1UA TV

The number of hate crimes in major U.S. cities rose for the third consecutive year last year, driven by attacks on Jews, Muslims, blacks and LGBT people, preliminary police data exclusively provided to VOA show.

At least 1,056 hate crimes were committed in the nation’s nine largest cities in 2017, an increase of 18 percent from 2016 levels, according to police data compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino.

Several major metropolitan areas, such as Washington, Philadelphia, Seattle and Phoenix, reported double-digit increases in hate-based crimes, extending a trend that started in 2015 and accelerated during the contentious presidential election campaign in 2016.

Among the nation’s five largest cities, the overall increase in hate crimes was smaller; however, the number of reported incidents rose to 719 from 664, an uptick of 8 percent.

​Two declines

The slower rate of increase in those five cities was attributable to two notable declines.

New York City, the nation’s largest city, reported 339 hate crimes, a notch lower than 2016 levels, while Chicago, the third largest U.S. city, recorded 50 hate crimes through the first three-quarters of the year, a decline of 7 percent from the same period in 2016.

But the trajectory of hate crimes remains pointed upward, with 2017 likely to show another moderate rise after similar increases the past two years.

“Whether you have increases or declines, a lot of these cities are at or near multiyear highs,” said Brian Levin, director of the center for the study of hate and extremism.

Hate crime data are notoriously unreliable. The FBI publishes annual hate crime stats collected from thousands of police departments, but reporting is voluntary and most agencies don’t report any incidents.

The FBI’s report also lags by about a year. Its most recent report, released in November, showed there were 6,121 hate crimes in 2016, up 4.6 percent from 5,850 in 2015.

The FBI defines a hate crime as a criminal offense motivated by the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender identity.

Historically, race has been by far the biggest motivator of hate crime in the United States, with blacks accounting for more than half the victims of race-based offenses.

Religion and sexual orientation are the next two drivers, although in recent years religion-based hate crimes have grown, with crimes targeting Muslims nearly doubling between 2014 and 2016.

In 2017, Jews and the LGBT community accounted for more than half of hate crime victims in the cities surveyed by Levin’s center. Blacks, nationally the most frequent target of hate crime, ranked No. 3, while Muslims, who account for 1 percent of the U.S. population, were at No. 4.

​Homicides

The year was one of the deadliest for victims of hate crimes in more than a decade. At least 12 people were killed in nine separate suspected hate crimes, according to an unofficial tally by the San Bernardino center, although Levin stressed the actual number could turn out to be much higher.

The FBI reported five hate crime killings in 2016 and 19 in 2015, when white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The victims of the 2017 murders included four blacks, three whites, three Middle Easterners/Muslims, one gay man, and one transgender person.

Levin said there was “an alarming increase” in fatal attacks on transgender people. The rights group Human Rights Watch noted a record 28 transgender murders in 2017, but only one has been labeled a hate crime.

Anti-LGBT crimes

Gay-friendly cities such as San Francisco, Seattle and Washington have become magnets for violent homophobes.

In Washington, nearly one-third of all hate crimes in 2017 were directed at gays, while in Seattle more than a quarter of hate crime victims were gay. San Francisco data were not available.

​Anti-Semitic bias

The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish advocacy organization, recorded 1,299 anti-Semitic incidents during the first three-quarters of last year, an increase of 67 percent from the same period in 2016.

The figure included 168 bomb threats made against Jewish community centers and other organizations. In March, a U.S.-Israeli teen, accused of making most of the threats, was arrested in Israel.

“The bomb threats were an incredibly traumatic event for Jews across the country,” said Aryeh Tuchman, associate director of ADL’s center on extremism.

Among the incidents recorded by ADL were 703 incidents of harassment, 584 instances of vandalism, and 12 physical assaults.

States with the largest Jewish populations reported the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents. New York state led with a total of 267 incidents, followed by California with 197 incidents.

But not everything recorded by ADL was a hate crime, Tuchman said.

Levin said, “The prominence of anti-Semitic incidents in big cities is attributable to multiple factors far beyond the actions of a couple of offenders.”

​Anti-Muslim hate crimes

There were 195 anti-Muslim hate crimes through the first nine months of 2017, a 20 percent increase from the same period in 2016, according to the rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations.

