The Real Russian Collusion Scandal

One Potential Russian Collusion Scandal Has Not Yet Been Investigated: Hillary Clinton and Uranium One

25 Mar 2019

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY

5,626

13:56

After one year, ten months and five days and the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted a report that concluded there was no evidence of Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his campaign team, nor is there any evidence to support obstruction of justice charges against the president.

The obvious question that arises now that the Mueller probe has come up dry is why was such an investigation even launched?

It is a well-known tactic, particularly among modern-day Democratic political operatives, to accuse your opponent of committing offenses that you and your team have actually committed. By doing so, you deflect public opinion away from what must not be discovered–your own illegal activities.

A number of unanswered questions surround the role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in handing over 20 percent of America’s uranium supplies to Uranium One, a company entirely owned by the Russian government. To date, no serious investigation has been launched into this highly controversial decision.

“In a controversial 2010 deal, ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian government-owned nuclear energy conglomerate, obtained a controlling 51 percent interest in Uranium One. That’s the Canadian company at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals. The deal appears to have been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee of the federal government, 52 days after Uranium One’s shareholders signed off on the takeover,” Breitbart News reported in May 2015:

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee of the federal government, first established by an Executive Order from President Ford in 1975. Congress strengthened its mandate when it passed the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA). As amended by a 2008 Presidential Executive Order, FINSA requires that all foreign acquisitions of American assets considered to be central to American national security require the review and approval of CFIUS.

The CFIUS board consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury, and two additional high ranking federal executives. Typically, cabinet members designate representatives to serve on CFIUS.

As Breitbart News noted, “The speedy approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One transaction (CFIUS Case No. 10-40) raises the possibility that the deal may have received expedited treatment, though the management of Canadian based Uranium One stated in a Management Information Circular/Notice to Shareholders published August 6, 2010 and dated August 3, 2010 that “Uranium One and ARMZ intend to submit a joint voluntary notice with CFIUS during the first week of August 2010.”

What raised eyebrows–but not investigations at the time or subsequently–was the fact that the Uranium One–the company that sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to a company owned by the Russian government–was controlled by Ian Telfer, a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, and was the successor to a company controlled by Frank Giustra, another major donor to the Clinton Foundation, as Breitbart News reported:

Ian Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, donated $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 through his family controlled Fernwood Foundation. Other Uranium One executives and investors contributed between $1 million and $5 million during the same period.

“Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations [of $2.3 million through his family foundation] came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines,” the New York Times reported.

When the 2010 transaction closed, ARMZ gave Uranium One $610 million in cash and controlling interest in two uranium mines in Kazhakstan in return for the issuance of 360 million new shares in the company. Combined with the estimated 109 million shares it already owned (a year earlier, it had purchased 17 percent of the company), the additional shares gave ARMZ ownership of an estimated 469 million shares, or 51 percent of the company’s outstanding 920 million shares.

Owners of the remaining 451 million shares, of whom Chairman Ian Telfer was one of the largest, received a one-time dividend of $1.06 per share, for a total of $479 million.

The Uranium One press release announcing the August 31, 2010 shareholder approval stated, “[a]s previously announced, as part of the Akbastau and Zarechnoye transaction ARMZ will also contribute US $610 million in cash to Uranium One, of which approximately US $479 million will be paid directly to shareholders (other than ARMZ) as a change of control premium after closing, by way of a special dividend of US $1.06 per share”

The company’s Management Information Circular dated April 13, 2010, a solicitation of proxies in advance of the company’s 2010 annual meeting, showed Chairman Telfer owned 800,000 shares personally and had options on an additional 675,000 shares. If those options were exercised, Telfer would have received at least $1.5 million in a one-time preferred dividend from the transaction.

Significantly, the company document acknowledges this reporting is totally reliant upon the transparency of Telfer: “The information as to common shares beneficially owned or over which control or direction is exercised (not being within the knowledge of the Corporation) has been furnished by the respective nominees individually.”

The ties between Uranium One executives and the Clinton Foundation may be stronger than has been previously reported.

Uranium One is the successor company to UrAsia Energy, the Canadian company founded in 2005 by Frank Giustra, who donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and a year later established the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian non-profit that has raised $30 million and donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra has stated that he sold all his shares in Uranium One in 2007, but he remains a close business associate with Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer, who also serves as Chairman of Goldcorp, one of the largest gold mining companies in the world. Before he established UrAsia Energy, Giustra made huge profits on his earlier investment in Goldcorp while Telfer was at the helm there.

