price of permanently, verifiably and irreversibly forgoing a nuclear option and abandoning their support for terrorists. Or they can pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war. But they are no longer entitled to Barack Obama’s sweetheart deal of getting sanctions lifted first, retaining their nuclear options for later, and sponsoring terrorism throughout.

Trump’s courageous decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal will clarify the stakes for Tehran. Now we’ll see whether the administration is capable of following through.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:28 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Hoe belangrijk jij dat Iran is voor landen als Frankrijk, Duitsland, en het VK? Het is leuk voor de buhne maar ze gaan er zelf ook geen intern conflict over riskeren als ze weten dat een groot deel van hun eigen bedrijven het risico niet eens wilt lopen plus dat Iran natuurlijk buiten dat kernprogramma om verder ook niet echt een lief land is in de wereld .

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:58 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Tja, als het niet lukt herbegint Iran z'n programma, maar of de EU z'n sancties opnieuw zal opleggen?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:54 schreef DeParo het volgende:
A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2(...)on-c-col-left-region

[..]

Best een aardig stuk dus.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:02 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Van Bret Stephens, een neocon, één van de belangrijkste pleitbezorgers voor de invasie van Irak, die in 2013 nog beweerde dat de Bush administratie bewijzen van WMDs had..

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:03 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Kan het nog wel een prima column zijn.

quote:

Stormy Daniels' attorney claimed Tuesday that President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 from a company controlled by a Russian oligarch, deposited into an account for a company also used to pay off the adult film actress.

Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, also detailed other transactions he said were suspicious, including deposits from drug giant Novartis, the state-run Korea Aerospace Industries, and AT&T — which confirmed it paid Cohen's company for "insights" into the Trump administration.

If true, Avenatti's claims, made in a dossier posted to Twitter, could add a new dimension to the federal investigation into Cohen. NBC News has reviewed financial documents that appear to support Avenatti’s account of the transactions.

"This thing is a pig and they can try to put lipstick on a pig — tonight, next week, next month — but it's still gonna be a pig," Avenatti said on MSNBC's "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell." "This thing's ugly and it's gonna get worse."

(...)

quote:

"Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:06 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb het niet voor mensen die Israel belangrijker achten dan hun eigen land...

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:37 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:
Even teruggelezen. Er zijn dus serieus mensen die menen dat de wereld een betere plek is geworden nu Trump de Irandeal heeft opgeblazen, Iran dus zijn kernwapenprogramma weer kan en dus gaat hervatten en niet het regime maar de bevolking getroffen gaat worden door de erop volgende sancties.

Wonderlijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:30 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:
Gezien de huidige stand van zaken is het wel een mooi moment om deze klassieker nog eens te posten:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:50 schreef Mykonos het volgende:

[..]

Schitterend, eigenlijk is dit gewoon literatuur, misschien dat Trump die Nobelprijs ook nog kan ophalen, naast die voor de Vrede.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:50 schreef Mykonos het volgende:

[..]

Schitterend, eigenlijk is dit gewoon literatuur, misschien dat Trump die Nobelprijs ook nog kan ophalen, naast die voor de Vrede.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De deal heeft de regio juist gevaarlijker gemaakt, door het opheffen heeft Amerika zichzelf weer veel meer leverage gegeven, de Iraanse bevolking profiteerde sowieso al niet vandaar dat ze al maanden de straat op gaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:51 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Dat gaat wat lastig momenteel, die wordt dit jaar niet uitgereikt.

quote:

The office of first lady Melania Trump on Tuesday scolded "opposition media" for pointing out that Trump reused an educational booklet from the Obama-era Federal Trade Commission in unveiling her new "Be Best" campaign on childhood wellness.

After Trump launched the childhood "well-being, social media use and opioid abuse" initiative on Monday, numerous outlets, including POLITICO, reported that one of the documents distributed by the White House were a nearly identical match to a report released by the FTC under former President Barack Obama.

BuzzFeed offered up the headline "Melania Trump Reused An Obama-Era Pamphlet For Her New Anti-Cyberbullying Campaign" while other outlets delivered more cutting headlines, such as "Melania Trump Ripped Off an Old FTC Document for 'Be Best.'"

There were also numerous parallels drawn between the recycled document and the incident at the Republican National Convention, where it appeared that Melania Trump reused many of the same lines from Michelle Obama's Democratic National Convention speech in 2008.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:02 schreef crystal_meth het volgende:

[..]

Van Bret Stephens, een neocon, één van de belangrijkste pleitbezorgers voor de invasie van Irak, die in 2013 nog beweerde dat de Bush administratie bewijzen van WMDs had..

quote:

Avenatti’s report suggests Cohen set up a company, Essential Consultants LLC, that he used to sell access to President Trump. Payments came from firms in Korea, Hungary, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Israel, Avenatti says. He claims Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical company, paid $399,920 to Cohen’s firm in late 2017 and early 2018. After the payments, Trump met with Novartis’ CEO at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The document also says Essential Consultants received $200,000 in four payments from AT&T in late 2017 and early 2018. AT&T confirmed the payments in a statement reported by CNBC: “Essential Consulting was one of several firms we engaged in early 2017 to provide insights into understanding the new administration. They did no legal or lobbying work for us, and the contract ended in December 2017.”

quote:

AT&T allegedly paid $200,000 to Cohen as it was facing threat of Trump administration antitrust suit
https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/993979467084324865?s=19

quote:

AT&T, one of the biggest companies in the country, has numerous issues before the government, including valuable government contracts and changes to so-called "net neutrality" regulations.

But the timing of payments to a Trump lawyer is especially significant because of the AT&T-Time Warner deal.

Trump, then the GOP nominee for president, expressed opposition to the $85 billion deal on the day it was announced.

When Trump won the election, there were immediate questions about whether the deal would be blocked by the Trump administration's Justice Department.

After a year-long review process, the DOJ sued to block the deal last November, saying it would violate antitrust law by harming competition and leading to an increase in prices paid by consumers. AT&T and Time Warner deny that the purchase would causes television prices to go up, and say they need the deal to better compete with the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Netflix.

https://amp.cnn.com/money(...)tter_impression=true

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:18 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Wat gaan Trump en Israël doen als Iran straks daadwerkelijk weer kernwapens gaat ontwikkelen? Iran binnenvallen? Dat was 15 jaar geleden ook al zo'n succes.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:18 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Wat gaan Trump en Israël doen als Iran straks daadwerkelijk weer kernwapens gaat ontwikkelen? Iran binnenvallen? Dat was 15 jaar geleden ook al zo'n succes.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Vielen ze Iran 15 jaar geleden binnen?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 08:58 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

We wisten inderdaad al dat de hardliners in elk land een beetje klaargekomen zijn tijdens de speech van Trump. Dat alleen al toont aan dat het zo'n slechte beslissing is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:25 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat? Ik heb het idee dat alle tegenstanders van Trump besluit hadden verwacht dat we over een paar jaar met Iran de Kumbaya zouden zingen ofzo.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:25 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:25 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Omdat? Ik heb het idee dat alle tegenstanders van Trump besluit hadden verwacht dat we over een paar jaar met Iran de Kumbaya zouden zingen ofzo.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:26 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Omdat de deal een compromis was en hardliners niet van compromissen houden.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:03 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
"To provide insights into understanding the new administration", dit is een eufemisme voor....? AT&T heeft wat uit te leggen. Tot dusver blijkt alles wat Avenatti claimt uiteindelijk te kloppen. Stormy Daniels & het Rusland-onderzoek lijkt steeds meer om een en dezelfde zaak te gaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:26 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Omdat de deal een compromis was en hardliners niet van compromissen houden.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:08 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
In navolging op bovenstaande, ik weet niet in hoeverre dit klopt maar het wordt gezegd door een editor van The Daily Beast:

[..]

CNN zegt erover:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:24 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Vielen ze Iran 15 jaar geleden binnen?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:28 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

De invasie van Irak kun je moeilijk een succes noemen. En ik zou niet weten waarom een dergelijke actie in Iran beter zou uitpakken.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:27 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

Waarom niet? Het is een betrouwbaardere partner dan Saoedi-Arabië met zijn Al Qaida leger.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:25 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Nee, want Trump heeft gezegd dat er geen militaire avonturen worden gestart. Hij gaat dus niks doen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:28 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

De invasie van Irak kun je moeilijk een succes noemen. En ik zou niet weten waarom een dergelijke actie in Iran beter zou uitpakken.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:30 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

De invasie was een groot succes, de daaropvolgende bezetting wat minder, hoe dan ook heeft niemand het over een invasie van Iran. Als er al militaire acties zullen plaatsvinden hebben we het over luchtaanvallen. Een oorlog met en in Iran heeft weinig zin omdat Iran zeer nationalistisch zijn, het geeft de regering alleen maar de rechtvaardiging voor haar beleid, luchtaanvallen zouden een wat meer positieve impact kunnen hebben voor het land.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:28 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Nogal dubieus.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:33 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Ah ja, wat luchtaanvalletjes en weg is het kernwapenprogramma.