California led the nation with 73 incidents, followed by New York with 20 hate crimes, Florida with 11 incidents and Texas with nine hate incidents, according to CAIR. All four states have large Muslim populations.

Zainab Arain, research and advocacy coordinator for CAIR, attributed the relatively large number of incidents recorded in California and New York to the group’s large footprint and advocacy in those states.

“There is a likelihood of cases being reported more frequently” in California and New York, Arain said.

Property damage and physical assault were the most common hate crimes committed against Muslims.

The FBI reported in November that hate crimes against Muslims rose by nearly 20 percent in 2016 after jumping 67 percent in 2015.

Attacks against Muslims tend to be more violent than those against Jews, Levin said. That is partly because Muslims are “more identifiable when in religious attire and have a much higher degree of prejudice directed towards them,” he said.

In April, for example, a hijab-wearing woman was assaulted by a white man in downtown Los Angeles. A suspect was arrested.

In August, a Somali-American mosque was bombed in Bloomington, Minnesota. No one was hurt.
…

Two U.S. senators have called for a criminal investigation of a former British spy who authored a salacious report about Donald Trump when he was a businessman, a report known as the Steele Dossier.

The letter, released on Friday by Republicans Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, adds to the turmoil that has plagued the Trump administration and will likely deepen the bipartisan rancor in Congress over both the dossier and also interactions between Trump associates and Russian officials. 

In their letter, the two called on the Justice Department to investigate Christopher Steele for what they alleged were false statements Steele made about how the dossier was circulated. 

“This referral does not pertain to the veracity of claims contained in the dossier,” the senators said in a statement.

Steele and his lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Former British spy

Steele, a former MI6 officer with deep experience in Russia, was hired by a Washington-based political research firm known as Fusion GPS in the summer 2016. 

Fusion had earlier been retained by a Republican donor interested in gathering embarrassing political dirt on Trump, but after Trump won the Republican nomination, Fusion was hired by a law firm with connections to the Democratic Party. 

Steele’s research, which focused on Russia and Trump’s ties there, resulted in a 35-page report that circulated among political operatives and reporters in Washington for months until BuzzFeed published the entire dossier online in January 2017. 

News reports have said the FBI had considered paying Steele for more research but later decided not to. 

Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations in the dossier. Some Republicans have also asserted that the dossier was what prompted the FBI to open its criminal investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s interactions with Trump-connected officials, something contradicted by court documents and other public statements. 

Grassley calls for inquiry

Grassley, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, earlier called for a Justice Department investigation of Fusion GPS, suggesting the firm was involved in a Russian-linked lobbying campaign to undermine the 2012 U.S. Magnitsky Act, which punishes Russians deemed to be human rights abusers. 

In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on Tuesday, the founders of Fusion GPS accused Republican lawmakers of trying to obscure Trump’s Russian connections and called on Grassley to release transcripts of their testimony to the Judiciary Committee. 

The Judiciary Committee is one of three congressional panels investigating interactions between Trump associates and Russian officials. 

The FBI probe, now taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, has resulted in two indictments and two guilty pleas, including from Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump lashed out at the media Friday as a provocative new book hit the stands portraying the first year of his presidency as one in shambles, and him as childlike and possibly in need of psychiatric help.

In a morning tweet, Trump did not mention author Michael Wolff or his sensational book Fire and Fury by name, but said “the Fake News Media (Mainstream) and this phony new book are hitting out at every new front imaginable.”

Wolff said Friday he stands by “absolutely everything” in the book. “One of the things we have to count on is that Donald Trump will attack. He will send lawyer’s letters. This is a 35-year history of how he approaches everything,” he told NBC’s Today show host Savannah Guthrie. “My credibility is being questioned by a man who has less credibility than perhaps anyone who has ever walked on Earth at this point.

“I will tell you the one description that everyone gave, everyone has in common: They all say he is like a child,” Wolff said on NBC. “And what they mean by that is, he has a need for immediate gratification. It is all about him.”

On Thursday, Trump denied granting Wolff access to the White House, and he planted a new nickname on his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who is quoted extensively in the book as making disparaging statements about his former boss and members of his family and inner circle.