CGEP has refused to disclose the names of its 1,100 donors, a lack of transparency that is seen as a violation of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

We may never know if Uranium One executives made even more hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation through CGEP.

Here is a summary of just part of what we already know and the mainstream media has admitted to be true, as Breitbart News reported back in April 2015:

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

The Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.

According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cashreveals.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The Wall Street Journal confirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.

“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

The New York Times confirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.

Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.

Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”

The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.

CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns

Reuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”

CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”

Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”

CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings

CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.

“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.

ABC News has confirmed Clinton Cash’s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s desk.

“Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,” reported ABC News.

ABC News noted it found “an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,” but that Clinton Cash’s essential “premise” is “supported by records” ABC News independently analyzed.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York

New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons’ home.

The only question that remains is what vehicle should be used to initiate public investigations into possible Russian collusion by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was at the helm in 2010 when the State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of American uranium to a company controlled by the Russian government.

Why New York City Will Be Shut Down At The Sixth Seal

Indian Point tritium leak 80% worse than originally reported

Published time: 10 Feb, 2016 22:12Edited time: 11 Feb, 2016 01:51

New measurements at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in upstate New York show levels of radioactive tritium 80 percent higher than reported last week. Plant operator insists the spill is not dangerous, as state officials call for a safety probe.

Entergy, which operates the facility 25 miles (40 km) north of New York City, says the increased levels of tritium represent “fluctuations that can be expected as the material migrates.”

“Even with the new readings, there is no impact to public health or safety, and although these values remain less than one-tenth of one percent of federal reporting guidelines,” Entergy said in a statement.

New York governor Andrew Cuomo raised an alarm last Saturday over the reports of groundwater contamination at Indian Point, noting that the company reported “alarming levels of radioactivity” at three monitoring wells, with “radioactivity increasing nearly 65,000 percent” at one of them.

The groundwater wells have no contact with any drinking water supplies, and the spill will dissipate before it reaches the Hudson River, a senior Entergy executive argued Tuesday, suggesting the increased state scrutiny was driven by the company’s decision to shut down another nuclear power plant.

“There are a number of stakeholders, including the governor, who do not like the fact that we are having to close Fitzpatrick,” Michael Twomey, Entergy’s vice president of external affairs, said during an appearance on ‘The Capitol Pressroom,’ a show on WCNY public radio.

The James A. Fitzpatrick plant is located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario, near Oswego, New York. Entergy said it intended to close the plant once it runs out of fuel sometime this year, citing its continued operations as unprofitable.

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson river © wikipedia.org

‘65,000% radioactivity spike’: New York Gov. orders probe into water leak at Indian Point

“We’re not satisfied with this event. This was not up to our expectations,” Twomey said, adding that the Indian Point spill should be seen in context.

Though it has never reported a reactor problem, the Indian Point facility has been plagued by issues with transformers, cooling systems, and other electrical components over the years. It currently operates two reactors, both brought on-line in the 1970s.

In December, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowed Entergy to continue operating the reactors, pending license renewal. The facility’s initial 40-year license was set to expire on December 12, but the regulators are reportedly leaning towards recommending a 20-year extension.

By contrast, Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Pripyat, Ukraine was only three years old when it exploded in April 1986. To this day, an area of 1000 square miles around the power plant remains the “exclusion zone,” where human habitation is prohibited.

The tritium leak at Indian Point most likely took place in January, during the preparations to shut down Reactor 2 for refueling, according to Entergy. Water containing high levels of the hydrogen isotope reportedly overfilled the drains and spilled into the ground.

According to Entergy, tritium is a “low hazard radionuclide” because it emits low-energy beta particles, which do not penetrate the skin. “People could be harmed by tritium only through internal exposure caused by drinking water with high levels of tritium over many years,” an Entergy fact sheet says.

Environmentalist critics are not convinced, however.

“This plant isn’t safe anymore,” Paul Gallay, president of environmental watchdog group

Riverkeeper, told the New York Daily News. “Everybody knows it and only Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuse to admit it.”

Indian Point Still Having Problems (Revelation 6:12)

Indian Point 2 returned to service, but shuts off again about 12 hours later

Dennis Malles, of Malles Auto Body in Montrose and the Montrose Business Association, talks about the future of local businesses after the closure of the nearby Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plant.

Peter Carr/lohud

BUCHANAN – Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant was back online and generating power Sunday, nine days after a malfunction on the non-nuclear side forced a precautionary shutdown in the reactor. But hours later it shut down, again.

On March 15, the initial shutdown began around 3 p.m., ending at 2 a.m. on March 24, according to Jerry Nappi, a spokesman for the nuclear plant’s owner, Entergy.