Heerlijk naïef wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:29 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Daarover verschillen we dus flink van mening, KSA is wellicht een ultra-conservatieve staat met een dubieuze reputatie, maar de economie is wel voor een groot deel afhankelijk van Amerika, de huidige machthebbers onder aanvoering van de Kroonprins maken zichzelf nog meer afhankelijk van Amerika, wat dat betreft is KSA voor Amerika een zeer betrouwbare partner.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:33 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Ah ja, wat luchtaanvalletjes en weg is het kernwapenprogramma.

Heerlijk naïef wel.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:37 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het kan het land natuurlijk wel enorm verzwakken.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:45 schreef Belabor het volgende:

[..]

Dus, maar weer een oorlog in het Midden-Oosten in plaats van een diplomatieke oplossing?

Jij draalt altijd maar over de "onstabiele factor" Iran in de regio, naar de oplossing daarvan is volgens jouw de instabiliteit in de regio nog even met een factor vier te verhogen?

Dat je het uit je toetsenbord krijgt...

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:48 schreef grrrrg het volgende:

[..]

De instabiliteit in de regio is kennelijk nog niet genoeg verhoogd met de inval in Irak. Amerikaanse politici zitten in de zakken van Saoedi-Arabië.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:51 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:
Hoe is de situatie waar je niet on speaking terms bent met een potentieel gevaarlijk land in vredesnaam beter dan dat je wel met ze in gesprek bent en vooruitgang boekt? Ik snap dat nog steeds niet. Zal wel aan mij liggen ofzo.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

In het eerste geval kan je ze bombarderen. Dat is beter voor de stabiliteit in de regio.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

In het eerste geval kan je ze bombarderen. Dat is beter voor de stabiliteit in de regio.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:59 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Gebombardeerd worden heeft ook een positief effect voor een land. Zo leerde ik vandaag.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:01 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Kijk maar naar Japan. Je legt er even twee atoombommen op, maar dan heb je ook een industrieel topland.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:01 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Kijk maar naar Japan. Je legt er even twee atoombommen op, maar dan heb je ook een industrieel topland.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:57 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

In het eerste geval kan je ze bombarderen. Dat is beter voor de stabiliteit in de regio.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:10 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Maar Trump wilde juist expliciet geen militaire conflicten toch? Vredesduif Trump?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:10 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Maar Trump wilde juist expliciet geen militaire conflicten toch? Vredesduif Trump?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:37 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Het kan het land natuurlijk wel enorm verzwakken.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:12 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

En wat denk jij dat de reactie van Iran daarop gaat zijn? Kumbaya zingen?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:11 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Bombarderen telt niet als militair conflict als je het doet om stabiliteit en vrede te brengen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:36 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

Dat is wel het minste wat je ervan kunt zeggen. Betaal Cohen die in ruil daarvoor Trump influistert wat te doen. We weten allemaal dat Trump van weinig dingen kaas heeft gegeten en de mening deelt van degene met wie hij het laatst heeft gesproken.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:11 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Bombarderen telt niet als militair conflict als je het doet om stabiliteit en vrede te brengen.

quote:

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told BuzzFeed’s Anthony Cormier last year that in July 2016 he was in Capri, Italy with actor and musician Steve van Zandt and friends.

But I can tell you exclusively that Cohen lied. Sources tell me that Maureen van Zandt, Steve’s wife, has confirmed that even though she was in Rome with her husband at the time for work, they know nothing about Cohen or his statement. They weren’t in Capri.

Cormier wrote: Cohen, 50, said he understands the scrutiny this will bring. He said credit card receipts would prove he stayed in Capri, an island off the Italian coast, but he declined to make those receipts available. Cohen was with family and friends, he said, including the musician and actor Steve Van Zandt. Van Zandt did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

But it’s not true. It’s a total lie. The source confirms: “The E Street band did play in Rome July 16, 2016. But there was no trip to Capri. The band stayed in Rome a few days after the show until the band had to travel to the next gig. The van Zandts never left the city.”

The fact that Cohen has lied about spending time with the Van Zandts should throw into question all his statements about travel to Prague and any where else, as well as the veracity of his passport. He told Cormier he didn’t have a second passport, but even that comes into question now.

I’m a little surprised that BuzzFeed never checked this alibi. They did such good work getting the passport pages. But now all of that work is called into question.

Cohen picked an odd person to be his alibi anyway. van Zandt would not be socializing with anyone from the Trump campaign considering his noted progressive politics– or Bruce Springsteen’s antipathy toward Trump. Very strange, indeed.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:18 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Oh ja, dat had ik even niet scherp.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 05:52:13 QUESTION: Cohen says he was in Italy from July 9 to 17, 2016. But he cashed a check in Florida on July 14, 2016, and—per a source close to the E Street Band—Cohen's claim he was in Capri with Steve van Zandt is false, as van Zandt never went to Capri in July 2016. So what gives? reageer retweet

twitter:

Team_Mitch twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 04:11:03 Thanks for playing, @DonBlankenship. #WVSen https://t.co/TV1ETgQdmu reageer retweet

twitter:

NarcosNetflix twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 04:30:51 Low blow, Mitch. https://t.co/5tk2Kf8X7Q reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:25 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 05:52:13 QUESTION: Cohen says he was in Italy from July 9 to 17, 2016. But he cashed a check in Florida on July 14, 2016, and—per a source close to the E Street Band—Cohen's claim he was in Capri with Steve van Zandt is false, as van Zandt never went to Capri in July 2016. So what gives? reageer retweet

Cohen gaat zo ontzettend nat.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:29 schreef Belabor het volgende:

[..]

Je liegt alleen over waar je was om een vals alibi op te geven.

Die kliek is daarmee direct al ten minste medeplichtig, zo niet zo schuldig als de pest.

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 05:56:39 SOURCE/ @MichaelAvenatti. Two more things: Trump's campaign chose the Singaporean ambassador to be one of 4 ambassadors in the world to breach diplomatic protocol and attend Trump's first foreign policy speech; FSB HQ in Europe is in Budapest, and many Trump aides traveled there. https://t.co/hmq27alDEb reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:38 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

SethAbramson twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 05:56:39 SOURCE/ @MichaelAvenatti. Two more things: Trump's campaign chose the Singaporean ambassador to be one of 4 ambassadors in the world to breach diplomatic protocol and attend Trump's first foreign policy speech; FSB HQ in Europe is in Budapest, and many Trump aides traveled there. https://t.co/hmq27alDEb reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:17 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb geen idee maar we moeten de Europese investeringen en activiteiten van bedrijven in Iran sowieso niet te veel overschatten. Het is niet dat we daar een nieuwe schatkamer voor onze economieeen hebben aangeboord.

[..]

Zoals gezegd fungeert de IRGC als een staat in een staat maar op een gegeven moment zijn historische reden of actuele geopolitiek ook niet meer afdoende om volksopstanden te voorkomen. Zelfs niet voor de IRGC. Maar Qassem Suleimani bijvoorbeeld is vrij populair, sommige peilingen zeggen zelfs populairder dan Rohani, dus van het IRGC zijn we voorlopig nog niet af spijtig genoeg en wat dat betreft.

[..]

[..]

Met dat vrijgekomen geld zou er in lokale supply chains geinvesteerd moeten worden zodat Iran enerzijds voorzienend is en anderzijds aantrekkelijker wordt voor buitenlandse investeerders. Vrij simplistisch maar Iran moet een paar sectoren aanwijzen waar het relatief sterk in is op de regionale en globale markten. Nu stroomt het geld uit de olie-industrie recht in de zakken van de IRGC en corrupte functionarissen. Een uitgebreide supply, en value, chain zorgt voor diversificatie en dat meer Iraniers profiteren van economische groei en mogelijkheden. Tegelijkertijd zou Iran dit soort investeringen onderdeel moeten maken van een Iran 2050 visie waarin het enkele essentiele targets aanwijst waar het de economie en de maatschappij tegen 2050 wilt hebben. Dat is een combinatie van:

Visie
1) Roadmap --> vragen zoals wat maakt Iran uniek, hoe staat het land er nu voor, wat maakt Iran minder (of juist meer) ontwikkeld tav andere landen

2) Targets --> Op basis van die vragen stel je specifieke targets op zoals GDP growth tegen 2025-2030-2050, hoeveelheid SME's, omvang van de middenklasse, PPP groei, en ga zo maar verder.