Trump’s lawyers initially tried to block publication of the book, describing it as defamatory and libelous. That only added to the frenzy at bookstores where it was available early Friday, several days ahead of schedule. Long lines formed outside some Washington stores where the book went on sale at midnight.

Several independent sources have noted that author Wolff is known for publishing provocative material that has turned out to be unsubstantiated or disputed.

Veteran Washington reporter Mike Allen, in his widely-read Axios Newsletter, cautioned Friday “there are definitely parts of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” that are wrong, sloppy, or betray off-the-record confidence.”

Allen said, however, there are many things Wolff got right, “even in the eyes of White House officials who think some of the book’s scenes are fiction. His spot-on portrait of Trump as an emotionally erratic president, and the low opinion of him among some of those serving him.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Wolff on Friday of fabricating quotes for the book.

“This is a guy who made up a lot of stories to try to sell books, and I think more and more people are starting to see that his facts just simply don’t add up,” Sanders told Fox News.

Sanders acknowledged that Trump had spoken with Wolff, but she said it was not for the book. “They spoke once by the phone for a few minutes, but it wasn’t about the book. They had a very short conversation, but he never interviewed the president about the book,” she said.

At Thursday’s White House press briefing, Sanders suggested the book has little interest outside Washington’s beltway, where politics is something of an obsession.

“Most people in the United States could “probably care less about a book full of lies,” she told a reporter, characterizing the book as “trash” and something “a fired employee wanted to peddle.”

Presidential scholar Dan Mahaffee of Washington’s Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress says the book controversy is taking on a cartoon-like character.

“Once the spin starts you get this cloud surrounding everything, and it becomes a media frenzy,” Mahaffee said in a VOA interview. “It reflects the arrival of a reality-TV mindset to American politics.”

Mahaffee said the constant cable TV coverage of the book has diverted attention from almost all other events in Washington, including some favorable to Trump and others the president might want to hide, such as Thursday’s move by the administration to vastly expand offshore drilling from the Atlantic to the Arctic oceans.

“In a normal environment, we’d be talking about how all the waters in the United States are open to oil drilling. Something that would be the top of every headline is overshadowed by this circus,” Mahaffee said.
…

Senator Ben Cardin, (D-MD), the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spoke to VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren about Iran and North Korea. The following is a full transcript of the interview.

Van Susteren: “Senator, thank you very much for joining me.”

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD): “My pleasure. It’s good to be with you.”

Van Susteren: “Senator, there is a lot going on in Iran. There have been a series of protests sparked, at least at first, according to many as an economic issue, they have now somewhat subsided but what are your thoughts on these protests?”

Cardin: “Well, the Persian people, the Iranians, are great people; they want freedom, they want economic opportunities. They were promised a lot that has not been delivered so there’s a great deal of frustration among the Iranians that why aren’t they doing better why aren’t there better opportunities. They see their leadership, their government, is holding them back so they’re expressing themselves and I think we should all be proud of their courage.”

Van Susteren: “What about the response by the Trump administration to these protests? I know that there was criticisms—President Trump and, even Vice President Pence, has been critical of the Obama administration and President Obama waited a number of days before making a statement. Maybe President Trump made a statement earlier on Twitter; but, nonetheless they are just statements. Is there anything more that we should be doing in Iran about these protests?”

Cardin: “The question is what can you do? I mean these are obviously internal issues and it’s hard for us to get directly involved. But to the extent that the Iranian officials violate established international human rights standards we should take action. We have tools that we can use to take action against violations of human rights. People have a right to peacefully protest about their government, they should have the right to be able to speak out without intimation or fear. In Iran that’s not true. So, it is right for us and we do impose sanctions against Iran for human rights violations. We’ve recently passed a new law, known as the Global Magnitsky, we can sanction individuals and in regards to our banking system or visas. So, there are steps that we can take against those who are perpetrating violations of human rights and we should working with the international community.”

Van Susteren: “How fast can we do those sanctions? I mean if sanctions are the proper response, how fast can we do that?”

Cardin: “Well, they can be done quickly. I mean obviously there’s some—when you are dealing with banking issues there’s due process that has to follow and the Treasury Department follows that pretty closely; but we can impose sanctions pretty quickly we have against Iran. We do have sanctions imposed against Iran for human rights we can strengthen those.”