But that was short lived — 12 hours and 45 minutes later, the system tripped again, around 2:45 p.m. on Sunday, over a similar malfunction to the one that caused the problem in the first place.

0 FOR 2: Both Indian Point reactors down at same time

The first shutdown of Indian Point 2 came while the plant’s other reactor, Indian Point 3, was down for its scheduled refueling. That means that for nearly 9 days, the plant was not generating power. The last time both reactors went down at the same time was in the spring of 2009 when Unit 2 had an unplanned shutdown while Unit 3 was down for maintenance.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the reactor was safely shut down and there were no threats to public safety.

Entergy announced in January 2017 that, as part of an agreement with the state of New York, it would shut down Indian Point by 2021. Unit 2, which went through its final refueling and maintenance last year, is slated to close in 2020.

Contributing: Thomas C. Zambito

Nations Inch Closer to War Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Israel and Gaza inch closer to war after Tel Aviv rocket attack – Vox

Alex WardMarch 25, 2019 1:10 pm

Israel and Gaza inch closer to war after a rocket attack and a forceful response

“Both sides might inadvertently plunge themselves into a new a war” if they don’t step back from the brink, said an expert.

• By Alex Ward

• on March 25, 2019 1:10 pm

A general view shows a damaged house after it was hit by a rocket in the village of Mishmeret, north of Tel Aviv on March 25, 2019.

Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

Israel and Gaza have been on the brink of war for months — and it’s possible Sunday night’s actions will push them closer to that outcome.

Rockets allegedly fired from Gaza hit a home in central Israel, north of Tel Aviv, injuring seven. It’s the second time in less than two weeks that the area has come under attack, a rarity since most rockets from Gaza target Israel’s south.

A woman in her 60s suffered injuries, including shrapnel wounds, and three young children were also hurt, according to Israel’s emergency response team. “This is a complex incident that miraculously has concluded with only light to moderate injuries,” said Eli Bin, the team’s director who was at the scene, in a statement.

The Israeli military blames Hamas — a Palestinian Islamist political organization and militant group that has governed Gaza since 2007 — for the strike. Hamas, however, says it isn’t responsible, and an unnamed Hamas official told AFP on Monday that the rocket could have streaked toward Tel Aviv due to “bad weather.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently in the US to meet with President Donald Trump and who had planned to make a speech at a pro-Israel lobbying group conference in Washington, said he will cut his trip short and cancel the speaking engagement to deal with the incident.

“There has been a criminal attack on the State of Israel and we will respond forcefully,” Netanyahu, who also holds the role of Israel’s defense minister, said on Monday. “In a few hours I will meet with President Trump. I will return to Israel immediately afterward.”

The Israeli military says it has already started to strike targets in Gaza in what could be the most forceful attack on the territory in recent memory.

On March 14, just hours after rockets were fired at Tel Aviv, Israel hit around 100 targets in Gaza, including an underground rocket manufacturing site and drone development center pertaining to Hamas.

This time, Israel has already sent two brigades to Israel’s south and plans to call up thousands of reservists. Since many of those reservists are in Israel’s army, it’s therefore possible that the country plans to launch a ground invasion of Gaza very soon. And Netanyahu has no incentive to back down, experts say, especially since he faces a tough reelection fight on April 9.

Put together, the already sky-high tensions between Israel and Gaza will likely only grow — and a major conflict could come next.

“Both sides might inadvertently plunge themselves into a new a war” if they don’t step back from the brink, tweeted Center for a New American Security Middle East expert Ilan Goldenberg on Monday.

Israel and Hamas have fought wars before

Gaza is a tiny, densely populated strip of land located between Israel, the Mediterranean Sea, and Egypt. Approximately 25 miles long and six miles wide, it is home to an estimated 1.9 million Palestinians.

In 1967, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank during the Six-Day War. (Gaza had formerly been under Egyptian control.) From then until 2005, Israeli military authorities controlled Gaza in the same way they control the West Bank today.

Israel has instituted a blockade of the flow of commercial goods into Gaza, on the grounds that Hamas could use those goods to make weapons to be used against Israel. Israel has eased the blockade over time, but the cutoff of basic supplies like fuel still does significant humanitarian harm by restricting access to electricity, food, and medicine.

It’s unclear why Hamas has reportedly been launching rockets lately in the direction of Tel Aviv. One prevailing theory is that the group is facing protests due to its poor governance of Gaza, and the rocket attacks are meant as a distraction to put the focus on Israel.

