The Iranian-owned skyscraper, The Piaget Building in midtown Manhattan, along with mosques, schools and Islamic centers around the country, had a Federal civil “complaint” filed today, leading to their seizure by the U.S.

The Piaget Building is managed by the Alavi Foundation and owned by the Iranian government. An amended complaint “seeking the Foundation’s “majority stake” in the building located at  650 Park Avenue, New York, New York.

[Alavi] working with a front company known as Assa Corp., illegally funneled millions in rental income to Iran’s state-owned Bank Melli. Bank Melli has been accused by a U.S. Treasury official of providing support for Iran’s nuclear program, and it is illegal in the United States to do business with the bank

Bank Melli Iran is reported to have $48 billion in Shariah-compliant assets, with Iran holding more Islamic assets than all other countries. Iranian banks account for 6 of the top 10 Islamic Institutions worldwide.

In their amended complaint, U.S. prosecutors alleged Alavi has been providing numerous services to Iran’s government, including managing the building, running a charitable organization for the Iranian government and transferring funds from the building’s management company to Bank Melli.

While all of the properties under forfeiture may remain open as proceedings go forward, and no Iranian spokesman or mosque leader would speak of the action, neither would they open their doors:

At the Islamic Institute of New York, a mosque and school in Queens, two U.S. marshals came to the door and rang the bell repeatedly. The marshals taped a forfeiture notice to the window and left a large document sitting on the ground. After they left a group of men came out of the building and took the document.

Mosques are located in Queens, NY, and schools in Huston and Rockville, Maryland and an Islamic center in Carmichael, California. In Virginia, a 100-acre property.

This minute on FOX, Alavi is denying any part of their operation is owned by the Iranian government. While one earlier report said no action was taken today at the properties, FOX News’ Eric Shawn just reported that boxes were removed from the Piaget Building today.

Assets are believed to total more than $500 million, with mosques, schools and Islamic centers in Maryland, California, Houston and New York, including a 36-story office building in New York, and more than 100 acres in Virginia.

The receipts from the Piaget Building funds mosques, Islamic Centers and schools.

Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.

The sleek, modern building, last valued at $570 million to $650 million in 2007, has served as an important source of income for the foundation over the past 36 years. The most recent tax records show the foundation earned $4.5 million from rents in 2007.

Rents collected from the building help fund the centers and other ventures, such as sending educational literature to imprisoned Muslims in the U.S. The foundation has also invested in dozens of mosques around the country and supported Iranian academics at prominent universities.

If federal prosecutors seize the skyscraper, the Alavi Foundation would have almost no way to continue supporting the Islamic centers, which house schools and mosques. That could leave a major void in Shiite communities, and hard feelings toward the FBI.

It’s about time radical Islam has a problem with the FBI. The article says Alavi Foundation has been suspected of terrorist ties for THREE DECADES. This is not good news for the three young Americans held hostage in Iran for crossing the border from Iraq. Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal were charged this week with espionage and will be tried in Iran. We’ll see if the Iranian mosques and schools become bargaining chips for the release of Shourd, Bauer and Fattal.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

They didn’t flat-out refuse Obama’s deal, but they might as well have. Could it be because Ahmadinejad has no respect for Obama?

Iran’s response Thursday to a proposed deal to transform its controversial nuclear material into fuel for a medical reactor is “inadequate,” a senior Western diplomat said, adding that it failed to address key United States and European concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions.

Iran answered the proposal to temporarily move most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France to be further refined and shaped for use in a medical reactor after a delay of nearly a week and a flurry of contradictory signals.

The proposal would have depleted Iran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel below the threshold necessary for making a single nuclear bomb, possibly creating diplomatic breathing room for a broader agreement between Tehran and those worried about its atomic research program.

But according to the diplomat, Iran wants to send its uranium abroad in smaller batches over an undetermined stretch of time rather than the lump transfer by year’s end outlined under the proposal offered by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such a change would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stock.