Van Susteren: “Going back about the 2015, you were opposed to the original Iran Deal, the Nuclear Deal. Why were you opposed to it?”

Cardin: “Well, for several reasons. First, it started with the allowing Iran to enrich uranium which I thought they did not need to do. So, it started with a premise that allowed them to have enriched uranium which one day could be used for a nuclear weapon. Secondly, it took away, I thought, a lot of the leverage we had the deal with the non-nuclear violations concerning their ballistic missiles, our sponsoring of terrorism, the human rights violations, even though we can still do that by releasing some of our sanction relief it makes them more challenging to deal with these other issues.”

Van Susteren: “All right, so fast forward to now President Trump in, I think, October said that he was not going to recertify the deal, so where does that lead us now and what is your position on that?”

Cardin: “Well, I think it would be wrong for the United States to walk away from an agreement. We would be isolated, we would be the bad guys when Iran is the bad actor their government is the one violating international laws. We should spotlight on Iran’s compliance with the agreement and the agreement is lifetime. They’re not allowed to have a nuclear weapon or develop nuclear weapons. We need now to make sure that in fact is enforced and Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state.”

Van Susteren: “I thought there was a period of time as a ten-year deal?”

Cardin: “There’s different limits as to what certain standards have to be complied with. But it’s lifetime that they are not allowed to have a nuclear weapon. So, we can hold them to that and we need to enforce that.”

Van Susteren: “Are you satisfied with the level of inspection that we’re getting. Are we getting the—is the IAEA getting the access it needs to make sure they aren’t violating agreement?”

Cardin: “We’ve had the secretary general of the IAEA in Congress, we’ve asked him specifically whether there’s any additional needs for inspections. He believes he’s had all the access he needs, everywhere he needs to be so there’s been no complaint to date about the denial of access.”

Van Susteren: “So are you confident today, as much as one can be, confident today that Iran met its side of the deal as to where it should be on this agreement?”

Cardin: “As it relates to its nuclear commitments, the individuals who are responsible for the enforcement of this agreement believe that Iran has complied with the agreement. Had there been minor violations at times, yes and they’ve been corrected. But as far as any material breach, there has not been a material breach by Iran.”

Van Susteren: “So Iran doesn’t keep you up at night as it relates to nuclear weapons? Doesn’t keep you up at night?”

Cardin: “Today it does not. I do worry long term about their ability to be nuclear weapons state because of how do we enforce it beyond the sunset dates? That is a concern.

Van Susteren: “What’s a long term for you? What’s the…”

Cardin: “Well there’s 8 years more of the specific limits on what they can do in centrifuges and research and issues like that. After that period of time, although they’ll prevent it from being a nuclear weapons state, those limits no longer apply. So the question is how do you enforce beyond the 8 years?”

Van Susteren: “In terms of what has just transpired, now the protests seem to at least the reports as much we can tell seem the protests have died down a little bit. Do you think by not doing more than sort of just issuing a statement that we’re with you to the Iranian people we have now so taken the wind out of their sales and they’re going to feel very discouraged and there’s going to be no sort of pressure on their government to meet human rights requirements and a greater opportunity for the people?”

Cardin: “This is a delicate line we have to walk. This is the Iranian people speaking out against their government. It’s not the United States encouraging people to do things they don’t want to do. To the extent that we get actively engaged, it will be used by the Iranian officials to say this is the United States not the Iranian people.”

Van Susteren: “Well they’ve already said that. They say their enemies have done it which means Israel and the United States. That’s what the hard lines clerics are saying that we’re responsible for this.”

Cardin: “And we don’t want to give them any ammunition for what they’re saying. We know that the Iranian’s don’t tell the truth about what is happening. Their people know that. They’ve figured this out. You see the protests that are taking place. I think it’s important for us to keep a spotlight on the protestors and do everything we can to keep them safe and to take action against Iran if they violate basic human rights. I think the seeds for protest will remain unless the Iranian leaders change their course and allow the people basic human rights and basic economic freedoms.”

Van Susteren: “Do you have a dialogue at all with the White House on the recertification issue and the deal and even the protests?”