3) Inclusieve benadering --> Dit betekent dat het een inclusiefe aanpak moet hebben. Structureel. De hele economie moet op zo'n visie worden ingericht. Maar ook elke overheidsinstantie moet samenwerking om de targets van punt 2 te halen.

Vervolgens kan je voor elke sector, of elk specifiek thema (bijvoorbeeld diversificatie of digitale transformatie) een aparte visie opstellen. Maar uiteindelijk zijn ze wel onderdeel van een holistische benadering waarin je een duidelijke visie hebt voor de Iraanse economie.

Ik denk dat we het erover eens zijn dat Iran geen plan heeft voor de economie. Ironisch gezien heeft de IRGC dat wel voor het leger en de regionale ambities. Dan zie je ook wel dat de machtsverhoudingen scheef liggen als daar de belangrijkste invloed vandaan komt hoe om te gaan met de economie en maatschappij.

Europese bedrijven worden niet alleen afgeschrikt door Amerikaanse sancties. Ze schrikken ook omdat je niet een land kan ingaan omdat het alleen groot is, veel potentie heeft, dan zaten we nu met z'n wel in de DRC of Nigeria. Ook landen van ongekende omvang maar net zo zeer problematisch voor buitenlandse investeerders. Het devies bij veel van dit soort landen lijkt dat het geleid wordt door een groep corrupte of anders-geintresseerde machthebbers die zeggen tegen investeerders, kom onze grondstoffen maar halen, en dat is dan ook vrijwel het enige wat er gebeurt. En daar is Iran niet alleen in.

[..]

[..]

Enerzijds zijn het sancties maar anderzijds blijft en is het natuurlijk ook hoe Iran zich opstelt. Als je zelf geen plan hebt kan je ook niet verwachten dat die buitenlandse investeerders schijt hebben aan Amerikaanse sancties.

quote:

Democrats and good government groups hailed the measure, which puts Ohio in line with states like Iowa, Arizona, Washington and California, also states that draw lines in a bipartisan or nonpartisan fashion.

"Tonight, Ohio voters sent a clear message to politicians and special interest groups across the country who continue to use gerrymandering to rig voting maps by choosing their voters to maximize partisan political advantage," said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ohio voters pass redistricting reform initiative

Slecht nieuws voor de GOP.

[..]

quote:

[...]

So why would the Ohio Republican Party — which has controlled the governorship, dominates the state legislature, and drew the maps of its dreams in 2010 — sign on to a deal that could limit its power to gerrymander in the future?

The answer lies in the plan itself. Under it, the legislature would have to try to come up with a new map supported by a big bipartisan majority. If they fail, however, a one-party map could still pass — but it would now expire after four years, rather than the current 10.

Reformers see this as a clear improvement on the status quo, which gave the minority party little recourse. The Ohio GOP, though, sees it mostly as a way to preserve that status quo — fearing that if they didn’t cut a deal here, a more radical measure could have gained support and passed through a separate ballot initiative.

“I think it largely enshrines the process that we have,” says Republican state Sen. Matt Huffman. “It still leaves it in the hands of the majority party in the legislature, because people elected the majority party to make these decisions. But it also enshrines the concept of minority rights.”

[...]

https://www.vox.com/2018/(...)dering-redistricting

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 09:27 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Maar niet alle compromissen zijn de juiste compromissen, het is prima dat je met elkaar onderhandelt, maar dat betekent niet dat dit een Goede deal was dat is zelfs niet wat veel tegenstanders van Trump zijn besluit zeggen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden. Ook kon Iran rustig doorgaan met ICBM's maken. Niks over steun aan terreur groepen was geregeld. Daarentegen konden ze meer dan 100 miljard in frozen assets weer in hun fundamentalistische zakken steken om die aan te wenden voor militaire zaken. Het was een compleet bezopen deal dat als enige mogelijkheid door de westerse landen aan hun publiek werd verkocht.

quote:

Een eventuele deal met Iran moet bestaan uit:

1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop of financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

Zo pak je schurkenstaten aan met steentijd opvattingen over overspel en homoseksuelen en andere grove schendingen van de mensenrechten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden. Ook kon Iran rustig doorgaan met ICBM's maken. Niks over steun aan terreur groepen was geregeld. Daarentegen konden ze meer dan 100 miljard in frozen assets weer in hun fundamentalistische zakken steken om die aan te wenden voor militaire zaken. Het was een compleet bezopen deal dat als enige mogelijkheid door de westerse landen aan hun publiek werd verkocht.

Een eventuele deal met Iran moet bestaan uit:

1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop op financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

Zo pak je schurkenstaten aan met steentijd opvattingen over overspel en homoseksuelen en andere grove schendingen van de mensenrechten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden

quote:

Een eventuele deal met Iran moet bestaan uit:

1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop op financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:32 schreef Chewie het volgende:
powelpoint

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:25 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Dit is allemaal compleet waardeloos zonder bron.

[..]

En wat zit er voor Iran zelf in bij zo'n deal?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:35 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Is dit nou een opzettelijke typo?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:
1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop op financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:35 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Alstu http://www.washingtoninst(...)he-iran-nuclear-deal

quote:

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden. Ook kon Iran rustig doorgaan met ICBM's maken. Niks over steun aan terreur groepen was geregeld. Daarentegen konden ze meer dan 100 miljard in frozen assets weer in hun fundamentalistische zakken steken om die aan te wenden voor militaire zaken. Het was een compleet bezopen deal dat als enige mogelijkheid door de westerse landen aan hun publiek werd verkocht.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:35 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Alstu http://www.washingtoninst(...)he-iran-nuclear-deal

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:27 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, als ik Iran was dan zou ik meteen akkoord gaan. Wat een feest.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:38 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Ik lees niets over:

[..]

Terug in dat verhaal, maar dat zal wel aan mij liggen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

Zo pak je schurkenstaten aan met steentijd opvattingen over overspel en homoseksuelen en andere grove schendingen van de mensenrechten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:40 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Eigenlijk is de enige conclusie in dat stuk dat de 24 dagen die ze hebben tussen aankondiging en inspectie wellicht onvoldoende waren om een geheime faciliteit schoon te maken, maar alsnog genoeg om allerlei andere dingen (ongespecificeerd) wel te verbergen.

En omdat het kan, gebeurt het.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:43 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

In een correcte deal bestaan er geen geheime sites of faciliteiten

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:43 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Je weet helemaal niet of er geheime sites of faciliteiten bestaan.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden. Ook kon Iran rustig doorgaan met ICBM's maken. Niks over steun aan terreur groepen was geregeld. Daarentegen konden ze meer dan 100 miljard in frozen assets weer in hun fundamentalistische zakken steken om die aan te wenden voor militaire zaken. Het was een compleet bezopen deal dat als enige mogelijkheid door de westerse landen aan hun publiek werd verkocht.

Een eventuele deal met Iran moet bestaan uit:

1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop op financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

Zo pak je schurkenstaten aan met steentijd opvattingen over overspel en homoseksuelen en andere grove schendingen van de mensenrechten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:45 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Daarom dat ik in mijn lijstje ook had gemeld dat inspecteurs alles in Iran moeten kunnen bezoeken, wanneer en waar ze ook maar willen en niet van die domme tijdlimieten om van alles te verbergen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:46 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En ook dit voor Noord-Korea? Trump moet natruurlijk wèl met een deal terugkomen uit dat land. Iets anders is een afgang.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:15 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Buigen en tegemoet komen alle wensen van Netanyahu en Trump.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 10:58 schreef AnneX het volgende:
Afgezien van alle (verhitte) discussies hierboven over midden oosten...en verkeerde beslissingen.

Hóe flikt iemand het - op dit niveau (?) van de maatschappij, ook Manafort bijv. - om meer dan éen paspoort te hebben.😳
Dat is toch voor criminelen, drugs travellers en mob.

En wat fraai hoe Avenatti zich vastbijt in de financiën...follow the money.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:39 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Van mij hoeven ze niet akkoord te gaan hoor. Rook die ayatollah's uit het paleolithicum maar uit. De bevolking komt vanzelf succesvol in actie

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:41 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Ja! Mike Pence zal daar echt hard tegen op willen treden!

quote:

Fox News’ Shepard Smith made a point to clarify his guest’s reporting on President Donald Trump’s decision Tuesday to violate the Iran nuclear deal and withdraw the United States from the landmark foreign policy agreement. When speaking with Gordon Chang, an author and foreign affairs journalist who regularly contributes to Fox News, Smith interrupted him when he said Trump and “gotten out of the Iran deal.”