Gee, I wonder why Iran wants to send its uranium in smaller batches then. Could it be because they have absolutely no intention of abandoning their nuclear program? While Ahmadinejad is shouting his cooperation from the rooftops for anyone to hear, it’s just an empty statement. His actions say something completely different, and it’s clear that he has no respect at all for Obama or the UN.

Of course, we were promised that the world would love us once again if we elected Obama. Obama would usher in “smart diplomacy” and he would be able to negotiate with terrorists other world leaders and everyone would be happy again. And this is our newer, smarter diplomacy? Iran and North Korea are both getting bolder and bolder, launching more and more test missiles, and getting further and further into nuclear weapons programs. Obama’s response is to launch a plan to remove our missile defense shields in eastern Europe and do nothing except ask Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il to please stop. He talks a big game, but doing absolutely nothing to back up what he says. Why should Iran respect or fear him?

Theodore Roosevelt believed in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. With Obama, it’s speak loudly and carry a limp stick.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Despite dozens upon dozens of speeches from the President, 60% of those surveyed in a Gallup Poll either disapprove of or are uncertain about the President’s and Congress’s proposed changes to the nation’s healthcare laws. Yet, this issue is the one garnering the vast majority of the Obama Administration’s time and effort (as it would appear publicly).

The continuing efforts of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are yet another key issue facing the Obama Administration. However, the current leadership in Afghanistan has asked for up to 40,000 more troops yet, the Obama Administration has had to tell Congress that a complete troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an option. But, an immediate surge of forces is not expected and as it stands right now a meager increase of 10,000 troops is expected (a quarter of what the General on the ground has asked for). Without any polling data I would speculate that 100% of the American voting bloc wants US forces out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. The difference comes in the means of making that happen and even then I would be willing to assert that 65% of the US voting bloc wants the mission in Afghanistan to be successful thus thwarting another 9/11 versus a complete withdrawal of US forces as quickly as possible. This issue is garnering a great deal of time (as it would appear publicly) but, many Americans think a decision should be made faster (as in now).

The third and possibly most devastating issue the Obama administration faces is the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Again, without any polling data, I would say that 95+% of US voters do not want an increase to the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. Therefore, I do not think it is a stretch to say that 100% of US voters would NOT want the Islamic Republic of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon be it developed internally or purchased from another nation. With that being said, it would appear that the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons development is getting a level of attention that is far lower than what is required given the potentially devastating nature of the detonation of such a weapon in a region of the world that provides the rest of the world with much of its energy. The attention this issue is currently garnering will have to be tripled or perhaps quadrupled should the detonation of an Iranian nuclear weapon happen on the soil of an ally to the United States. Paying that needed “attention deficit” down now by taking off the kid gloves with Iran will save the current or perhaps future administrations a lot of headaches.

The paradox comes into play when looking at these three issues against the actual/perceived polling data and the amount of time being given to these issues. Healthcare 60% opposed/uncertain is getting the vast majority of the Obama Administration’s attention. The ongoing war in Afghanistan where I would say 65% of US voters want us to clean up any and all terror threats before we pull out is a distant second behind the healthcare issue. Finally, Iranian nuclear weapons development, which could be the single greatest terror attack ever foreseen ever in the history of humans ever (extra “evers” added for good measure), would be next to invisible on a pie chart of the time time spent by the Obama Administration talking on these three issues. The priorities of the Obama Administration concern me and I am sure many others; multi-tasking is something the Obama administration as a whole needs to get better at. But, vectoring the right amount of effort to the right places first would settle my nerves quite a bit.

Originally written for chrisshort.net

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

U.S. military officials have told CBS News that Iran is sending money and weapons onto the Afghan battlefield. But U.S. commanders are not allowed to comment publicly and it’s unclear to them what the U.S. strategy is for dealing with Iran’s increasingly deadly involvement.
The deadliest form of roadside bomb on the Iraqi battlefield – explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) – is now being found in Afghanistan.
Lethal armor piercing bombs that can slice through U.S. humvees are also an Iranian specialty.
More worrying still: U.S. intelligence believes Iran is supplying surface to air missiles to the Taliban – the very same weapon the U.S. supplied to the Afghan resistance to bring down the Russians.

