Obama Administration let Hezbollah off the hook to secure Iran deal

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Over the next eight years, agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.

<snip>

“During the negotiations, early on, they [the Iranians] said listen, we need you to lay off Hezbollah, to tamp down the pressure on them, and the Obama administration acquiesced to that request,” the former CIA officer told POLITICO. “It was a strategic decision to show good faith toward the Iranians in terms of reaching an agreement.”

The Obama team “really, really, really wanted the deal,” the former officer said.

https://www.politico.com/interactive...investigation/

In my eyes, this was obstruction of justice and potentially undermining the largest material support scheme for terror operations, in world history by protecting Hezbollah to secure the Iran deal.

[ianch99]

Wow, you really hate the Democrats ...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mick

https://www.politico.com/interactive...investigation/

In my eyes, this was obstruction of justice and potentially undermining the largest material support scheme for terror operations, in world history by protecting Hezbollah to secure the Iran deal.

Sometimes, it all comes down to Hobson's choice. Nuclear weapons cause more casualties as well as devastation, I'm afraid. A nuclear deal was pretty important.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Sometimes, it all comes down to Hobson's choice. Nuclear weapons cause more casualties as well as devastation, I'm afraid. A nuclear deal was pretty important.

Not that important to allow a major terrorist network to do as it pleases and run drug trafficking schemes.

And Obama could not do just do such a thing on a whim, in the middle of an active campaign that is targeting Hezbollah.

Can you imagine if Trump did this, there would be screams from the Democrats, all liberals and the left leaning Media, with echos of 'Impeach impeach!'.

---------- Post added at 14:38 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wow, you really hate the Democrats ...

Wow, you have no issue with this because it's the Precious Obama ?

Well this is the track record of the US across the years. Indeed I'm pretty sure we are as guilty of similar situations in our past and possibly present history. Pointing the finger can find fingers being pointed back at us.

[denphone]

Its called convenient amnesia as forget what one does not want to remember and only remember what one does want to remember.

Originally Posted by denphone

Its called convenient amnesia as forget what one does not want to remember and only remember what one does want to remember.

This is not about historical issues as such, as this is a lot different in terms of, I don't think any President in recent U.S history has derailed a justice program installed by it's own country, so blatantly, just to seal a deal with a Iran.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

This is not about historical issues as such, as this is a lot different in terms of, I don't think any President in recent U.S history has derailed a justice program installed by it's own country, so blatantly, just to seal a deal with a Iran.

l am just making the point Mick in that politicians and the public from both sides of the pond only want to remember things that suit their own agenda's and develop convenient amnesia when it does not suit their own way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Mick

This is not about historical issues as such, as this is a lot different in terms of, I don't think any President in recent U.S history has derailed a justice program installed by it's own country, so blatantly, just to seal a deal with a Iran.

Haven't read the article yet because it's very long, and it does look bad, but putting pressure to drop investigations 'for the national interest' happens a lot. We've done it before as well: https://www.ft.com/content/0ff015e8-...f-0000779e2340.

Don't know specifically about the US but I would be surprised if they've never dropped something for political reasons because it would imperil some other international cause/deal/policy.

Originally Posted by Mick

This is not about historical issues as such, as this is a lot different in terms of, I don't think any President in recent U.S history has derailed a justice program installed by it's own country, so blatantly, just to seal a deal with a Iran.

Unless you count Reagan, whose administration sold arms to Iran illegally to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, and whose government and the CIA turned a blind eye to the Contras supplying drugs to the USA.

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Haven't read the article yet because it's very long, and it does look bad, but putting pressure to drop investigations 'for the national interest' happens a lot. We've done it before as well: https://www.ft.com/content/0ff015e8-...f-0000779e2340.

Don't know specifically about the US but I would be surprised if they've never dropped something for political reasons because it would imperil some other international cause/deal/policy.

I did read the article, and it also states that a lot of the obstruction/downplaying of the severity was from other Government Agencies, such as the CIA and State Department, as the DEA activities (Project Cassandra) interfered with other initiatives (such as deeply placed infiltrators into Hezbollah and counter-terrorist operations) they were running, and also believed they overstated their case.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Unless you count Reagan, whose administration sold arms to Iran illegally to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, and whose government and the CIA turned a blind eye to the Contras supplying drugs to the USA.

It's not about turning a blind eye, it's about the former Administration, directly interfering in a targeted campaign against a significant terrorist organisation.

What was done was complete treachery by the Obama Administration and whichever way this is looked at, it's not good!

Originally Posted by Mick

It's not about turning a blind eye, it's about the former Administration, directly interfering in a targeted campaign against a significant terrorist organisation.

What was done was complete treachery by the Obama Administration and whichever way this is looked at, it's not good!

The Reagan Administration was actively involved in the illegal Iran-Contra shenanigans, and Administration officials knew that the planes running guns to the Contras were bringing Crack Cocaine back to the US.

