President Obama Violated The Law With His Ransom Payment To Iran
by Tyler Durden
Aug 19, 2016 10:30 PM
The president hoped to camouflage what he knew to be against the law in his dealings with Iran. Did it ever occur to President Obama to ask why he couldn’t just cut a check to the Iranian regime?
Outrage broke out this week over the revelation that Obama arranged to ship the mullahs piles of cash, worth $400 million and converted into foreign denominations, reportedly in an unmarked cargo plane. The hotly debated question was whether the payment, which the administration attributes to a 37-year-old arms deal, was actually a ransom paid for the release of American hostages Tehran had abducted.
It is a waste of time to debate that point further. The Iranians have bragged that the astonishing cash payment was a ransom — and Obama has been telling us for months that we can trust the Iranians. The hostages were released the same day the cash arrived. One of the hostages has reported that the captives were detained an extra several hours at the airport and told they would not be allowed to leave until the arrival of another plane — inferentially, the unmarked cargo plane ferrying the cash. The reason American policy has always prohibited paying ransoms to terrorists and other abductors is that it only encourages them to take more hostages. And, as night follows day, Iran has abducted more Americans since Obama paid the cash. No matter how energetically the president tries to lawyer the ransom issue, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
More worth examining is why the transaction took the bizarre form that it did. To cut to the chase, I believe it was to camouflage — unsuccessfully — the commission of felony law violations.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Justice Department strongly objected to the cash payment to Iran. As we shall see, that should come as no surprise. What is surprising is the Journal’s explanation of Justice’s concerns: Department officials, it is said, fretted that the transaction looked like a ransom payment. I don’t buy that. It is not a federal crime to pay a ransom; just to receive one. Our government’s stated disapproval of paying ransoms is a prudent policy, not a legal requirement. The Justice Department’s principal job is to enforce the laws, not to ensure good policy in foreign relations. It seems far more likely that Justice was worried that the transaction was illegal.
If they were, they had good reasons.
At a press conference Thursday, Obama remarkably explained, “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran.” Really Mr. President? The whole point of sanctions is to prohibit and punish certain behavior. If you — especially you, Mr. President — do the precise thing that the sanctions prohibit, that is a strange way of being “so strict in maintaining” them.
Now, the sanctions at issue exclude Iran from the U.S. financial system by, among other things, prohibiting Americans and financial institutions from engaging in currency transactions that involve Iran’s government. Contrary to the nuclear sanctions that Obama’s Iran deal (the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” or JCPOA) attempts to undo, the sanctions pertinent here were imposed primarily as a result of Iran’s support for terrorism. That is significant. In pleading with Congress not to disapprove the JCPOA, Obama promised lawmakers that the terrorism sanctions would remain in force.
Terrorism-related sanctions against Iran trace back to the early 1980s, shortly after the jihadist regime overthrew the shah, stormed the American embassy, took hostages, and triggered Hezbollah’s killing sprees. But the sanctions most relevant for present purposes stem from President Clinton’s 1995 invocation of federal laws that deal with national emergencies caused by foreign aggression.
Clinton concluded that Iran had caused such an emergency by, among other things, “its support for international terrorism.” Note that this was even before Iran killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Clinton’s state-of-emergency declaration has been annually renewed ever since. Let that sink in: Notwithstanding Obama’s often shocking appeasement of Tehran, he has been renewing the state of emergency since 2009 — most recently, just five months ago. Indeed, it is worth noting what the Obama State Department’s latest report on “State Sponsors of Terrorism” has to say about Iran. This is from the first paragraph:
Treasury’s guidance cites to what’s known as the ITSR (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations), the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that implements anti-terrorism sanctions initiated by President Clinton under federal law. The specific provision cited is Section 560.204, which states:
To summarize, the anti-terrorism sanctions are still in effect, a fact the administration has touted many times. Obama conceded at his press conference both that these sanctions are still in effect and that they applied directly to his $400 million pay-out to our terrorist enemies. But here’s the president’s problem: While he is correct that the sanctions barred him from sending Iran a check or wire transfer, that is not all they forbid — not by a long shot. They also make it illegal to do what he did.