“You can’t really get out of the Iran deal, though,” Smith said. “There’s no provision from that. You can make a decision to now violate the terms of the deal that you were a party to, but ‘pulling out’ is a bit of a misnomer.”

Trump fulfilled one of his main campaign promises on Tuesday when he announced that his administration would impose “the highest level of economic sanctions” on Iran, violating its involvement in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in which the Middle Eastern country agreed to curb its nuclear development program in exchange for the lifting of strict economic sanctions.

The decision broke with the United States’ European allies. Leaders of Britain, France and Germany released a statement after the decision expressing concern and their continued commitment to the JCPOA.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:03 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:
Shepard Smith (FoxNews): Trump Didn't Pull Out Of Iran Deal; He Violated It (HuffPo)

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:04 schreef klappernootopreis het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt er op dat ze bij Fox news Trump een beetje zat zijn..

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 12:06:26 Priceless = Watching all of the companies that sent money to the LLC slush fund come up with different alleged reasons for hiring Mr. Cohen – “accounting advice,” “real estate consulting,” “insight,” etc. Who knew Mr. Cohen was such a brilliant renaissance man? #nonsense #basta reageer retweet

quote:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is apologizing for comments he made on Monday that Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) reported request to have Donald Trump stay away from his funeral is “ridiculous.” Hatch pointed out that Trump is not only the president of the United States but also “a very good man.”

McCain, 81, was diagnosed with brain cancer last July and has been discussing his final plans, including his funeral. Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have been asked to do eulogies, and Hatch suggested the 45th president should also give one. “He would be a very interesting speaker and would do a good job for John,” Hatch told CNN.

Hatch changed his tune on Tuesday after McCain’s daughter, Meghan, called him out on ABC’s “The View.” “I’d like everybody to take a collective breath and chill out on my dad for a second — especially Orrin Hatch,” she said on the show.

When Hatch heard this, he realized the error of his ways. “I felt badly. I had spoken out of turn,” the Utah Republican told reporters, according to CNN. “I felt like I shouldn’t have said what I said.”

SPOILER

Hatch also sent a letter to McCain apologizing for butting in regarding the funeral plans and for suggesting that McCain would not return to the Senate, according to The Washington Post.

Hatch’s comments lauding the current president may have struck a nerve with McCain’s family, considering that in 2015, Trump dismissed McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam by saying, “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:39 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Van mij hoeven ze niet akkoord te gaan hoor. Rook die ayatollah's uit het paleolithicum maar uit. De bevolking komt vanzelf succesvol in actie

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:22 schreef Tocadisco het volgende:

[..]

Net als in Irak zeker ...

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:22 schreef Tocadisco het volgende:
Net als in Irak zeker ...

quote:

AT&T confirmed Tuesday evening that it paid President Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen in 2017 for "insights into understanding the new administration."
The payments were revealed in a document published by Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti Tuesday afternoon.

Avenatti alleged that Essential Consultants, a shell company set up by Cohen before the election to pay Daniels, was paid by several corporations, including AT&T. At the time, AT&T was seeking government approval for its acquisition of Time Warner, CNN's parent company.

A document released by Avenatti stated that "Essential received $200,000 in four separate payments of $50,000 in late 2017 and early 2018 from AT&T."

AT&T disputed this timeline.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:10 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 12:06:26 Priceless = Watching all of the companies that sent money to the LLC slush fund come up with different alleged reasons for hiring Mr. Cohen – “accounting advice,” “real estate consulting,” “insight,” etc. Who knew Mr. Cohen was such a brilliant renaissance man? #nonsense #basta reageer retweet

Trollmeister Avenatti!

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:42 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
Essential Consultants blijkt dus veel meer te zijn dan een schijnbedrijf om Daniels af te betalen. Essential Consultants was Cohen's entiteit om zijn pay for play gelden op te ontvangen. En nu weten we dat Cohen's hele administratie in beslag is genomen en zelfs Avenatti weet hoe de geldstromen lopen. Geen wonder dat Cohen en Trump zo woedend waren na die inval.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:43 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]



Die man is goud.

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op zondag 06-05-2018 om 19:55:45 Listen up: Not all cases are the same nor is the winning strategy. Here, the constant media/PR pressure has forced Trump, Cohen, et al. to make a series of huge errors and to make damaging admissions helpful to our case. This was not by accident. And we’re not changing. #basta reageer retweet

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 01:09:42 Mr. Giuliani - you just called me a "pretty unsuccessful lawyer" and stated that you "can't remember a case he's ever had that meant anything." 1st, you obviously can't remember much. 2nd, check my bio and you will find over a BILLION worth of verdicts and settlements. #dumb reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:44 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Dit gaat waarschijnlijk heel; slecht aflopen voor Trump.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:03 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Nee hoor, hij heeft voor zichzelf al tientallen blanco pardonforumulieren klaarliggen, honderden miljarden op buitenlandse rekeningen gestort gekregen voor de boek- en filmrechten van "Mijn Strijd (Tegen De Corrupte Media)" + 1 stuks "Slightly Used But 100% Real Ex-First Lady. (With T-Univ Realness Certificate and 1 Set Semi-Oriental Parents (Complete!))" en een stuk of 8 builenlandse paspoorten van landen die hem graag als staatsburger willen. (Ik heb ze al per mail geprobeerd te waarschuwen, tot nu toe helaas geen reakties.)

Die man is hartstikke binnen... wat hij zijn hele leven nog nooit 100% geweest is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:04 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

"Mijn Strijd" lijkt me een beladen titel.

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 13:14:55 And now Novartis claims they hired Mr. Cohen for “healthcare” matters (they paid him approx $1 Million). Wow - he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen. #basta reageer retweet

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 13:14:55 And now Novartis claims they hired Mr. Cohen for “healthcare” matters (they paid him approx $1 Million). Wow - he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen. #basta reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:37 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Ik zou nog zeggen dat ze ook voor de muur moeten gaan betalen, als je toch bezig bent.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:43 schreef Ulx het volgende:
First Mueller convict reports to prison


De eerste is naar de gevangenis dankzij Mueller.

quote:

A consultant for white-collar convicts facing prison, John Webster, said someone serving a short sentence would normally be sent to a federal prison camp. However, the Dutch attorney isn’t eligible for that sort of minimum-security facility, which has few physical obstacles to keep inmates from walking away.

“He’s not a U.S. citizen, so he cannot go to a camp,” Webster said.

The consultant said the other prisoners at Allenwood’s low-security facility were unlikely to give van der Zwaan any trouble, or pay much attention to him at all.

“It’s not a bad place,” Webster said. “He’s going to be safe, not raped, abused, beaten up or anything along those lines. … He’s going to be just an administrative headache.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:37 schreef Ulx het volgende:
AT&T confirms it paid Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's company

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:19 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

Dit neigt wel erg sterk naar corruptie. Dat is heel dat lobby circus wel maar zo in het openbaar is toch wel van een andere orde.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 13:24:20 The Republican Party had a great night. Tremendous voter energy and excitement, and all candidates are those who have a great chance of winning in November. The Economy is sooo strong, and with Nancy Pelosi wanting to end the big Tax Cuts and Raise Taxes, why wouldn’t we win? reageer retweet

quote:

“It’s not a bad place,” Webster said. “He’s going to be safe, not raped, abused, beaten up or anything along those lines… like, you know, if he was black. Or Asian. Or Arab-looking. Or maybe Mexican. Or not wearing the American Flag. Or female. Or not praying to God-Emperor Donald I at least five times a day. (We even provide compasses!) In fact, he'll hardly notice he's in jail."

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 13:38:45 The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials? reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:49 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:
"News about me is negative (Fake)"

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:04 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:

[..]

"Mijn Strijd" lijkt me een beladen titel.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 12:48 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Hij is gewoon veel beter in trollen dan Trump. Hij geeft dat ook gewoon toe.

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op zondag 06-05-2018 om 19:55:45 Listen up: Not all cases are the same nor is the winning strategy. Here, the constant media/PR pressure has forced Trump, Cohen, et al. to make a series of huge errors and to make damaging admissions helpful to our case. This was not by accident. And we’re not changing. #basta reageer retweet

en deze is ook zo goed:

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 01:09:42 Mr. Giuliani - you just called me a "pretty unsuccessful lawyer" and stated that you "can't remember a case he's ever had that meant anything." 1st, you obviously can't remember much. 2nd, check my bio and you will find over a BILLION worth of verdicts and settlements. #dumb reageer retweet

En gewoon keurig netjes. Geen slappe puberale scheldwoorden zoals Trump nodig heeft. Gewoon op basis van feiten je tegenstander fileren.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 13:19 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

Dit neigt wel erg sterk naar corruptie. Dat is heel dat lobby circus wel maar zo in het openbaar is toch wel van een andere orde.

quote:

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Viktor Vekselberg, chairman of asset manager Renova Group, is an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, and last month the Trump administration placed him on a list of sanctioned Russians for activities including election interference. The purpose of the payments, which predate the sanctions, and the nature of the business relationship between Vekselberg and Cohen is unclear.
The scrutiny of the payments could add to the legal troubles for Cohen, whose home and office were raided last month as part of a criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan. In court documents, the prosecutors said at least part of their inquiry stemmed from a referral from Mueller's office.