Cardin: “Yes, I’ve talk to Vice President Pence about the protests and we have a resolution that we hope to file – Senator Corker and I, with others that will pass in regards to showing that the United States Senate is behind the rights of the people of Iran to express their views against their government and I’ve been meeting with the representatives of the Trump administration in regards to the certification and waiver issues as to how Congress can be helpful provided that we don’t do anything that will violate the nuclear agreement and that we work closely with our European partners.”

Van Susteren: “Well President Trump seems to take much harder line on this than you do, right? Is that a fair description?”

Cardin: “Well I think President Trump has expressed himself that he believes the agreement should be stronger. And we had pointed out that a lot of his concerns which deal with beyond the requirements of the remaining 8 years that that’s an issue we can work together on. So we are working with the administration to see whether we can clarify some of the provisions as long as it doesn’t violate the JCPOA.”

Van Susteren: “And do you think you’ve convinced the administration or convinced President Trump because he seems to have drawn the line in the sand on this.”

Cardin: “I think the National Security Advisor to the president believes in our National Security interest to remain at the table and not violate the agreement ourselves. What the president will do, that’s hard to tell. The way he makes decisions is not a traditional method used by the presidency of the United States.

Van Susteren: “Are you worried about North Korea with its nuclear weapon?”

Cardin: “Certainly. I think North Korea with Kim Jong Un is doing, that regime, is extremely dangerous. They are clearly developed a nuclear weapon. They are trying to develop a way to deliver that nuclear weapon that could threaten the security of the United States. They have violated the United Nations Resolutions on this. There’s been international sanctions imposed on North Korea as a result of it. We need to further isolate North Korea but then have a surge in diplomacy because there’s not a good military solution here. What we want to do is put the sufficient pressure on North Korea to change course and that means the United States working with China and Japan and South Korea to get a realistic offering to how we can get this crisis over with and put the pressure on North Korea to change directions.”

Van Susteren: “Do you see the routine from North Korea to South Korea, the recent, the reopening of negotiations across that border. Is that a good thing or is that just folly?”

Cardin: “I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s always good to see conversations taking place. It was part of the commitment made by the new regime in South Korea – that they were going to open up more discussion with North Korea. We have the Winter Olympics which gives us an opening for the North and South to talk. I think it’s a good sign that they’re talking.”

Van Susteren: “Senator thank you very much for talking with me.”

Cardin: “It’s always good to be with you.”

 
…

VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren spoke Friday to Senator Ben Cardin, the highest ranked Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  Below are some excerpts.

Van Susteren: “Senator, there is a lot going on in Iran. There have been a series of protests sparked, at least at first, according to many as an economic issue, they have now somewhat subsided but what are your thoughts on these protests?”

Cardin: “Well, the Persian people, the Iranians, are great people; they want freedom, they want economic opportunities. They were promised a lot that has not been delivered so there’s a great deal of frustration among the Iranians that why aren’t they doing better why aren’t there better opportunities. They see their leadership, their government, is holding them back so they’re expressing themselves and I think we should all be proud of their courage.”  

Van Susteren: “What about the response by the Trump administration to these protests? I know that there was criticisms—President Trump and, even Vice President Pence, has been critical of the Obama administration and President Obama waited a number of days before making a statement. Maybe President Trump made a statement earlier on Twitter; but, nonetheless they are just statements. Is there anything more that we should be doing in Iran about these protests?”

Cardin: “The question is what can you do? I mean these are obviously internal issues and it’s hard for us to get directly involved. But to the extent that the Iranian officials violate established international human rights standards we should take action. We have tools that we can use to take action against violations of human rights. People have a right to peacefully protest about their government, they should have the right to be able to speak out without intimidation or fear. In Iran that’s not true. So, it is right for us and we do impose sanctions against Iran for human rights violations. We’ve recently passed a new law, known as the Global Magnitsky, we can sanction individuals and in regards to our banking system or visas. So, there are steps that we can take against those who are perpetrating violations of human rights and we should working with the international community.”

Van Susteren: “How fast can we do those sanctions? I mean if sanctions are the proper response, how fast can we do that?”

Cardin: “Well, they can be done quickly. I mean obviously there’s some—when you are dealing with banking issues there’s due process that has to follow and the Treasury Department follows that pretty closely; but we can impose sanctions pretty quickly we have against Iran. We do have sanctions imposed against Iran for human rights we can strengthen those.”
…

The United States is promising support for protesters in Iran, condemning Iranian officials for a crackdown that has left 21 people dead and more than 1,000 others under arrest.