As noted above, the sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out in dollars or foreign currencies. The claim by administration officials, widely repeated in the press, that Iran had to be paid in euros and francs because dollar-transactions are forbidden is nonsense; Americans are also forbidden to engage in foreign currency transactions with Iran.
Obama had our financial system issue U.S. assets that were then converted to foreign currencies for delivery to Iran. Both steps flouted the regulations, which prohibit the clearing of currency of any kind if Iran is even minimally involved in the deal; here, Iran is the beneficiary of the deal.
The regs further prohibit supplying things of value to Iran, regardless of whether it is done “directly or indirectly.” Expressly included in the “indirect” category are transfers of assets to another country with knowledge that the other country will then forward the assets, in some form, to Iran. That’s exactly what happened here, with Obama pressing the Swiss and Dutch into service as intermediaries.
Although these regulations leave no room for doubt that their point is to prevent and criminalize things like sending $400 million in cash to the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the ITSR adds another reg for good measure. Section 560.203 states:
Oh, and there is also Section 560.701, which makes clear that willful violations of the regulations constitute serious felony offenses under federal criminal law — punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
I hope you’re not lawed out, because there are a couple of other criminal statutes to consider.
The first is the law against providing material support to terrorists, Section 2339A of the federal penal code. It says that anyone who provides resources — including “currency or monetary instruments” — to a person or entity with knowledge that they are to be used in the preparation or carrying out of terrorism offenses is guilty of a serious felony. I’ve italicized “knowledge” to underscore that intent is not required; to be guilty, you just need to know.
As we note above, the Obama administration has just reaffirmed that Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, as our editors recounted in Friday’s National Review editorial:
In sum, the Obama administration has provided Iran with $400 million under circumstances in which it well knows that at least some of this cash will be used for terrorism. Indeed, as the editors point out, by providing the money in cash, Obama makes it more likely that it will be used for terrorism: Iran likes to deny its complicity in jihadist acts; so now, flush with cash, it can fund atrocities without leaving a paper trail.
The second law involves money laundering, criminalized by Congress in Section 1956 of the penal code. There are several prohibited varieties of money laundering. It can be a crime, for example, to conduct a financial transaction involving money used to facilitate unlawful activity. And if money is transferred outside the United States, it can be illegal to use it to promote criminal activity.
As we’ve seen, both currency transmissions to Iran and the provision of material support to terrorism are unlawful activities. The administration has conducted a financial transaction (in fact, several transactions: the issuance of the assets, their conversion into foreign currency, and the transmission to Iran) which facilitated both currency transfers to Iran and Iran’s certain use of the money to support terrorism. Plus, the money was shipped outside the United States before being transferred to Iran and before Iran will use it to promote terrorism. Money-laundering cases often boil down to proof of intent; but there clearly are multiple grounds on which to investigate whether the laws have been transgressed.
The circumstances of Obama’s enormous cash transfer to our terrorist enemies raise serious questions about whether American policy against paying ransoms to terrorists has been flouted. But that should not obscure a more fundamental issue: The president has violated the law.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-19/president-obama-violated-law-his-ransom-payment-iran
by Tyler Durden
Aug 19, 2016 10:30 PM
The president hoped to camouflage what he knew to be against the law in his dealings with Iran. Did it ever occur to President Obama to ask why he couldn’t just cut a check to the Iranian regime?
Outrage broke out this week over the revelation that Obama arranged to ship the mullahs piles of cash, worth $400 million and converted into foreign denominations, reportedly in an unmarked cargo plane. The hotly debated question was whether the payment, which the administration attributes to a 37-year-old arms deal, was actually a ransom paid for the release of American hostages Tehran had abducted.