The questions asked of Vekselberg suggest that Mueller investigators have been examining some of Cohen's business relationships as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Vekselberg is one of two Russian oligarchs the FBI stopped earlier this year after their private jets landed in New York-area airports as part of Mueller's investigation.
Investigators also asked Vekselberg about donations the head of his US affiliate made to Trump's inaugural fund and campaign funds, sources said.
The attorney for Stormy Daniels -- the porn star who received $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair she had with Trump a decade ago -- produced information Tuesday evening that appears to add further details to CNN's reporting. Michael Avenatti alleged that Cohen received half a million dollars from a company affiliated with Vekselberg in the months after the presidential election.

Avenatti alleged the $500,000 went into the bank account for Essential Consultants, a shell company that Cohen set up before the election that was used to pay Daniels. Avenatti added that the payments occurred from January to August 2017.
CNN has reviewed documents that appear to show these payments. CNN has not independently authenticated the documents.
Prosecutors have not accused Cohen of wrongdoing in regard to the payments or any other business dealings. (....)

quote:

Maar wat PVV-Kamerlid Raymond de Roon betreft wordt de atoomdeal inderdaad naar de geschiedenisboekjes verwezen. „De Irandeal is onder valse voorwendsels tot stand gekomen en schiet daardoor op gevaarlijke wijze te kort”, vindt hij. „Deze deal moet van tafel.”

Ook een woordvoerder van de SGP laat weten dat de partij Trump steunt omdat in hun ogen ’kwaadaardige regimes’ als Iran niet vertrouwd kunnen worden.

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 14:30:56 I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 07:23 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:
Goed gedaan Trump! De ayatollah's stonden op wankelen. De bevolking van Iran is de onderdrukking en het stenigen van overspelige vrouwen plus het ophangen van homoseksuelen al lang beu. Het regime werd nog geholpen met die vele miljarden die Obama hun schonk. Hopelijk is het nu met nieuwe sancties snel gedaan met dat fundamentalistisch Iran en kunnen we daar binnen een paar jaar een seculier Iran gaan verwelkomen met meer respect voor mensenrechten en minder terreur in de regio

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:31 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:
Ook in Nederland heeft men een mening over het door Trump beëindigen van de Irandeal. Van links tot rechts is men teleurgesteld en hoopt men op voortzetting door de Europese partners, op twee uitzonderingen na. Allereerst natuurlijk onze Israëlische infiltrant, maar daarnaast is ook de partij die nota bene een theocratie nastreeft tegen deals met het theocratische regime in Iran.

[..]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/(...)eal-pvv-uitzondering

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:38 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

FvD is toch ook tegen die deal?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:38 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

FvD is toch ook tegen die deal?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:45 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, dat zou je wel verwachten. Hun Twitteraccounts hebben het echter druk met de verzwegen terroristische aanslag in Den Haag, en in de Telegraaf reageren ze dus ook niet.

twitter:

JohnBrennan twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 23:44:42 Today, Donald Trump simultaneously lied about the Iranian nuclear deal, undermined global confidence in US commitments, alienated our closest allies, strengthened Iranian hawks, & gave North Korea more reason to keep its nukes. This madness is a danger to our national security. reageer retweet

quote:

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal will weaken U.S. relationships around the world and create problems that U.S. foreign policy will be grappling with for years, but it’s also a boon for the U.S. rival that American intelligence said helped Trump get elected: Russia.

Trump’s move will likely lead toward progress on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s two chief goals: splintering the U.S.-led alliance of democratic powers that currently dominates global affairs and fortifying Russia’s alternative network, which includes Iran and its partners across the Middle East.

A split between the U.S. and its three most powerful allies — France, Germany and the U.K. — was clear immediately after Trump’s announcement. The leaders of the latter three countries issued a joint statement expressing “regret and concern” and saying they want to sustain the Iran agreement, which promised Iran some freedom from international sanctions in exchange for limits on and guarantees of transparency about its nuclear development. They reiterated what Trump’s own military advisers and new secretary of state have said: Iran is abiding by the deal.

“America moves further away from our key allies, which has implications that are extremely important and detrimental,” said Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), a prominent member of the House Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. committed to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, Germany, France, Russia, China and the U.K. All the other countries plan to stay in the accord.

The U.S. and Europe have always had disputes. But the worry is that something fundamental is shifting.

Trump’s reneging on past U.S. commitments on Iran and climate change, along with his willingness to wage a trade war with Europe and continuously misrepresent NATO, has made it hard for America’s foreign partners to think he truly sees them as friends.

That the president made his Tuesday announcement despite warnings from his own party’s top national security voices and independent experts reminds other countries that they can’t assume that U.S. supporters of traditional diplomacy and international norms will be able to keep American relationships on track. The implicit promise of an experienced, largely bureaucratic foreign service is that it brings professionalism and longterm thinking to whatever policy an elected official wants to pursue ― and on Tuesday, U.S. diplomats didn’t even have a plan for next steps after Trump’s speech.

The Europeans would prefer that the U.S. continue to operate as it traditionally did, said Federiga Bindi, a former official in the Italian government and a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “I think with [the Iran deal announcement] they start to see who Trump really is. The U.S. is never going to recover from that.”

The Trump administration did try to soften the blow of the announcement. The president spoke of developing future Iran policy alongside foreign partners. And a White House statement said foreign companies that began work in Iran under the terms of the accord ― including some huge European firms ― would have a grace period to exit before potentially being hit with U.S. sanctions that Trump wants to reapply.

But that only underscored how U.S. priorities now diverge from those of its longtime allies. European leaders are committed to the Iran deal because they believe it prevents the spread of nuclear weapons and they know Iran will not stay in unless it receives some economic benefit. So now those same leaders, Bindi said, must try to shield their companies from U.S. sanctions by, for instance, helping them create ways to do business in Iran that can’t be disturbed by American regulators. But there’s only so much time in the day. It’s unlikely that European officials will focus much on trying to craft the “better deal” Trump pledged, particularly because the president didn’t seem to care about the months of work they and their American counterparts put into negotiations for side agreements that he had suggested might help convince him to stay in the deal.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin began his fourth term in office this week with a chance to show that unlike the U.S., Russia does abide by international promises like the Iran agreement.

The accord was useful for Russia because it wanted to avoid more countries gaining nuclear weapons and thereby making one of its own assets less valuable. “It never really was comfortable with Iran’s potential for breakout,” said Michael Stephens of the Royal United Services Institute in London.

But a world in which U.S. credibility is in the gutter and the deal is in tatters is hardly a nightmare scenario for Putin.

As the U.S. puts more economic pressure on Iran, the Islamic republic will find it harder to acquire friends. That leaves Tehran with Moscow. Though the two are uneasy partners, they have cooperated to combat international initiatives that might challenge their own interests. In Syria, for instance, they fight side-by-side and present a united front in global organizations to defend their mutual friend Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Hard-liners in Tehran want to deepen that relationship. In the process, they seek to boost the sense of righteous resistance to the West that keeps aggressive nationalism strong among their base and ensure that their country remains a Putin-style autocratic society, rather than gaining more exposure to the Western liberties that many ordinary Iranians have clamored for.

A more isolated and paranoid Iran means “the Russians gain geostrategically,” said Reza Marashi, the research director at the National Iranian American Council and a former State Department official.

The United States, he added, is helping reinforce a perception that the Russians want to strengthen: that today Washington may hold sway in the southern half of the Middle East, but the north ― including key areas in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey ― is under Moscow’s influence.

And that plays precisely into what Putin deeply desires ― to make Russia, 27 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, once again look like an equal to the U.S.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:50 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

JohnBrennan twitterde op dinsdag 08-05-2018 om 23:44:42 Today, Donald Trump simultaneously lied about the Iranian nuclear deal, undermined global confidence in US commitments, alienated our closest allies, strengthened Iranian hawks, & gave North Korea more reason to keep its nukes. This madness is a danger to our national security. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:55 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

Daar had ik nog niet eens over nagedacht idd maar NK zal nu ook wel denken dat elke deal met de VS geen flikker waard is.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:32 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 14:30:56 I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 15:00 schreef Szura het volgende:

[..]