A White House official Thursday said the U.S. would look for “actionable information” and seek to impose new sanctions against those responsible for stifling protests that began just last week.

The State Department also said it would not stand by idly.

“We have ample authorities to hold accountable those who commit violence against protesters, contribute to censorship, or steal from the people of Iran,” it said in a statement. “To the regime’s victims, we say: You will not be forgotten.”

New U.S. sanctions

Though not tied directly the protests, the U.S. Thursday sanctioned five Iranian companies linked to Tehran’s ballistic missile program.

“These sanctions target key entities involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the Iranian regime prioritizes over the economic well-being of the Iranian people,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement. 

“As the Iranian people suffer, their government and the IRGC fund foreign militants, terrorist groups and human rights abuses,” Mnuchin added.

And at the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley has requested an emergency U.N. meeting Friday on the situation.

But Russia and other members of the U.N. Security Council are criticizing the U.S. call for a meeting, saying the protests are a domestic issue and do not involve threats to international peace and security. 

The U.S. statements and sanctions are unlikely to sit well with Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who have blamed foreign governments for instigating the protests.

The protests, which seemed to erupt spontaneously last week, have spread to many of Iran’s smaller cities, towns and rural areas, with protesters focused on economic hardships and government corruption.

Iranian public’s discontent

But Iranian officials Thursday insisted the wave of anti-government protests had waned.

General Abdolrahim Mousavin, the head of the army, thanked security forces for “putting out the fire of sedition.” 

“This blind sedition was so small that a portion of the police force was able to nip it in the bud,” Mousavin was quoted as saying in state-run media.

Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said only 42,000 people had taken part in the protests. And an official with the country’s elite Revolutionary Guards force said the number of “troublemakers” was less than 15,000.

Instead, state television Thursday showed huge crowds marching in support of Iranian leaders in several major cities, including Isfahan, Ardebil and Mashhad, where the protests started.

Still, U.S. intelligence officials warn Tehran is at a crossroads, noting the protests are the biggest outpouring of public discontent since Iranians took to the streets in 2009 following a disputed presidential election.

“The protests are symptomatic of long-standing grievances that have been left to fester,” an intelligence official told VOA on condition of anonymity. “Will it address the legitimate concerns of its people or suppress the voices of its own populace?”

“What is clear is that these concerns are not going away,” the official said.

Critics of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani say he has abandoned the poor, pointing to rising prices for key commodities like fuel, bread and eggs.

And even Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, told the semi-official ISNA news agency, “The people’s main demand now is for the government and officials to deal with the economic problems.”

Growing U.S. pressure on Iran?

In the meantime, Iran could face additional economic pressure from Washington.

U.S. President Donald Trump is set to decide next week whether to continue to waive sanctions against Iran that were suspended under the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons development. Trump has repeatedly attacked the agreement and assailed Tehran’s military actions in Syria, Iran and Yemen.

But some analysts warn the administration runs a risk of taking too harsh a line on Iran and seeing it backfire.

“There’s really no reason for us to not waive the nuclear sanctions now,” said Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“Don’t pull out of JCPOA [nuclear deal] because that will redirect the attention of the Iranian people from the regime’s inability to solve their financial problems to us,” Eisenstadt said. “We shouldn’t make the United States the issue here.”

Margaret Besheer at the United Nations contributed to this report
…

The U.S. Department of the Interior has announced plans to open up 90 percent of America’s coastal waters to oil drilling, including off California and Florida, two areas where activists have worked for years to protect marine ecosystems from oil spills.

The proposed five-year plan released Thursday is much more expansive than one issued by President Donald Trump in April last year. The Interior Department is proposing 47 possible auctions of drilling rights in nearly all parts of the U.S. continental shelf.

It is a major increase from the 11 lease sales during the Obama administration.

The draft plan would allow the sale of drilling leases in 25 of the nation’s 26 offshore planning areas, including 19 areas in the waters around Alaska, seven in the Pacific Ocean, and nine in the Atlantic Ocean.

One area considered off-limits is the waters near Alaska’s far-western Aleutian Islands, which were protected by former President George W. Bush.