So the question is, “why would the U.S. muzzle the military on this?” I think we all know the answer. It would burst the bubble utopia liberals want to live in, and the President’s naive idea that talking to madmen that hate our guts might persuade them not to pursue nuclear weapons. If Iran, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are all chums, what would keep Iran from sharing nuclear technology with them once they obtain it? Talking nice certainly won’t.

Ed Morrissey:

Iran sits at the nexus of radical Islamist terrorism, and has since its 1979 revolution. Obama may want to hush the military to keep that “secret,” but all it does is make the US look weak and ignorant. We should have pushed harder this summer to assist those in Iran who wanted freedom from the radical mullahs instead of giving the mullahs more legitimacy.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers on those they say are Iran’s most infamous human-rights abusers.

But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that – for the first time since it was formed – its federal funding request had been denied.

“If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ said Rene Redman, the group’s executive director, who had asked for $2.7 million in funding for the next two years. “I was surprised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.’’

Many see the sudden, unexplained cutoff of funding as a shift by the Obama administration away from high-profile democracy promotion in Iran, which had become a signature issue for President Bush. But the timing has alarmed some on Capitol Hill.

Way to go Barry! I’m sure Mahmoud got a good belly laugh out of this one.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama on Friday will urge Iran to come clean about its nuclear activities amid reports that Tehran is building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, officials told NBC News.

Senior administration officials noted that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires countries to disclose such facilities at the beginning of construction. This facility, known as the “Qum facility,” would also be in violation of U.N. resolutions requiring Iran to halt enrichment activities.

Iran revealed the existence of the plant earlier this week in a letter sent to Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, officials told The Associated Press.

The New York Times reported Friday that Tehran disclosed the existence of the facility after learning that its secrecy had been breached by Western intelligence agencies.

Gee, who coulda thunk it that Iran was NOT trying to build nuclear weapons and were tricky and underhanded? I wonder if the Left will all of a sudden start going all stud muffin on this issue, now that Obama is President? 

But, hey, this is the perfect time for conditionless talks with Iran, right?

A little taste of his short speech

“The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful (nuclear) program,” Obama said, and further raises concerns that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon.

Shocker!

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime,” Obama said. “denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”

Nothing new about Iran breaking the rules.

Watched the video of the briefing at MSNBC, and, (this is what I was waiting for) Obama spends quite a bit of time saying Iran must do this and must do that and must be good boys, but, he leaves out all mentions that if they aren’t good boys and girls, they get no biscuits. Of course, on the flip side, Iran has refused to bow down to any sanctions, threats, and spankings so far.

Also see Hot Air

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”

“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”

“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

I listened, or, at least, half listened, to most of Barry’s U.N. address, and, while he attempted to add in some “well, you better like us and help us, or I’m telling mommy’s,” it was all about pandering to thugs and dictators. You know, his standard fare.

Three other parts stand out, of the many many nutty things he said

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

First of all, Gitmo is no closer to being closed than when he made the pronouncement that it would be closed within 12 months of January 12, 2009 when he signed the order. Second, a good chunk of the countries represented tend to use torture before they even ask the first question, so, I doubt they were really impressed.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together.

Not really. It was a way of having the US and USSR snipe at each verbally instead of with weapons.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

Now, Barry may have been speaking specifically about nuclear weapons, but, if memory serves, Iraq refused to live up to their obligations, including IAEA inspectors, and faced the consequences of 17 UN resolutions, culminating in 1441, authorizing the use of force, which, if memory serves, Barry gave a speech against and refused to vote to fund. How ’bout dat!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Canada will boycott Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, saying his outbursts about the Holocaust and Israel are “shameful.”

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon will be at the world body to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly’s annual debate, but officials signal he and other members of the Canadian delegation will vacate the Canadian seats when the Islamic republic’s President approaches the podium.