Moet toch een verrassing voor die personen zijn dat Trump de president is

quote:

A group of 109 retired and former career and non-career U.S. ambassadors sent the Senate a letter Wednesday to express “serious concern” over the nomination of Gina Haspel to be CIA director due to her controversial involvement in the agency’s torture program.

“We have no reason to question Ms. Haspel’s credentials as both a leader and an experienced intelligence professional. Yet she is also emblematic of choices made by certain American officials in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 that dispensed with our ideals and international commitments to the ultimate detriment of our national security,” the ambassadors, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, wrote in advance of Haspel’s confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“What we do know, based on credible, and as yet uncontested reporting, leaves us of the view that [Ms. Haspel] should be disqualified from holding cabinet rank.” They’re referring specifically to the fact that Haspel ran a black site facility in Thailand in 2002 where at least one detainee was reportedly waterboarded. She was also connected to the destruction of video evidence of torture sessions.

The use of torture as a tool to maintain power goes against American values, the ambassadors argued. Haspel’s connection to torture, even if it existed in the past, will be welcomed by authoritarian leaders worldwide, “as it will allow them to proclaim, however cynically, that their behavior is no different from ours.”

SPOILER

The same number of retired generals and admirals also penned a letter to senators last month laying out their issues with Haspel’s nomination. The torture program, they said, was “rife with mismanagement and abuse.”

“Individuals in the service of our country, even at the lowest levels, have a duty to refuse to carry out such actions,” they added.

She reportedly sought to withdraw her name from consideration, leading President Donald Trump to defend her record. “In these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want Out because she is too tough on terror,” Trump tweeted. “Win Gina!”

Some senators, such as Jon Tester (D-Mont.), have already revealed they plan to vote against Haspel’s nomination. “I’m not a huge fan of waterboarding,” he said Tuesday.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 15:21 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
South Korea's KAI says paid firm of Trump's lawyer $150,000 for accounting advice

Echt van alle markten thuis die Cohen.

twitter:

MichaelAvenatti twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 15:24:12 Avenatti calls on Trump, Cohen to release bank statements https://t.co/k2LIu1gXSD reageer retweet

quote:

"Michael Cohen appears to be selling access to the president of the United States," Avenatti said Wednesday.

He told "Morning Joe" that he had no new information on possible payments to other women. But he raised the specter of pay-to-play corruption in the payments tied to AT&T and Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis.

"The bigger picture is that we don't know as we sit here today the full extent of the deposits," he said. "Where did the money go? Did all of it go to Michael Cohen? Did some of it go back to the Trump Organization? Did some of it ultimately find its way to the president?"

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 14:55 schreef Ulx het volgende:
And the winner is.....

Trump’s Iran Deal Exit Is A Win For Russia


[..]

quote:

...Trump and Netanyahu can’t do this alone, of course. Tomorrow Netanyahu will fly to a previously scheduled meeting with Putin. Netanyahu will tell Putin that Russia and the U.S. now have a once in a century chance to wipe away dysfunctional borders and redraw the map of the Middle East into mutually acceptable spheres of influence. Russia has its own strategic interests in Syria: It wants to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power and project military influence in the region through its air and naval bases there. But Netanyahu will tell him that they are not necessarily inimical to U.S. or Israeli interests. Putin may want to stand by Iran to the bitter end, but that seems unlikely; the Russian leader is in the Middle East as an opportunity seeker, not a bodyguard for the Ayatollah or even the Syrian president at any price.

A Middle East without a “Death to America” government in Tehran — or a Hezbollah in Lebanon — has been a key U.S. interest since the administration of Ronald Reagan. Mediterranean seaports in Syria have been a Russian dream since the time of Peter the Great. And brokering a deal like this has been Netanyahu’s goal from the day Donald Trump entered the White House.

Back in October, Ben Israel, the retired general, dismissed the Trump-Netanyahu plan to end the Iranian nuclear deal as impractical. “They are two people who have their own opinion,” he said. “In both cases, it is not shared by their professional advisers and intelligence communities.” That is still true. But what Trump and Putin have to consider is a bigger picture. Expert opinion is important, but Netanyahu is betting that sometimes great deals just take two (or even three).

quote:

Former CIA Director John Brennan ripped President Donald Trump over his decision on Tuesday to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear treaty. “This is not just foolish, this is dangerous,” he said on NBC News and MSNBC. “And Mr. Trump has repeatedly misrepresented the facts of the nuclear deal with Iran. He’s basically lied to the American people and lied to the world about what that deal entails.”

Brennan was not alone in criticizing the move. The leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Germany issued a joint statement expressing “regret and concern.” In Iran, one lawmaker said “Trump does not have the mental capacity to deal with issues,” and members of parliament burned a paper version of an American flag and a symbolic copy of the Iran deal.

Brennan has been a constant critic of the president since leaving office on Trump’s 2017 inauguration. In March, he slammed Trump for hailing the Justice Department’s decision to fire former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe just two days before retirement. “You may scapegoat Andy McCabe,” Brennan wrote at the time. “But you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.”

Earlier this year, Brennan described himself as “nonpartisan” and told NPR he had respect for both Democratic and Republican presidents he has served. Trump, however, was different. “I think he is dishonest. He lacks integrity. He has very questionable ethics and morality. And he views the world through a prism of how it’s going to help Donald Trump,” Brennan said. “And I just think that he has not fulfilled the responsibilities of the president of the United States office.”

quote:

HONG KONG — The immediate causes of the recent diplomatic breakthrough on the Korean Peninsula are well known: stronger international sanctions against North Korea, approved by even China and Russia, and President Trump’s bellicose response to the recent intensification of nuclear and missile tests under Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader since 2011.

But a more fundamental driver is being overlooked: China’s growing ambition to dominate East Asia. Mr. Kim’s apparent move to reconcile with his South Korean counterpart, President Moon Jae-in, is above all a gambit to get closer to America to keep China in check. He hopes to reduce North Korea’s overarching economic dependence on China and curb Beijing’s aspirations to control the future of the Korean Peninsula. After another surprise meeting between Mr. Kim and President Xi Jinping of China on Tuesday, the second in two months, the Trump administration announced on Wednesday that North Korea would release three American prisoners.

The regime’s survival and security have long been the Kim family’s top priority, with political independence not far behind; those are the prime reasons it has sought to develop North Korea’s nuclear weapons and long-range missile capability. That purpose has also been served by political purges, notably the killing in late 2013 of Mr. Kim’s uncle Jang Song-thaek, who was suspected of entertaining especially close relations with China, and in early 2017 of Mr. Kim’s half brother Kim Jong-nam, another Beijing protégé and once an heir apparent to Kim Jong-il, the country’s previous leader and Mr. Kim’s father.

Now that these pressing existential objectives seem to have been satisfied, economic development has become the crux of the regime’s long-term stability. It is no coincidence, for example, that last month the Workers’ Party of Korea abruptly decided to abandon its well-established policy of byungjin — the simultaneous advancement of the country’s military, particularly its nuclear program, and its economy — to refocus entirely on economic development.

But how best to do that? With more than 90 percent of North Korea’s trade already dependent on China, moving even closer to Beijing would risk turning North Korea into an appendage or tributary state — a dream for some Chinese nationalists but the nightmare of almost every North Korean. Integrating with South Korea would undermine the primacy of the Kim family in the North. In theory, Russia could help reduce North Korea’s dependence on China for oil and gas, but little else. So Mr. Kim’s best option to boost the North Korean economy is to diversify its partnerships and open up to the West and Japan.

Moving the country closer to the United States and further from China is also sound strategy from a security point of view. China may not openly threaten North Korea’s independence, but its ambition to better control its near abroad — in Southeast Asia, around the South China Sea, through its One Belt, One Road initiative — can only breed serious suspicions in Pyongyang. (There seems to have been no talk of reactivating the old Sino-North Korean alliance or the two countries’ long-forgotten mutual defense treaty.) Mr. Kim’s overture to Mr. Trump to fend off China today is not unlike Mao’s reaching out to President Richard Nixon to hold back the Soviet threat in the early 1970s.

This development, however implausible or sudden it may seem, should come as no surprise, especially in a part of the world where state leaders tend to be realists in international affairs. And Mr. Kim may be the most realist of them all.

None of this is to say that China will soon be “sidelined,” as some have speculated. Beijing will always be part of the picture, and sometimes part of the problem. The point is simply that China’s neighbors are repositioning themselves as it becomes stronger and tries to establish hierarchical or clientelist relations with them. Some, like Cambodia and Laos, comply. Others, like Vietnam and Singapore, try to push back or at least rebalance. North Korea, too, must recalibrate and hedge.

