The investigation revolves around a 2009 story that Fox News’ James Rosen broke about North Korea’s nuclear program and the regime’s intentions to conduct a nuclear test in response to United Nations sanctions.

The Department of Justice began tracking the supposed originator of the information, the State Department’s Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, and Rosen to determine their relationship following the article’s publishing.

According to the Post, which obtained court records for the case, the FBI tracked Rosen’s movements out of federal office buildings, phone records, and the private email accounts of Kim and Rosen to build a case against them.

A federal judge granted the DOJ permission to include Rosen in the investigation since there was evidence that Rosen was a “co-conspirator” in releasing classified information.

As the Post points out, these actions are quite alarming:

However, it remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.

The 2009 investigation is similar to the latest news that the DOJ has been tracking Associated Press reporters, but the breadth of the investigation of James Rosen raises new questions of how many journalists have been the targets of these searches.

While the Department of Justice maintains it followed all applicable laws in their investigations of government leaks, they have been criticized for the number of investigations carried out since 2009:

The Obama administration has pursued more such cases than all previous administrations combined, including one against a former CIA official charged with leaking U.S. intelligence on Iran and another against a former FBI contract linguist who pleaded guilty to leaking to a blogger.

Gregory Hicks, the deputy to slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he was bullied by higher-ups when he expressed concerns about the department’s public response to the attack, was ordered not to discuss the attack with a congressional investigator, and was not able to obtain the requisite clearance to discuss the attack with his attorney.

Hicks said Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones dressed him down shortly after he criticized U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s claim that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous demonstration.

“Jones counseled me on my management style, she said staff was upset,” Hicks said. “[She] delivered a very blistering critique of my management style and said ‘I don’t know why Larry Pope would want you back.’”

State Department attorneys also allegedly instructed Hicks not to discuss the attack with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) when he was in Libya as part of a congressional inquiry into the attack.

Hicks said he has effectively been demoted to a desk job below his capability since he began raising questions about the State Department’s response to the attack.

“Between my curtailment and the job I have now, I had no meaningful employment,” Hicks said. “I’ve been effectively demoted … to desk officer.”

Hicks also testified that his attorney was denied a security clearance and barred from attending classified meetings with him.

Hicks added that he spoke to Clinton the night of the attack, and there was no mention of a protest outside the mission. The former secretary of state, as well as other State Department and administration officials, claimed that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest for two weeks following the assault.

“The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate,” Hicks said.

An April 19, 2012 cable signed by Clinton denied requests for additional security at the mission and ordered the planned removal of security elements.

Clinton would have had to sign off on security cuts to the mission, said Eric Nordstrom, regional security officer in Tripoli.

Clinton told Congress in January that she “didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.”

Democrats on the committee said Clinton’s name was on the cable because she was the head of the department, but that she did not personally approve or deny the security requests.

Nordstrom testified that Clinton would have been required to sign off on any waiver of Security Environment Threat List requirements and that the mission did not meet these standards.

“Waiver requirements for buildings solely occupied by the U.S. government overseas must be approved by the Secretary of State and cannot be delegated,” Nordstrom said.

Nordstrom said he had long raised concerns about the security at the mission, but was dismissed by his superiors.

“The response I got from the regional director when I raised the issues [of security] … was that my ‘tone’ was not helpful,” Nordstrom said.

Democrats at the hearing downplayed it as a politically motivated witch-hunt, while being careful to avoid any appearance that they were attacking the witnesses personally.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) called the hearing an attempt to “smear public officials,” but praised the whistleblowers for their courage.

“We all feel your pain,” Cummings told the witnesses. “It is your bravery that brought your here today.”

Democrats continued this line after the hearing.

“Really there wasn’t anything new that we hadn’t already seen before and that hadn’t already been rehashed again and again. So there isn’t much news today,” Rep. Matt Cartwright (D., Pa.) said on MSNBC.

However, it may be difficult for the Obama administration to continue to portray the Benghazi investigation as purely political after today’s emotional testimony from three long-time State Department officials, who teared up at points when discussing the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.

JASON CHAFFETZ: Were any of these U.S. military personnel not permitted to travel on a rescue mission or relief mission to Benghazi?