It is a waste of time to debate that point further. The Iranians have bragged that the astonishing cash payment was a ransom — and Obama has been telling us for months that we can trust the Iranians. The hostages were released the same day the cash arrived. One of the hostages has reported that the captives were detained an extra several hours at the airport and told they would not be allowed to leave until the arrival of another plane — inferentially, the unmarked cargo plane ferrying the cash. The reason American policy has always prohibited paying ransoms to terrorists and other abductors is that it only encourages them to take more hostages. And, as night follows day, Iran has abducted more Americans since Obama paid the cash. No matter how energetically the president tries to lawyer the ransom issue, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
More worth examining is why the transaction took the bizarre form that it did. To cut to the chase, I believe it was to camouflage — unsuccessfully — the commission of felony law violations.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Justice Department strongly objected to the cash payment to Iran. As we shall see, that should come as no surprise. What is surprising is the Journal’s explanation of Justice’s concerns: Department officials, it is said, fretted that the transaction looked like a ransom payment. I don’t buy that. It is not a federal crime to pay a ransom; just to receive one. Our government’s stated disapproval of paying ransoms is a prudent policy, not a legal requirement. The Justice Department’s principal job is to enforce the laws, not to ensure good policy in foreign relations. It seems far more likely that Justice was worried that the transaction was illegal.
If they were, they had good reasons.
At a press conference Thursday, Obama remarkably explained, “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran.” Really Mr. President? The whole point of sanctions is to prohibit and punish certain behavior. If you — especially you, Mr. President — do the precise thing that the sanctions prohibit, that is a strange way of being “so strict in maintaining” them.
Now, the sanctions at issue exclude Iran from the U.S. financial system by, among other things, prohibiting Americans and financial institutions from engaging in currency transactions that involve Iran’s government. Contrary to the nuclear sanctions that Obama’s Iran deal (the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” or JCPOA) attempts to undo, the sanctions pertinent here were imposed primarily as a result of Iran’s support for terrorism. That is significant. In pleading with Congress not to disapprove the JCPOA, Obama promised lawmakers that the terrorism sanctions would remain in force.
Terrorism-related sanctions against Iran trace back to the early 1980s, shortly after the jihadist regime overthrew the shah, stormed the American embassy, took hostages, and triggered Hezbollah’s killing sprees. But the sanctions most relevant for present purposes stem from President Clinton’s 1995 invocation of federal laws that deal with national emergencies caused by foreign aggression.
Clinton concluded that Iran had caused such an emergency by, among other things, “its support for international terrorism.” Note that this was even before Iran killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Clinton’s state-of-emergency declaration has been annually renewed ever since. Let that sink in: Notwithstanding Obama’s often shocking appeasement of Tehran, he has been renewing the state of emergency since 2009 — most recently, just five months ago. Indeed, it is worth noting what the Obama State Department’s latest report on “State Sponsors of Terrorism” has to say about Iran. This is from the first paragraph:
It is due to this atrocious record that Congress pressed Obama to maintain and enforce anti-terrorism sanctions, which the administration repeatedly committed to do. This commitment was reaffirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department on January 16, 2016, the “Implementation Day” of the JCPOA. Treasury’s published guidance regarding Iran states that, in general, “the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]” (See here, p.17, sec. C.14.) I’ve added italics to highlight that it is not just U.S. dollar transactions that are prohibited; foreign currency is also barred. Obama’s cash payment, of course, involved both — a fact we’ll be revisiting shortly.Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for [Hezbollah], Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups[.] . . . Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
Treasury’s guidance cites to what’s known as the ITSR (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations), the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that implements anti-terrorism sanctions initiated by President Clinton under federal law. The specific provision cited is Section 560.204, which states:
The regulation goes on to stress that this prohibition may not be circumvented by exporting things of value “to a person in a third country” when one has “knowledge or reason to know that” such things are “intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran.”The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited. [Emphasis added.]
To summarize, the anti-terrorism sanctions are still in effect, a fact the administration has touted many times. Obama conceded at his press conference both that these sanctions are still in effect and that they applied directly to his $400 million pay-out to our terrorist enemies. But here’s the president’s problem: While he is correct that the sanctions barred him from sending Iran a check or wire transfer, that is not all they forbid — not by a long shot. They also make it illegal to do what he did.
