David Plouffe's IRGC ATM
As a journalist who has written articles supportive of President Obama, and as a US citizen who voted for Obama in the 2008 general election (I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries), I was aghast to read that David Plouffe, a member of the President's tight inner circle, took a check for $100,000 from a South Africa-based telecommunications company called MTN whose Iranian joint-venture partner, Irancell, has been described by the US Government as "fully owned" by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). Attempts to play off Plouffe's Iranian check-cashing spree as an innocent mistake or as a Republican political ploy or as an action that was not strictly prohibited by US law on the precise afternoon in December, 2010 when he went to the bank are void of practical or moral import. I doubt the people who make these lame excuses on Plouffe's behalf could gin themselves up to believe what they are saying even if their jobs depended on it (which they probably do).
It goes without saying that $100,000 is a large amount of money, especially for a DC political operative, and that Plouffe's technical or regulatory experience in the field of global telecommunications isn't worth a plugged nickel to a South Africa-based telecommunications company, because he has no such experience. The fact that Plouffe traveled all the way to Nigeria to collect the loot is a detail from a crappy political farce.
What really stinks here, however, is not simply the fact of the dodgy connection to bad people who actively seek to kill American citizens but the fact that Plouffe took the money in mid-December 2010, and then officially joined the Obama administration weeks later, in January 2011. At the very least, the timing of the Plouffe pay-off makes this a particularly egregious example of the revolving-door DC politics-and-payouts system that Obama pledged to end when he campaigned for office in 2008. The normal procedure for greedheads like David Plouffe is to cash in on their government service AFTER leaving office.
But the timing of Plouffe's payoff suggests that something more sinister should not be discounted. Short of Ali Khamenei writing David Plouffe a personal check -- which would in fact be against the letter of US law -- there is simply no clearer way for the Revolutionary Guard, which has been officially deemed "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" by the US State Department, to slip $100,000 to one of Obama's closest and most trusted advisors, at a moment when internal administration debate about US Iran policy was on high boil. Plouffe, who ran Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, knew full well that he was going into government a few weeks after his $100,000 speech in Nigeria -- and his paymasters knew it, too.
It's hard to imagine a scenario in which either party imagined that the MTN-Plouffe transaction was anything other than what it clearly was -- influence-peddling. The only excuse I can imagine for Plouffe's conduct is that he received winking assurances from someone (his boss?) that the US and Iran were going to do a deal and that, in any case, Iran was not an enemy of the United States, and that statements to the contrary were simply hot air.
More likely, David Plouffe's actions are the products of personal greed and some degree of contempt for the stated aims of US policy, as well as for the lives of American citizens and the lives of the thousands of Iranians, Syrians, Israelis and others who have been murdered by the Revolutionary Guard and its terrorist subsidiaries around the globe. Plouffe's use of an IRGC-owned company as his personal ATM is beneath contempt, and it is hard to imagine the reasoning by which he should remain privy to government secrets or be a party to sensitive policy discussions about Iran.
Reader comments on this item
|Mr. Plouffe viz-a-viz Ms. Abedin [120 words]||Ron Edge||Aug 9, 2012 09:27|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The "Arab Spring" did not erupt as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, it was the outcome of decades of tyranny and corruption in the Arab world. The Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis who removed their dictators from power did not do so because of the lack of a "two-state solution." This is the last thing they had in mind.
The thousands of Muslims who are volunteering to join the Islamic State [IS] are not doing so because they are frustrated with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The only solution the Islamic State believes in is a Sunni Islamic Caliphate where the surviving non-Muslims who are not massacred would be subject to sharia law.
What Kerry perhaps does not know is that the Islamic State is not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. Unlike Kerry, Sunni scholars fully understand that the Islamic State has more to do with Islam and terrorism than with any other conflict.
by Steven J. Rosen
Palestinian officials have generally been silent about security cooperation with Israel. They are loath to acknowledge how important it is for the survival of the Palestinian Authority [PA], and fear that critics, especially Hamas, will consider it "collaboration with the enemy."
"You smuggle weapons, explosives and cash to the West Bank, not for the fight with Israel, but for a coup against the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli intelligence chief visited me two weeks ago and told me about the [Hamas] group they arrested that was planning for a coup... We have a national unity government and you are thinking about a coup against me." — Mahmoud Abbas, PA President, to Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader.
According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, if the IDF leaves the West Bank, Hamas will take over, and other terrorists groups such as the Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State would operate there.
In recent months, Abbas has been making a series of threats against Israel. If Abbas becomes another Arafat, it could be the Israeli side that loses interest in security cooperation.
by Burak Bekdil
It was the Islamists who, since they came to power in the 2000s, have reaped the biggest political gains from the "Palestine-fetish."
But the Turkish rhetoric on "solidarity" with our Palestinian brothers often seems askew to how solidarity should be.
by Raheel Raza
One blogger writes that Malala hates Pakistan's military. I believe it is the other way around.
I would so like to see the day when Malala is welcomed back in Pakistan, with the whole country cheering.
by Francesco Sisci
Democratic evolution in China was being seriously considered. The failures of U.S. support for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya gave new food for thought to those opposed to democracy. Lastly, the United States did not strongly oppose the anti-democratic coup d'état that overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand.
On the other hand, Russia -- dominated by Vladimir Putin, a new autocrat determined to stifle democracy in Russia -- provided a new model.
The whole of Eastern Europe and most of Latin America, formerly in the clutches of dictatorships, are now efficient democracies. This seems to indicate that while democracy cannot be parachuted into a country, there is a broader, longer-term global trend toward democracy and that its growth depends on local conditions.
As economic development needed careful planning, political reforms need even greater planning. The question remains: is China preparing for these political reforms?