Hamas and other Gaza-based militants have fired thousands of rockets from the territory at Israeli targets. Israel has launched a number of military operations in Gaza, including an air campaign and ground invasion in late 2008 and early 2009, a major bombing campaign in 2012, and another air and ground assault in 2014.

In the summer of 2014, three Israeli students were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank, a Palestinian-controlled territory. Once authorities found the bodies under rocks in an open field, Israeli officials blamed Hamas for the deaths and vowed to seek revenge.

Thus began the last time Hamas and Israel fought a war — and it was a brutal seven-week fight.

Israel started launching airstrikes on Gaza, and Palestinians responded by firing rockets into Israel. Then on July 17, 2014, the Israeli military invaded Gaza, in part to close down tunnels that allowed Hamas to secretly enter Israel and attack the country. Ground fighting led to a spike in Palestinian casualties, which went from a few hundred quickly into the thousands.

The conflict eventually ended in August, with both sides agreeing to an Egypt-brokered ceasefire. Israel said it would relax the blockade on Gaza; Hamas declared that it won the war. More than 2,100 Palestinians and 71 Israelis were killed, while over 10,000 people — mostly Palestinians — sustained injuries.

That war was bad, but a new one could be worse.

That’s because the United States — and the Trump administration in particular — is very closely aligned with Israel. Should Israel choose to drop even more bombs and send ground troops into Gaza, Washington might let it happen with little criticism.

Which means that not only could a war break out, it could be much more bloody and dangerous than before.

Law Amendment Opens Iraq to Iranian Hegemony

Law amendment would open Iraq to Iranian influence, say opponents

By JULIA ALTMANN/THE MEDIA LINE

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abd al-Mahidi has proposed a controversial amendment that would allow foreigners who legally enter and reside in the country for at least a year to apply for citizenship.

Current law stipulates a residency requirement of at least 10 years, and the sharp reduction called for in the proposal led many legislators to reject the idea, although a spokesman for the speaker of parliament said there would likely be a vote to return it to the government for review.

The proposal came as a surprise to the Iraqi public, which set social media ablaze. Many took to Twitter to express their displeasure, citing fears of significant changes in demographics and suspicions of foreign influence. Adding fuel to the fire were various media outlets that incorrectly reported the amendment as having become law.

Supporters claim that the proposed amendment would bring justice to thousands of Kurds who were stripped of their citizenship and uprooted by Saddam Hussein in 1980. Opponents argue that it would make the country an Iranian puppet.  

“I do not think a demographic change is the aim of the [proposed] law, which would require tens of years of work – an amount of time that no Iraqi party has,” Ceng Sagnic, coordinator of the Kurdish Studies Program at the Tel Aviv-based Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, told The Media Line.

Bilal Wahab, the Nathan and Esther K. Wagner Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, concurred, adding that the bill itself states that the granting of citizenship is not geared towards altering the demographics of the country.

“That’s the key political point here,” Wahab related to The Media Line. “Iranian influence is a more realistic threat than demographic change.”

Against the backdrop of the proposed modification is Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which has lacked a fulltime minister since elections last summer.

Disagreements between two major political blocs – the nationalist-populist Islah, headed by Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and the reform-reconstructionist al-Binaa, headed by Iran-backed militia leader Hadi al-Amiri – have prevented a nomination. The post, being filled on an interim basis by Mahidi, is considered a highly coveted position, given that it oversees policing, border control and local governates, as well as matters concerning citizenship.

Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias are likely to benefit from the new law,” Sagnic said.

He explained that “thousands of foreign militia members are currently in Iraq” and that while they “cannot make a demographic change,” they are sufficient in number “to further strengthen [Shiite fighters] in the Iraqi security apparatus once they become naturalized citizens, hold government positions at mid-level institutions and receive legalized payments.”

Wahab, however, feels there is an economic side to the proposal that could benefit Iran, which has again fallen under crippling sanctions since the Trump Administration withdrew last year from a multilateral nuclear deal aimed at containing the Islamic Republic’s atomic program.

“Rumor has it in Iraqi circles that Iran is interested in getting its agents in Iraq citizenship to serve…Iranian interests,” he explained. “As Iran tries to make its economy more resilient by opening Iraqi businesses and bank accounts, [these agents] will be able to send money to their accounts in Iran.”

Earlier this month, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made his first official visit to Iraq. The three-day trip was aimed at expanding economic ties with Baghdad, an effort viewed by experts as being aimed at mitigating the effect of the renewed sanctions. The visit is also seen as a message from Tehran to Washington that the Iran-Iraq relationship remains strong.