As noted above, the sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out in dollars or foreign currencies. The claim by administration officials, widely repeated in the press, that Iran had to be paid in euros and francs because dollar-transactions are forbidden is nonsense; Americans are also forbidden to engage in foreign currency transactions with Iran.
Obama had our financial system issue U.S. assets that were then converted to foreign currencies for delivery to Iran. Both steps flouted the regulations, which prohibit the clearing of currency of any kind if Iran is even minimally involved in the deal; here, Iran is the beneficiary of the deal.
The regs further prohibit supplying things of value to Iran, regardless of whether it is done “directly or indirectly.” Expressly included in the “indirect” category are transfers of assets to another country with knowledge that the other country will then forward the assets, in some form, to Iran. That’s exactly what happened here, with Obama pressing the Swiss and Dutch into service as intermediaries.
Although these regulations leave no room for doubt that their point is to prevent and criminalize things like sending $400 million in cash to the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the ITSR adds another reg for good measure. Section 560.203 states:
By his own account, President Obama engaged in the complex cash transfer in order to end-run sanctions that prohibit the U.S. from having “a banking relationship with Iran.” The point of the sanctions is not to prevent banking with Iran; it is to prevent Iran from getting value from or through our financial system — the banking prohibition is a corollary. And the point of sanctions, if you happen to be the president of the United States sworn to execute the laws faithfully, is to follow them — not pat yourself on the back for keeping them in place while you willfully evade them. The president’s press conference is better understood as a confession than an explanation.Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.
Oh, and there is also Section 560.701, which makes clear that willful violations of the regulations constitute serious felony offenses under federal criminal law — punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
I hope you’re not lawed out, because there are a couple of other criminal statutes to consider.
The first is the law against providing material support to terrorists, Section 2339A of the federal penal code. It says that anyone who provides resources — including “currency or monetary instruments” — to a person or entity with knowledge that they are to be used in the preparation or carrying out of terrorism offenses is guilty of a serious felony. I’ve italicized “knowledge” to underscore that intent is not required; to be guilty, you just need to know.
As we note above, the Obama administration has just reaffirmed that Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, as our editors recounted in Friday’s National Review editorial:
No doubt: The IRGC’s Quds Force is a formally designated terrorist organization, as, of course, is Hezbollah, Iran’s forward jihadist militia with which the IRGC colludes. And as Tom Joscelyn recently pointed out, Iran continues to harbor members of al-Qaeda (three of whom were just formally designated as terrorists).[Secretary of State] John Kerry even admitted in January that funds channeled to Iran as part of the nuclear deal would “end up in the hands of the IRGC [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps] or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”
In sum, the Obama administration has provided Iran with $400 million under circumstances in which it well knows that at least some of this cash will be used for terrorism. Indeed, as the editors point out, by providing the money in cash, Obama makes it more likely that it will be used for terrorism: Iran likes to deny its complicity in jihadist acts; so now, flush with cash, it can fund atrocities without leaving a paper trail.
The second law involves money laundering, criminalized by Congress in Section 1956 of the penal code. There are several prohibited varieties of money laundering. It can be a crime, for example, to conduct a financial transaction involving money used to facilitate unlawful activity. And if money is transferred outside the United States, it can be illegal to use it to promote criminal activity.
As we’ve seen, both currency transmissions to Iran and the provision of material support to terrorism are unlawful activities. The administration has conducted a financial transaction (in fact, several transactions: the issuance of the assets, their conversion into foreign currency, and the transmission to Iran) which facilitated both currency transfers to Iran and Iran’s certain use of the money to support terrorism. Plus, the money was shipped outside the United States before being transferred to Iran and before Iran will use it to promote terrorism. Money-laundering cases often boil down to proof of intent; but there clearly are multiple grounds on which to investigate whether the laws have been transgressed.