Walking out of the chamber is seen as a strong diplomatic show of disgust at the UN — and since the chamber is generally packed on the first day of the annual summit, Canada’s empty seats will not go unnoticed.

One of the first speakers of the day will be U.S. President Barack Obama, who is making his debut address before the assembly.

“President Ahmadinejad’s repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly, and they’re shameful,” said one Canadian official.

“He uses his public appearances to provoke the international community, and that is why Canada’s seats will be empty.”

Yeah, go Canada! Perhaps DHS should stop testing their new super duper patrol boat on Canadian shores.

So, what of the U.S. delegation? Anyone expect them to walk out? Me neither. That would make Obama’s conditionless talks, at least from his side, with Iran rather difficult.

Via Michelle Malkin

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Germany will walk out of the U.N. General Assembly if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust in a speech he will give Wednesday, and it wants other European Union countries to do the same, the foreign ministry said.

“We will leave the hall if President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust or makes anti-Semitic statements … we are making efforts toward a unified European position,” a spokesman said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad has, as recently as last week, called the Holocaust a lie, repeating his position just as world powers try to decide how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Good for them. Great if the other EU countries follow. Best if they and other countries simply walked out and refused to deal with Obama’s newest man crush before Mahmoud even started speaking, or right as he started speaking. Even better would be if we heard the same sort of pledge from the United States government, but, seeing as how quite a few on the left hate Israel, Obama has been dictating to the Israeli’s, has yet to meet with the Israeli PM, but has been pushing hard for conditionless conversations with Mahmoud, I doubt the US will do anything. Shame.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

However, what is the actual plan? After spending quite a bit of time explaining why Russia was annoyed by the Bush plan, and unintentionally pointing out why Obama is pulling a Chamberlain to Russia (the missiles were not the problem, the X-band 360 degree radar was) the NY Times gets to the heart of the matter

How then does the Obama plan address those concerns? Mr. Obama ordered the development of a system that would deploy smaller SM-3 interceptors in 2011, at first on ships but later on land in Europe, aimed more at short- and medium-range Iranian missiles rather than the intercontinental missiles Russia has. The radar in the Czech Republic would no longer be needed; instead new land, air and space sensors would be relied on to track missile launches and their trajectories.

…the Obama administration said it planned to deploy the SM-3s in as many as three land-based sites in Europe starting in 2015 and offered both Poland and the Czech Republic the opportunity to host those missiles. Since Poland was willing to host the larger interceptor missiles as part of the Bush plan, it presumably might accept the smaller missiles Mr. Obama wants to use.

If the idea is simply to create a system to intercept Iranian missiles aimed at Europe, than this is a good plan. And, it should be, since military leaders came up with it. If the job gets done, and the shield for Europe is better, hey, good deal.

Of course, to go pure partisan, I certainly can envision Obama telling the military to come up with another plan that wasn’t so mean to Russia. However,

“The Russians are probably not going to be pleased that we are continuing with missile defense efforts in Europe,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “But at the same time, there are two changes in this architecture that should allay some of their, what we think, unfounded concerns.” Those would be the elimination of the radar in the Czech Republic and the switch to smaller missiles that “they simply cannot, at least rationally, argue bears any kind of threat to Russia,” he said.

Encapsulated in that one paragraph is the notion that we are not abandoning Europe, yet, are appeasing Russia. Ben Smith tells us that Polish PM Donald Tusk was first called by Hillary Clinton, but wouldn’t accept the call because it was against protocol. So, the first attempted contact to tell Poland was not even done correctly. He also refused to take Obama’s first call, but, took his second.

And, this little plan upsets many in Eastern Europe, who are still concerned about the threat from Russia, which rather shows that it was not about the missiles, but the radar. Obama’s just making more and more friends in Europe!

That said, we can applaud that there is a plan that will do the same thing as the stated goal of President Bush’s plan, to stop Iranian missiles, and, we can also slam him for abandoning Eastern Europe allies and appeasing Russia.

Provided the missile plan doesn’t get abandoned, as well.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post