It does so from a special posture, of course, because of its nuclear program and diplomatic isolation — and because of many remaining uncertainties about its intentions, including over a matter as fundamental as what it means by “denuclearization.” Still, Mr. Kim’s unexpected offer to meet President Trump and Mr. Trump’s quick acceptance suggest that both leaders see in this moment an opportunity for some measure of détente. About that much at least they are correct.

The Pleasure and Pain of Being the World’s 5th-Largest Economy
Lifting sanctions, normalizing relations, starting to trade — these things may not materialize soon, or ever. But the strategic landscape on the Korean Peninsula already has changed, and it has changed in favor of America and its allies.

Mr. Kim’s two sudden and unannounced meetings with Mr. Xi recently are, more than anything, a remarkable diplomatic show, mainly designed to allow China to save face. During the five years that he has been in power, Mr. Xi has seemed to largely ignore Mr. Kim; he may now regret that approach. As China’s power has risen, America’s has declined, persuading North Korea to move closer to the United States and seek from it security guarantees.

Skeptics will doubt that North Korea, given its ideology, can really move in this direction; optimists may now see the reunification of the Korean Peninsula on the horizon. I think that North Korea’s one-party system will remain in place for a long while and that in the meantime the country’s human rights situation will continue to be dire. Nor will improved relations between the two Koreas, or even the conclusion of a peace treaty, lead to any kind of reunification. Any such thing would be suicidal for Pyongyang and too costly for Seoul.

Yet I also think that this moment is indeed a rare opportunity for both America and America’s allies to improve relations with North Korea — and work with it to establish a new balance of power in Northeast Asia that can offset China’s ambition to dominate the region and better serve the interests of the West.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 11:24 schreef Trumpinator het volgende:

[..]

Het westen liet zich gewoon foppen door Iran. Het westen kon niet eens volgens de deal inspecteren waar ze wilden. Ook kon Iran rustig doorgaan met ICBM's maken. Niks over steun aan terreur groepen was geregeld. Daarentegen konden ze meer dan 100 miljard in frozen assets weer in hun fundamentalistische zakken steken om die aan te wenden voor militaire zaken. Het was een compleet bezopen deal dat als enige mogelijkheid door de westerse landen aan hun publiek werd verkocht.

Een eventuele deal met Iran moet bestaan uit:

1. Ondubbelzinnige erkenning van Israel als bestaand land.
2. Directe stop op financiering van terreur groepen als Hamas en Hezbollah
3. Alleen kernenergie voor vreedzame doelen toestaan
4. Geen ICBM'n ontwikkelen
5. Robuuste controle op dit alles, wanneer de controleurs willen en waar ze willen.
6. Pas opheffing sancties na enige tijd van goed gedrag.

Zo pak je schurkenstaten aan met steentijd opvattingen over overspel en homoseksuelen en andere grove schendingen van de mensenrechten.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:13 schreef Re het volgende:
Welke acute bedreiging heeft Iran eigenlijk?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 15:48 schreef rockstah het volgende:

[..]

Kan ook de andere kant op gaan hè:

[..]

https://www.bloomberg.com(...)mp-have-bigger-goals

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:13 schreef Re het volgende:
Welke acute bedreiging heeft Iran eigenlijk?

SPOILER

april 1984: "Iran is snel op weg naar een kernwapen dat ze misschien al in 1986 zullen hebben" - Jane's Intelligence Defense Weekly report

juni 1984: "Iran heeft over 7 jaar een atoomwapen" - senator Alan Cranston

april 1989: Irak waarschuwt dat Iran bijna een atoombom heeft

eind 1991: "Iran heeft met grote zekerheid alle of vrijwel alle componenten voor het bouwen van twee of drie atoombommen in handen" - CIA en Amerikaans Congres

januari 1992: "Het duurt nog slechts vijf jaar voor Iran zelfstandig een atoombom kan bouwen" - Benjamin Netanyahu

februari 1992: "Iran heeft dit jaar nog twee of drie atoombommen" - rapport Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden

maart 1992: "Iran heeft vier atoombommen van Rusland gekregen" - Arms Control Reporter

april 1992: "Iran heeft tegen het jaar 2000 een atoombom" - CIA (later bijgesteld tot 2003)

mei 1992: "Iran heeft tenminste twee vermiste bommen uit Kazachstan" - The European

juni 1992: "Tenzij Iran's nucleaire mogelijkheden worden verstoord, heeft het land voor het einde van het decennium een kernwapen" - Herzl Budinger, generaal-majoor IAF

oktober 1992: "Iran heeft in 1999 een atoombom" - Shimon Peres

november 1992: "Iran heeft in 1999 een atoombom" - New York Times

december 1992: "Over twee tot drie jaar kan een Iraanse atoombom een serieus probleem zijn" - Robert Gates, directeur CIA

januari 1993: "Iran geeft 800 miljoen dollar per jaar uit aan de ontwikkeling van kernwapens" - Gad Yaacobi, Israelisch VN-afgezant

februari 1993: "Het zal nog acht tot tien jaar duren voordat Iran een atoombom heeft, maar met buitenlandse hulp zou dit eerder kunnen" - James Woolsey, CIA-chef

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Noord-Korea voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - U.S. News & World Report, New York Times, Paris Match & Foreign Report

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Zwitserland voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - AFP

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met het Franse CKD voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - Intelligence Newsletter

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Russische wetenschappers in Kazachstan voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - diverse andere media

eind 1993: "Iran heeft binnen acht tot tien jaar nucleaire wapens" - Defense News en de National Defense University

januari 1995: "Iran zou tegen 2003 een bom kunnen hebben" - John Holum, directeur U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

januari 1995: "Iran heeft in minder dan vijf jaar een atoombom" - William Perry, minister van Defensie

begin 1995: "Iran is veel dichter bij een atoombom dan werd gedacht en heeft er misschien binnen vijf jaar een" - New York Times

medio 1995: "Onze beste inschattingen zeggen dat Iran binnen drie tot vijf jaar in staat is zelfstandig een atoombom te produceren" - Benjamin Netanyahu, later herhaald door o.a. Yitzhak Rabin

februari 1996: "Iran heeft in 2004 kernwapens" - Ehud Barak, Israelische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

april 1996: "Iran heeft in 2005 een atoombom" - Shimon Peres

maart 1997: "Iran heeft tussen 2005 en 2007 een atoombom" - John Holum

april 1997: "Iran heeft in 2002 een atoombom" - Duitse Inlichtingendienst (BND)

mei 1997: "Iran heeft in 2005 een atoombom" - Los Angeles Times

juni 1997: "Iran heeft in 2000 een atoombom" - Generaal Binford Peay

april 1998: "Iran heeft al vier atoombommen" - Jerusalem Post

oktober 1998: "Iran heeft in 2003 een atoombom" - Generaal Anthony Zinni (door hem herhaald in december 1999)

november 1999: "Iran heeft in 2004 een atoombom" - anonieme Israelische generaal tegen AP

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:14 schreef Ringo het volgende:

[..]

Die acute dreiging is er alleen voor doorgesnoven zionisten à la DeParo.

Het “griezelige” van Iran is dat de VS er weinig invloed hebben. Sinds de ayatollahs is hun soft power daar gereduceerd tot 0. Men heeft alle belang bij een geforceerde, CIA-gestuurde omwenteling.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:45 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Amerikaanse ambassadeur heeft D bedrijven gezegd onmiddelijk op te houden zaken te doen met Iran.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:36 schreef brokjespoes het volgende:

[..]

Dat je kunt waarschuwen dat ze bijna een bom hebben.