The circumstances of Obama’s enormous cash transfer to our terrorist enemies raise serious questions about whether American policy against paying ransoms to terrorists has been flouted. But that should not obscure a more fundamental issue: The president has violated the law.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-19/president-obama-violated-law-his-ransom-payment-iran
Today at 5:11 pm by Rocky
» Sudanese advisor criticizes Kuwaiti analyzes regarding the development road project
Today at 2:21 pm by Rocky
» Al-Mandalawi stresses the need to strengthen economic and trade cooperation between Iraq and Poland
Today at 2:04 pm by Rocky
» Power maneuvers: America provides defensive weapons to Kurdistan in exchange for withholding from Ba
Today at 10:26 am by Rocky
» Kuwait is drilling an oil well near Umm Qasr, towards Iraqi territory
Today at 10:24 am by Rocky
» In the document... the first Iraqi ministry identifies the obstacles to changing the new official wo
Today at 10:22 am by Rocky
» Italian Institute: Iraq is stuck in its own crises, including Baghdad’s efforts to undermine the “au
Today at 10:21 am by Rocky
» The head of the Integrity Commission announces the holding of an international Interpol conference i
Today at 10:18 am by Rocky
» Planning: Iraqi companies are not efficient in conducting the population census
Today at 10:14 am by Rocky
» utube MM&C 4/24/24 Support - USA- Turkey - Timing- Currency Value - Tabled
Today at 8:08 am by Rocky
» MM&C 4/25/24 National Bank of Iraq goes live with Temenos core banking and payments
Today at 8:06 am by Rocky
» A banking official indicates a "danger" to Iraq by depriving more than half of its banks of dollars
Today at 7:55 am by Rocky
» With the participation of the Association of Private Banks, investment opportunities are on the tabl
Today at 7:45 am by Rocky
» Within a month... an Iranian border crossing recorded a noticeable increase in exports of goods to I
Today at 7:44 am by Rocky
» The Association of Private Banks appreciates the efforts of the government and the Central Bank to c
Today at 7:43 am by Rocky
» Al-Maliki's coalition presents a third candidate for the position of governor of Diyala
Today at 6:57 am by Rocky
» Arab gathering: The Kirkuk problem is getting complicated and the Sudanese must intervene
Today at 6:56 am by Rocky
» Next week.. a Kurdish delegation will visit Baghdad to meet with the Minister of Finance
Today at 6:54 am by Rocky
» Under the pretext of salaries... Al-Party refrains from handing over port revenues to Baghdad
Today at 6:53 am by Rocky
» Association of Banks: For the first time, we are witnessing a clear targeting of depriving half of t
Today at 6:51 am by Rocky
» Parliament does not know the reason for the delay in sending the 2024 budget schedules: Voting takes
Today at 6:49 am by Rocky
» Applicants for the 2024 Hajj are demanding that the Central Bank secure the dollar for them through
Today at 5:09 am by Rocky
» Governmental and private banks will showcase their services tomorrow during Financial Inclusion Week
Today at 5:08 am by Rocky
» Iraq's oil exports rise despite OPEC+ cuts
Today at 5:06 am by Rocky
» A study explodes a "surprise"... Iraq is among the countries that export oil to "Israel": How is the
Today at 5:04 am by Rocky
» Al-Araji emphasizes working to strengthen national identity
Today at 5:02 am by Rocky
» Al-Sudani visits Saudi Arabia to participate in the World Economic Forum in Riyadh
Today at 5:01 am by Rocky
» Iraq is talking about producing one million additional liters of gasoline
Today at 4:59 am by Rocky
» The Council of Ministers approves the implementation of the Baghdad Metro project
Today at 4:56 am by Rocky
» Minister of Commerce: We formed a joint economic committee with Türkiye
Today at 4:55 am by Rocky