“We are going to become the strongest energy superpower this world has ever known,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters Thursday in a conference call. “We want to grow our nation’s offshore energy industry, instead of slowly surrendering it to foreign shores. We will produce enough energy to meet our needs at home, and we will export enough energy to lead the world.”

Zinke also said in a news release Thursday that “responsibly developing our energy resources” is important to the U.S. economy and will help fund coastline conservation. He said the broad proposal is meant to kick off a “lengthy and robust” public comment period.

“Not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks,” he said.

The Department of the Interior is in charge of setting the start date of the 60-day public comment period. 

Some critics of the proposal have already let their feelings be known. 

Florida Governor Rick Scott, an ally of Trump, has already vowed to fight attempts to drill in Florida. In a statement Thursday, Scott said, “I have already asked to immediately meet with Secretary Zinke to discuss the concerns I have with this plan and the crucial need to remove Florida from consideration.”

Another Trump ally in Florida, Representative Matt Gaetz, has also said he is opposed to drilling off the Florida coast.

The administration is currently operating under the five-year plan set by the Obama administration, which covers 2017-2022. Initially, President Barack Obama had proposed drilling off the Atlantic Coast and off Alaska’s Arctic shore, but both proposals were dropped in the final plan.

Last year, Zinke took a number of steps to make it easier to lease and explore for onshore and offshore oil, including removing some safety regulations put into place after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Eleven people died in the initial explosion on the Deepwater Horizon in 2010, and the resulting oil spill — an estimated total of 4.9 billion barrels over five months — is considered the largest industrial spill in the history of the petroleum industry.
…

Ankara has slammed the conviction in the U.S. of a Turkish banker for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran.

“This is the scandalous verdict of a scandalous case,” Presidential Spokesperson İbrahim Kalin told reporters at the presidential palace. “Unjust and unfortunate,” said the Turkish foreign ministry in a statement, adding, “the evidence was fake and open to political exploitation.”

Mahir Unal, the spokesman for Turkey’s ruling AKP, pointed the finger directly at Washington. “The purpose of the case in United States is interference in the internal affairs of Turkey. This case is a violation of international law and a legal disaster. It is clear that this decision has no provision for us,” tweeted Unal.

But Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has in the past been at the forefront of condemning the case, has remained silent on the verdict.

That silence is telling, claimed political consultant Atilla Yesilada of Global source partners.

“Erdogan was misled by his advisers, who told him Mr. [Hakan] Atilla would be acquitted. Now he understands that if the United States really intends to kick Turkey in the shin, they have received the perfect excuse to do so. At this point, he realizes it’s not wise to antagonize the United States. Now I am sure there are high-level contacts with Washington on how to make this case ago away,” said Yesilada.

On Wednesday, Mehmet Hakan Atilla, who headed international banking at the Turkish state-owned Halkbank, was convicted by a New York court on 5 of 6 charges of violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. With prosecutors presenting evidence of several Turkish banks involved in extensive laundering of money to avoid Iranian sanctions, analysts warn the door is open to a potential wide range of financial sanctions.

Such measures range from fines on Turkish banks to extensive restrictions on banks’ ability to borrow from U.S. financial markets. Turkey borrows on average about $16 billion a month to sustain existing loans and meet its financial obligations.

Joon Kim, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, speaking after the conviction, made clear there would be consequences. “Foreign banks and bankers have a choice: You can choose willfully to help Iran and other sanctioned nations evade U.S. law, or you can choose to be part of the international banking community transacting in U.S. dollars. But you can’t do both.”

“Best-case scenario is a couple of billion dollars in fines against Halkbank for violating sanctions and the American administration closing the file, and that’s the end of it,” said consultant Yesilada.

The Turkish finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, already has guaranteed that any fines would be covered by the government.

Despite international investors reportedly closely watching the New York case, Turkish financial markets Thursday were largely unaffected by Wednesday’s verdict.

The experience of previous foreign banks caught violating U.S. sanctions suggests the repercussions could be severe for Turkish banks. 

In 2015, the French bank BNP Paribas was fined about $9 billion for violating U.S.-Iranian sanctions. An economist specializing on financial matters relating to Turkey — working for an international bank and speaking anonymously — warned that given the scale of the violations outlined by prosecutors in the New York case, Halkbank could face fines of up to $40 billion. Last year Turkey’s Haber Turk newspaper reported U.S. authorities were considering a similarly large fine. 