Lijstje 1984 t/m 1999:

SPOILER

april 1984: "Iran is snel op weg naar een kernwapen dat ze misschien al in 1986 zullen hebben" - Jane's Intelligence Defense Weekly report

juni 1984: "Iran heeft over 7 jaar een atoomwapen" - senator Alan Cranston

april 1989: Irak waarschuwt dat Iran bijna een atoombom heeft

eind 1991: "Iran heeft met grote zekerheid alle of vrijwel alle componenten voor het bouwen van twee of drie atoombommen in handen" - CIA en Amerikaans Congres

januari 1992: "Het duurt nog slechts vijf jaar voor Iran zelfstandig een atoombom kan bouwen" - Benjamin Netanyahu

februari 1992: "Iran heeft dit jaar nog twee of drie atoombommen" - rapport Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden

maart 1992: "Iran heeft vier atoombommen van Rusland gekregen" - Arms Control Reporter

april 1992: "Iran heeft tegen het jaar 2000 een atoombom" - CIA (later bijgesteld tot 2003)

mei 1992: "Iran heeft tenminste twee vermiste bommen uit Kazachstan" - The European

juni 1992: "Tenzij Iran's nucleaire mogelijkheden worden verstoord, heeft het land voor het einde van het decennium een kernwapen" - Herzl Budinger, generaal-majoor IAF

oktober 1992: "Iran heeft in 1999 een atoombom" - Shimon Peres

november 1992: "Iran heeft in 1999 een atoombom" - New York Times

december 1992: "Over twee tot drie jaar kan een Iraanse atoombom een serieus probleem zijn" - Robert Gates, directeur CIA

januari 1993: "Iran geeft 800 miljoen dollar per jaar uit aan de ontwikkeling van kernwapens" - Gad Yaacobi, Israelisch VN-afgezant

februari 1993: "Het zal nog acht tot tien jaar duren voordat Iran een atoombom heeft, maar met buitenlandse hulp zou dit eerder kunnen" - James Woolsey, CIA-chef

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Noord-Korea voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - U.S. News & World Report, New York Times, Paris Match & Foreign Report

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Zwitserland voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - AFP

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met het Franse CKD voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - Intelligence Newsletter

medio 1993: "Iran heeft een deal gemaakt met Russische wetenschappers in Kazachstan voor de ontwikkeling van nucleaire wapens" - diverse andere media

eind 1993: "Iran heeft binnen acht tot tien jaar nucleaire wapens" - Defense News en de National Defense University

januari 1995: "Iran zou tegen 2003 een bom kunnen hebben" - John Holum, directeur U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

januari 1995: "Iran heeft in minder dan vijf jaar een atoombom" - William Perry, minister van Defensie

begin 1995: "Iran is veel dichter bij een atoombom dan werd gedacht en heeft er misschien binnen vijf jaar een" - New York Times

medio 1995: "Onze beste inschattingen zeggen dat Iran binnen drie tot vijf jaar in staat is zelfstandig een atoombom te produceren" - Benjamin Netanyahu, later herhaald door o.a. Yitzhak Rabin

februari 1996: "Iran heeft in 2004 kernwapens" - Ehud Barak, Israelische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

april 1996: "Iran heeft in 2005 een atoombom" - Shimon Peres

maart 1997: "Iran heeft tussen 2005 en 2007 een atoombom" - John Holum

april 1997: "Iran heeft in 2002 een atoombom" - Duitse Inlichtingendienst (BND)

mei 1997: "Iran heeft in 2005 een atoombom" - Los Angeles Times

juni 1997: "Iran heeft in 2000 een atoombom" - Generaal Binford Peay

april 1998: "Iran heeft al vier atoombommen" - Jerusalem Post

oktober 1998: "Iran heeft in 2003 een atoombom" - Generaal Anthony Zinni (door hem herhaald in december 1999)

november 1999: "Iran heeft in 2004 een atoombom" - anonieme Israelische generaal tegen AP

enzovoort, enzovoort

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 18:00 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Het wordt tijd dat Iran gaat bewijzen dat ze ze niet hebben, en ook geen geheime locaties enzo.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 18:08 schreef Barbusse het volgende:

[..]

En dat terwijl we moeten geloven dat meer wapens juist voor meer veiligheid zorgen.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 18:09 schreef Janneke141 het volgende:

[..]

Meer wapens bij de schoolmeester

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:45 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Amerikaanse ambassadeur heeft D bedrijven gezegd onmiddelijk op te houden zaken te doen met Iran.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 17:56 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Tell him to fuck off.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 16:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben het voor een groot deel met je eens, te veel posters die denken dat je een land als Iran hetzelfde kan benaderen alsof je het over een belastingconflict met Ierland hebt, zeer naief.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 19:02 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
En Novartis geeft aan niet zo'n 400k betaald te hebben, maar 1.2 miljoen: https://www.cnbc.com/vide(...)hael-cohen-firm.html

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 18:36 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

You all wanna do buisiness with Eye-raaan or you wanna do it in Murica?

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 18:33 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Nog een aardig stuk over de omslag in beleid op het gebied van drone strikes:
https://politi.co/2FZFWXw

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 19:02 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
En Novartis geeft aan niet zo'n 400k betaald te hebben, maar 1.2 miljoen: https://www.cnbc.com/vide(...)hael-cohen-firm.html

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 19:26 schreef Montov het volgende:

[..]

Bijna de 1.3 miljoen waar Guilliani het over had over verdachte en corrupte betalingen.

twitter:

AFP twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 19:55:34 #BREAKING Saudis will seek nuclear weapon if Iran does, minister says reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 20:16 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

twitter:

AFP twitterde op woensdag 09-05-2018 om 19:55:34 #BREAKING Saudis will seek nuclear weapon if Iran does, minister says reageer retweet

Lekker dan...

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 16:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben het voor een groot deel met je eens, te veel posters die denken dat je een land als Iran hetzelfde kan benaderen alsof je het over een belastingconflict met Ierland hebt, zeer naief.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 20:01 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Waar was dit? Hij heeft de laatste tijd zoveel gezegd..

quote:

I never thought $130,000 -- I know this sounds funny to people there at home. I never thought $130,000 was a real payment, it’s a nuisance payment. When I settle this -- when it was real or a real possibility, it’s a couple million dollars, not -- not $130,000.

People don’t go away for $130,000 of a meritorious claim.

(..)

$130,000 between a lawyer and a client and -- and a client who’s worth, you know, billions, is not -- George, you know, I don’t like saying this, but it’s not a great deal of money.

$1.3 million is a great deal of money. That’s the kind of money you would think of as a settlement. If I saw $130,000, I would never think it was to settle a substantial claims against my client.

https://abcnews.go.com/Po(...)dy/story?id=54962143

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 16:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

Ik ben het voor een groot deel met je eens, te veel posters die denken dat je een land als Iran hetzelfde kan benaderen alsof je het over een belastingconflict met Ierland hebt, zeer naief.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 22:32 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
CNN poll: Democrats' 2018 advantage is nearly gone
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2(...)tter_impression=true

Voorsprong Dems in de CGB is geslonken tot +3. Was in februari nog +16. Of het ruis is weet ik niet, maar deze poll is zeker niet de enige die laat zien dat de voorsprong van de Dems minder wordt.

Denk dat het zelf te maken heeft met Trump. Het eerste deel van Trump's presidentsschap was extreem chaotisch, terwijl Amerikanen van stabiliteit houden. Dan is er meer noodzaak om een Congres van de oppositiepartij te hebben. Die chaos is nu wat minder. Dems zijn nog steeds wel favorieten om het Huis te winnen maar het wordt wel steeds spannender.

SPOILER

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 22:46 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Een breder plaatje wat het hiermee oneens is... https://projects.fivethir(...)eneric-ballot-polls/

En sowieso...

SPOILER

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 23:28 schreef Mr.Major het volgende:
Het interview met Comey is wel van een belachelijk triest kritiekloos niveau zeg. Als Comey wat stelt gaat ie er zelf bewijs voor leveren.

Wat is de relatie van de president met de waarheid?
-Ja hij liegt redelijk v...
-wel 300 keer he!

Misschien had hij nog kunnen vragen, of het niet vreemd is dat hij zo'n boek schrijft vlak nadat hij in die functie zit. De FBI mag niet richting geven aan of krijgen door de politiek volgens Comey, maar vlak nadat hij is ontslagen maar dit boek wel. Ik vind het nogal krom en de kritiek komt vooral over als een persoonlijke kwestie (wat ook begrijpelijk is).

Al die onderzoeken, het komt allemaal erg complotterig over, kolere. Volgens mij begreep de verslaggeefster van nieuwsuur de autocue niet eens.

quote:

Trump: 'Everyone thinks' I deserve Nobel Peace Prize

“Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it," Trump said when asked by a reporter in the White House if he thinks he should win the prestigious award.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 16:40 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Ik ben het voor een groot deel met je eens, te veel posters die denken dat je een land als Iran hetzelfde kan benaderen alsof je het over een belastingconflict met Ierland hebt, zeer naief.

quote:

Op woensdag 9 mei 2018 22:32 schreef westwoodblvd het volgende:
CNN poll: Democrats' 2018 advantage is nearly gone
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2(...)tter_impression=true

Voorsprong Dems in de CGB is geslonken tot +3. Was in februari nog +16. Of het ruis is weet ik niet, maar deze poll is zeker niet de enige die laat zien dat de voorsprong van de Dems minder wordt.

Denk dat het zelf te maken heeft met Trump. Het eerste deel van Trump's presidentsschap was extreem chaotisch, terwijl Amerikanen van stabiliteit houden. Dan is er meer noodzaak om een Congres van de oppositiepartij te hebben. Die chaos is nu wat minder. Dems zijn nog steeds wel favorieten om het Huis te winnen maar het wordt wel steeds spannender.