» Resources: Government measures have contributed to improving the water situation in Iraq
Today at 4:53 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Finance: Baghdad will continue to send salaries to the region’s employees until settle
Today at 4:51 am by Rocky
» A parliamentarian describes the corruption of Iraqi ports as “ghouls” and reveals the involvement of
Today at 4:49 am by Rocky
» Obelisk Hour: Basra is the subject of political conflict and ambiguity over the fate of the funds al
Today at 4:48 am by Rocky
» Turkmen leader: An agreement on the local government of Kirkuk is near
Today at 4:45 am by Rocky
» Anbar calls for the operation of its factories despite financial obstacles
Today at 4:44 am by Rocky
» Turki: The crisis of the Presidency of Parliament prompted the Sunnis to amend the Council’s interna
Today at 4:43 am by Rocky
» The Agriculture Committee confirms the existence of Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian discussions on water
Today at 4:42 am by Rocky
» Resources diagnose the challenges facing the water file in Iraq
Today at 4:38 am by Rocky
» Parliament pledges to the Interior Ministry: We will transfer money to buy weapons from citizens
Today at 4:33 am by Rocky
» Al-Issawi is the closest.. Parliament sets the date for deciding the choice of the new president
Today at 4:31 am by Rocky
» Deputy: Iraq's investments have risen and need a comprehensive review of previous years
Today at 4:30 am by Rocky
» Iraqis consume 7 billion eggs annually and import about $900 million
Today at 4:28 am by Rocky
» The Iranian role complicates attempts at open cooperation between Iraq and Turkey. Turkey is trying
Today at 4:26 am by Rocky
» Move in Iran to obtain $242 billion from Iraq in compensation for the eight-year war
Today at 4:25 am by Rocky
» 12 decisions from the Council of Ministers regarding the Baghdad Metro and Najaf-Karbala train proje
Today at 4:23 am by Rocky
» Sudanese Advisor: The path to development has begun... the Baka and the militias “we silence them wi
Today at 4:21 am by Rocky
» Not from Kurdistan.. How did Iraq become a source of oil for “Israeli tanks”?
Today at 4:19 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Agriculture criticizes the Sudanese and Erdogan agreement: Türkiye will control water
Today at 4:16 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi government issues new decisions
Yesterday at 2:35 pm by Rocky
» The story of “reduced oil” to Jordan, from “compulsion” to mutual benefit.. Is there a loss?
Yesterday at 2:33 pm by Rocky
» The Council of Ministers takes 12 decisions for the Baghdad Metro and the Najaf-Karbala train
Yesterday at 2:32 pm by Rocky
» utube MM&C 4/23/24 Iraqi Dinar - IQD Update - Development Road Project - Saviour of Global Banking
Yesterday at 10:18 am by Rocky
» Kidney from pig transplanted into deathly ill New Jersey woman — and begins working almost immediat
Yesterday at 10:15 am by Bama Diva
» The most difficult option.. Warnings of the danger of floating the Iraqi dinar without achieving an
Yesterday at 9:48 am by Rocky
» Trade from the “Economic Committee” with Türkiye: It will overcome all obstacles facing the traders
Yesterday at 9:46 am by Rocky
» Washington's hope for stable relations with Baghdad clashes with Iraqi parties' rejection of the Ame
Yesterday at 9:41 am by Rocky
» Karim Badr: Development is America’s will to kill silk
Yesterday at 9:36 am by Rocky
» Oil: Opening of a new port for liquid gas for vehicles in Baghdad
Yesterday at 9:33 am by Rocky
» A media advisor warns of corruption in a draft law on the Parliament’s agenda
Yesterday at 9:21 am by Rocky
» Economist: There is serious work to lift US sanctions on Iraqi banks
Yesterday at 9:16 am by Rocky
» Will the agreements signed with the US Treasury reflect positively on the exchange rates?