Observers single out the Halkbank case from previous sanction-busting cases. During the New York trial, the prosecutor witness implicated Turkish government involvement in sanctions violations, including then-Prime Minister Erdogan.

“If the Trump administration wants to portray this as a state crime, as Ankara systematically violating Iranian sanctions, I don’t think anyone can stop them,” said political consultant Yesilada.

Analysts suggest the price of leniency by Washington could be Ankara having to cool its warming relationship with Moscow, and Tehran, as well as the toning down of its hostility toward the Syrian Kurdish militia, which has been backed by the U.S. in fighting Islamic State militants.

Ankara accuses the militia of being terrorists linked to an insurgency in Turkey. Both issues have contributed to recent deep strains in U.S.-Turkish relations. But Washington’s decision in December to restore normal visa services after being severely curtailed was seen as a sign of its commitment to improving ties.

Even if Ankara can come to an agreement with the White House, Congress still remains a problem. 

“The American Congress acts independently of both the judiciary and the executive, and the information I receive from my sources in the United States, it’s extremely angry with Turkish behavior, and it might consider a sanction law against Turkey,” warned consultant Yesilada. “But I think the financial markets collectively don’t think that the United States does want to push this any further. There, I don’t agree with the markets, but as the American game plan is crystallized over the coming weeks, market sentiments will change to a negative.”
…

The recreational use of marijuana is now legal in California. But only a few cities in the U.S. state are ready to start selling pot, which was officially legalized on Jan. 1. The logistics of creating new business models is complicated, but it’s clear the demand is high. VOA’s Kevin Enochs reports.
…

Attorneys for three men accused of plotting to bomb a mosque and apartment complex housing Somali refugees urged a federal judge on Wednesday to include prospective jurors from rural western Kansas because they are more likely to have voted for President Donald Trump.

But the government countered that granting the request would as a matter of policy “wreak havoc,” saying the defense is seeking to pick a jury pool based on ideology while “opening a dangerous door” to similar requests in other cases. 

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren took the matter under consideration after a hearing in U.S. District Court in Kansas, saying he would try to rule quickly. The trial begins March 19 in Wichita. 

Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein and Curtis Allen are charged with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy against civil rights for allegedly planning to detonate truck bombs in the meatpacking town of Garden City the day after the November 2016 election. Wright also faces a charge of lying to the FBI.

The three men, who were indicted in October 2016, have pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have argued the men formed a splinter group of the militia Kansas Security Force that came to be known as “the Crusaders.” Wright is quoted in a wiretap transcript as saying he hoped the attack on the Somalis would “wake people up” and inspire others to take similar action against Muslims.

The defense contends the case will require jurors to weigh whether the alleged conduct constitutes a crime or whether it is constitutionally protected speech and assembly and the right to bear arms.

Defense attorneys had argued that court plans to only summon citizens in the more urban counties closest to the federal courthouse in Wichita is a discriminatory practice that excludes rural and conservative jurors. But the judge during the hearing noted several counties surrounding the federal courthouse in Wichita already used to draw potential jurors are rural counties.

Kansas voted overwhelmingly for Trump in the 2016 election, and Melgren mused during the hearing that he does not see a material difference between picking a jury pool from a group that voted two-thirds for Trump as compared to a group that voted three-fourths for Trump. During the campaign Trump called for a crackdown on immigration and a ban on Muslims entering the country.

But attorney Kari Schmidt, who represents Wright in the case, told the judge there is a difference in the belief systems between people in rural southwest Kansas where the crimes allegedly occurred and people in the other rural counties near Wichita that the judge cited in making his comparison. 

“I don’t think I can say it’s legally recognizable, but factually recognizable,” she said.

The government cited legal cases finding that groups of prospective jurors defined by geographical location are not “distinctive” groups for purposes of a constitutional attack on a prospective jury pool. By contrast, women and racial groups are considered distinctive groups for such purposes. Prosecutors contended the defense request would set a “dangerous precedent.”

“At its core, it is seeking to stack the deck,” Justice Department attorney Risa Berkower said.
…