What if the FBI Had Probed Obama?

By the bureau’s Trump standard, he looked like an agent of Iran.

By Lee Smith, WSJ

President Barack Obama speaks in the White House, Nov. 5, 2014.

Counterintelligence agents would have examined the target’s personal and professional networks. The FBI investigated at least four Trump campaign figures for supposed ties to Russia. Only one, Mike Flynn, worked in the administration, and for less than a month. The Obama administration had a few senior officials with personal ties to Iran.

Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett was born in the Iranian city of Shiraz and reportedly led back-channel talks with the Iranians in 2012. Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter quashed right-wing rumors that her Iranian-American husband’s best man was the son of Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. But under the FBI’s Trump procedures, that denial might have made her suspect. A month after Trump adviser Carter Page publicly asked then-Director James Comey for an interview to clear his name, the FBI obtained a warrant to wiretap him.

As Mr. Trump’s desire for improved relations with Russia raised eyebrows at the bureau, a 2008 article written by John Brennan—who went on to serve as White House counterterrorism adviser and Central Intelligence Agency director—advocated a grand bargain with Iran. In 2009 the Obama White House conducted secret negotiations with Tehran.

Mr. Obama later sidelined Project Cassandra, an investigation of illicit trafficking networks employed by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese franchise. Launched in 2008, the investigation was run by a multiagency task force, including the FBI itself. Then for 18 months in 2014-15, the Obama White House gave the Iranians $700 million a month in sanctions relief. In January 2016, Mr. Obama sent Iran another $1.7 billion in cash. The administration also had a habit of leaking news of Israeli strikes on Iranian arms convoys and depots in Syria.

All these Obama actions are easily explained: Inducing Iran to sign a nuclear agreement was the former president’s top foreign-policy priority. I believe this pro-Iran policy was disastrous. But it wasn’t collusion or treason or any of the other crimes of which Democrats and their media allies have accused Mr. Trump.

The FBI’s suspicions about Mr. Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin were reportedly piqued by, among other things, a May 2017 television interview in which he said he fired Mr. Comey for the “Russia thing.” He’s also staged a series of brazenly public events where he professed his hopes of warmer ties with Vladimir Putin. Like Mr. Obama’s pro-Iran policies, Mr. Trump’s hope for better relations with Russia was anything but clandestine.

Yet critics of the Russia investigations are wrong to suggest the attacks on the president and his associates reflect the increasing tendency to criminalize policy differences. It has nothing to do with policy, for Mr. Trump’s Russia policy has been as hard-line as that of any post-Cold War administration, including Mr. Obama’s. The FBI’s motive for investigating Mr. Trump looks more like pure politics.

Mr. Smith is a media columnist for Tablet magazine..

January 24, 2019 | 3 Comments »

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. @ Edgar G.: Edgar, I am also not sure. I suspect it is mainly an attempt by this man (Iran’s nuclear program manager) to curry favor with his boss, Khameini, and other members of his ruling thoecratic “Council of Guides” by showing just how clever he has been at evading international sanctions. He may think that as long as he speaks only in Persian to domestic journalists, the “international community” will ignore what he says, or maybe even not even learn about what he said . He may believe that most of the international community, including the EU, doesn’t give a_____about Iran’s violation of the 2015 agreement, since they all along regarded it as just a fig leaf to justify their massive trade with Iran . If so, his assessment is probably correct. Finally, criminals seem to love to boast about their crimes, and can’t resist the impulse to do so from time to time, even when they know it is not in their interest . For example, Hitler could not resist the temptation to boast publicly about his extermination of the Jews, even though he had issued orders to his subordinates to keep the “operation” secret.

  2. @ adamdalgliesh:

    Yes I also read A7, but I’m really puzzled Adam. Maybe you have an answer? Why do countries-like Iran for instance- admit what will only bring them more International opprobrium, when they should keep it secret until they are ready with a working weapon.. I know it could be bluff, and for reasons unknown to us, perhaps ti’s necessary for them to do so…. maybe to gain time, or to make others “back off” or whatever. What s your opinion..?.

  3. The director of Iran’s nuclear program has now publicly admitted that Iran had been cheating on its end of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal since it was made (unsigned and hence nonbonding) in 2015. Outrageously lied and photoshopped to cover up its cheating andto give the appearance of compliance. This from today’s Arutz Sheva:

    Iran nuclear chief: ‘We have replacements for equipment we agreed to destroy’
    Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization says Iran never actually filled Arak reactor with cement, secretly acquired replacement tubes.

    Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said in a television interview this week that the negotiations surrounding the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement had required Iran to destroy the Arak reactor’s calandria by filling it with cement, but Iran had secretly acquired replacement tubes ahead of time so that the reactor’s functionality would not be ultimately affected.

    Salehi also said that pictures that had circulated that showed the Arak reactor’s pit filled with cement had been photoshopped. He explained that Iran has no intention to build a nuclear weapon, and that the Arak reactor is nonetheless incapable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

    The interview aired on Iran’s Channel 4 TV on Wednesday. Excerpts from the interview were translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

    The cement, explained Salehi, was poured “into the calandria we pulled out [of the reactor]. Inside the calandria, there are tubes where the fuel goes. We had bought similar tubes, but I could not declare this at the time. Only one person in Iran knew this. We told no one but the top man of the regime [Khamenei].”

    “When our team was in the midst of the negotiations, we knew that [the Westerners] would ultimately renege on their promises. The leader warned us that they were violators of agreements. We had to act wisely. Not only did we avoid destroying the bridges that we had built, but we also built new bridges that would enable us to go back faster if needed,” he continued.

    “God willing, in the coming week, on the 30th or 31st of January, I will be going to Ardakan. From there, we will transfer 30 tons of yellowcake to Isfahan. Thirty tons. Ardakan has become operational,” claimed Salehi, adding, “We have advanced significantly in the field of nuclear propulsion. However, we must wait until we are certain about it before we announce it. For now, we have no intention to report about the nuclear propulsion [technology], but we are working on it. Suffice it to say that we are making rapid progress in this field, thank God.”

    Iran has been threatening to restart its nuclear program ever since US President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal in May of 2018 and imposed two rounds of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

    Iran several months ago reopened a nuclear plant that was idle for nine years as it prepared to increase uranium enrichment capacity in response to Trump leaving the 2015 agreement.

    Earlier this month, Salehi said Iran is taking preliminary steps to design uranium fuel with a purity of 20 percent for reactors instead of having to copy foreign designs.

    The European signatories to the deal did not agree with Trump’s decision to leave the deal and have been trying to save the accord, which they see as crucial to forestalling an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    Tehran has demanded that Europe come up with an economic package to offset the effects of the US withdrawal but so far has found Europe’s proposals to be unsatisfactory.