Yesterday at 7:52 am by Rocky
» Iraq continues its quest to join the World Trade Organization
Yesterday at 7:51 am by Rocky
» Iraq completes the completion of the files for the initial offer of goods and services to join the W
Yesterday at 7:50 am by Rocky
» Economist: Travelers' dollars are leaking into the parallel market...and this is what the Central Ba
Yesterday at 7:32 am by Rocky
» President of the Federal Court: It is not permissible to force anyone to join any party, and the pol
Yesterday at 7:30 am by Rocky
» The Council of Ministers holds its session headed by Al-Sudani
Yesterday at 7:27 am by Rocky
» America weakens Baghdad...and increases Kurdistan's military capabilities
Yesterday at 7:26 am by Rocky
» The Iraqi government plans to build 10,000 schools throughout the country
Yesterday at 7:23 am by Rocky
» American threats close the Iraqi Stock Exchange at a loss
Yesterday at 7:21 am by Rocky
» Increase in external transfers at the Central Bank
Yesterday at 7:20 am by Rocky
» Al-Maliki calls on Britain to cancel restrictions on the entry of its companies into Iraq
Yesterday at 7:18 am by Rocky
» Planning and the European Union are discussing signing a number of agreements in the development, en
Yesterday at 7:16 am by Rocky
» Parliament talks about the mechanism for recovering smuggled funds and hints at the next stage
Yesterday at 7:13 am by Rocky
» Interior Ministry: The number of completed national cards reached 37 million cards
Yesterday at 7:06 am by Rocky
» Amnesty International: Violations of freedom and human rights continue in Iraq and the Kurdistan Reg
Yesterday at 7:04 am by Rocky
» Parliamentary Oil: The government is proceeding with the decision to raise the price of improved gas
Yesterday at 7:03 am by Rocky
» A parliamentary committee in Basra to investigate violations of the port company and the local gover
Yesterday at 7:00 am by Rocky
» Revealing the 10 most important American exports to Iraq
Yesterday at 5:31 am by Rocky
» A noticeable increase in the rate of Iraq's import of Chinese cooling devices
Yesterday at 5:30 am by Rocky
» Prime Minister: Working on projects without completing the infrastructure is a waste of money
Yesterday at 5:28 am by Rocky
» Iraq.. Extending the deadline for registration procedures on plots of land
Yesterday at 5:27 am by Rocky
» What is the main purpose of conducting the population census in Iraq?
Yesterday at 5:25 am by Rocky
» A plan to transform Iraq from a barren land to green with 5 million trees
Yesterday at 5:24 am by Rocky
» The Housing Fund announces the acceptance of more than 11 thousand loans through the Ur platform
Yesterday at 5:23 am by Rocky
» The Bank of Baghdad is moving to increase its capital to 400 billion dinars
Yesterday at 5:20 am by Rocky
» The electronic payment system will soon be adopted on Iraqi buses
Yesterday at 5:19 am by Rocky
» “It threatens our interests and destroys our economy.” An Iraqi project “irritates” the Kuwaiti stre
Yesterday at 5:18 am by Rocky
» Warning from the Central Bank about “misuse of electronic payment cards”
Yesterday at 5:17 am by Rocky
» Iraq and the Sultanate of Oman are discussing sending capacities through the Gulf countries
Yesterday at 5:16 am by Rocky
» The fact that a decision was issued to deport Syrian workers from Iraq
Yesterday at 5:14 am by Rocky
» Rice comes first... America exports 10 foodstuffs worth more than 350 million dollars to Iraq
Yesterday at 5:14 am by Rocky
» A sixth licensing round for gas exploration
Yesterday at 5:12 am by Rocky
» Baghdad is preparing to host the 50th session of the Arab Labor Conference
Yesterday at 5:11 am by Rocky
» Scientific symposium on the future vision of the tripartite budget
Yesterday at 5:09 am by Rocky
» Five conversion power stations enter service in Najaf
Yesterday at 5:08 am by Rocky
» Planning: Conduct a population census next November
Yesterday at 5:07 am by Rocky
» Experts: Spreading misleading information harms development and investment
Yesterday at 5:03 am by Rocky
» Economists call for tightening money laundering laws and port controls
Yesterday at 5:02 am by Rocky