Whilst I agree with you if the Obama Administration actively blocked the investigation, the article also states other views, such as

Also, a top intelligence official blocked the inclusion of Project Cassandra’s memo on the Hezbollah drug threat from being included in Obama’s daily threat briefing, they said.

The untold story of Project Cassandra illustrates the immense difficulty in mapping and countering illicit networks in an age where global terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime have merged, but also the extent to which competing agendas among government agencies — and shifting priorities at the highest levels — can set back years of progress.

Project Cassandra officials, however, noted that the European arrests occurred after the negotiations with Iran were over, and said the task force initiated the multinational partnerships on its own, after years of seeing their cases shot down by the Justice and State departments and other U.S. agencies.

A former senior national security official of the Obama administration, who played a role in the Iran nuclear negotiations, suggested that Project Cassandra members were merely speculating that their cases were being blocked for political reasons. Other factors, including a lack of evidence or concerns about interfering with intelligence operations could have been in play.

“What if the CIA or the Mossad had an intelligence operation ongoing inside Hezbollah and they were trying to pursue someone . . . against whom we had impeccable [intelligence] collection and the DEA is not going to know that?” the official said. “I get the feeling people who don’t know what’s going on in the broader universe are grasping at straws.”

The official added: “The world is a lot more complicated than viewed through the narrow lens of drug trafficking. So you’re not going to let CIA rule the roost, but you’re also certainly not going to let DEA do it either. Your approach to anything as complicated as Hezbollah is going to have to involve the interagency [process], because the State Department has a piece of the pie, the intelligence community does, Treasury does, DOD does."

But even then, other agencies were chafing at the DEA’s role.

A SERIES OF ROADBLOCKS
Much of the early turbulence stemmed from an escalating turf battle between federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies over which ones had primacy in the global war on terrorism, especially over a so-called hybrid target like Hezbollah, which was both a criminal enterprise and a national security threat.

The “cops” from the FBI and DEA wanted to build criminal cases, throw Hezbollah operatives in prison and get them to turn on each other. That stoked resentment among the “spooks” at the CIA and National Security Agency, who for 25 years had gathered intelligence, sometimes through the painstaking process of having agents infiltrate Hezbollah, and then occasionally launching assassinations and cyberattacks to block imminent threats.

Further complicating the picture was the role of the State Department, which often wanted to quash both law-enforcement actions and covert operations due to the political backlash they created. Hezbollah, after all, was a leading political force in Lebanon and a provider of human services, with a sincere grass-roots following that wasn’t necessarily aware of its unsavory actions. Nowhere was the tension between law enforcement and diplomacy more acute than in dealings with Hezbollah, which was fast becoming a key part of the Lebanese government.

Distrust among U.S. agencies exploded after two incidents brought the cops-spooks divide into clear relief.

In the waning days of the Bush administration, a DEA agent’s cover was blown just as he was about to become a Colombian cartel’s main cocaine supplier to the Middle East — and to Hezbollah operatives.

A year later, under Obama, the State Department blocked an FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force from luring a key eyewitness from Beirut to Philadelphia so he could be arrested and turned against Safieddine and other Hezbollah operatives in a scheme to procure 1,200 Colt M4 military-grade assault rifles.

In both cases, law enforcement agents suspected that Middle East-based spies in the CIA had torpedoed their investigations to protect their politically sensitive and complicated relationship with Hezbollah.

The CIA declined to comment on the allegation that it intentionally blew the cover of a DEA agent or any other aspect of its relationship with Project Cassandra. The Obama State Department and Justice Department also declined to comment in response to detailed requests about their dealings with Hezbollah.

But the tensions between those agencies and the DEA were no secret. Some current and former diplomats and CIA officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, portrayed DEA Special Operations agents as undisciplined and overly aggressive cowboys with little regard for the larger geopolitical picture. “They’d come in hot to places like Beirut, want to slap handcuffs on people and disrupt operations we’d been cultivating for years,” one former CIA case officer said.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not that important to allow a major terrorist network to do as it pleases and run drug trafficking schemes.

An outbreak of nuclear war in the Middle East would be worse, though. Criticise him if you want, but I've seen worse political decisions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

An outbreak of nuclear war in the Middle East would be worse, though. Criticise him if you want, but I've seen worse political decisions.

Such as ?

As for this nuclear threat you speak of. Hillary Clinton once said if Iran attacked Israel, if she was the President, she would attack Iran and that she would totally obliterate them. Therefore, the nuclear threat would be over, probably even by the threat of obliteration itself.



I do not agree to let a large terrorist organisation to dictate policies, what happened to not pandering to terrorist threats or conditions ?

Originally Posted by Mick

Such as ?

As for this nuclear threat you speak of. Hillary Clinton once said if Iran attacked Israel, if she was the President, she would attack Iran and that she would totally obliterate them. Therefore, the nuclear threat would be over, probably even by the threat of obliteration itself.

Sorry but any President is likely to attack Iran if they attack Israel. Including Trump.