GREGORY HICKS: They were not authorized to travel.

JASON CHAFFETZ: What happened with those personnel?

GREGORY HICKS: They remained in Tripoli with us. The medic went with the nurse to the hospital and his skills to the treatment of and care of our wounded.

JASON CHAFFETZ: How did the personnel reacted to be told to stand down?

GREGORY HICKS: They were furious. I can only say, well I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson — he said “this is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.”

The calls, Hicks said, were not taken credibly as they knew independently that Ambassador Stevens was in a hospital.

Hicks claimed this was most likely Ansar al-Sharia attempting to bait the rescue team into a trap:

GREGORY HICKS: [...] After the announcement of Chris’s passing military escort and vehicles arrived at the airport. So the decision was made for them to go to the annex. one of the, before I got the call from the prime minister we had received several phone calls on the phone that had been with the ambassador saying that we know where the ambassador is. Please, you can come get him. And our local staff engaged on those phone calls admirably. Asking very, very good, outstanding even open-ended questions about where was he? Trying to discern whether he was alive, whether they even had the ambassador, whether that person was with the ambassador. Send a picture. Could we talk to the ambassador? Because we knew separately from David that the ambassador was in a hospital. That we believe was under Ansar al-Sharia’s call. We suspected we were being baited into a trap and so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush. And we didn’t. We sent them to the annex. [...]

Nordstrom also took an apparent shot at former Secretary Clinton, stating “The committee’s labors to uncover what happened, prior, during and after the attack matter”:

ERIC NORDSTROM: [...] As the regional security officer or RSO for the embassy in Tripoli I served as the principal security advisor to U.S. ambassadors Gene Cretz and Chris Stevens on security and law enforcement matters. I want to thank the committee again for opportunity to appear and provide further testimony and support of your inquiry into the tragic events of September 11th, 2012. I would also like to thank the committee in your continued efforts in investigating all the details and all the decisions related to the attack on our diplomatic facility. Specifically the committee’s labors to uncover what happened, prior, during and after the attack matter. It matters to me personally. It matters to my colleagues, to my colleagues at the Department of State. It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And most importantly, excuse me. It matters to the friends and family of, of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11th, 2012. In addition to my testimony before this committee in October of 2012 I also met with the FBI, Senate Homeland Security and governmental affairs committee, the department’s Accountability Review Board and I have discussed my experience in Libya with all of them. I’m proud of the work that our team accomplished in libya under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The protection of our nation’s diplomats, our embassies and consulates and the work produced there is deserving of the time that this committee, other congressional committees and the Accountability Review Board and no doubt future review efforts will invest in making sure we get this process right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and for the opportunity to appear before you today. I stand ready to answer any questions you might have.

]]> http://freebeacon.com/nordstrom-chokes-up-during-opening-statement/feed/ 0 http://freebeacon.com/state-department-stonewall/ http://freebeacon.com/state-department-stonewall/#comments Mon, 06 May 2013 21:10:28 +0000 Adam Kredo http://freebeacon.com/?p=102622 A legal watchdog group says the State Department is stonewalling its efforts to obtain records relating to State Department official Mark Ward’s participation in a December 2012 conference organized by the controversial Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

Judicial Watch filed suit against the State Department April 26 in an effort to compel the release of materials related to the potential recruitment of U.S. diplomats through two Muslim-American groups purported to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist groups.

The suit, which was announced Thursday, alleges that State has failed to comply with its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for detailed documents related to Ward’s speech, in which he discussed “foreign service opportunities for Muslim youth.”

Both MAS and ICNA have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamist movement that controls the Egyptian government and whose military wing, the terror group Hamas, runs the Gaza Strip. The conference at which Ward spoke featured speeches by at least two Muslim activists who have advocated in favor of terrorism and were involved in a 2009 lawsuit regarding fundraising for Hamas.

Judicial Watch initially filed its FOIA request on Jan. 31. It sought to compel the release of “any and all records regarding the participation of Mr. Mark S. Ward, Deputy Special Coordinator in the Office of Middle East Transition, in the 11th Annual Convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Council of North America in Chicago, IL in December 2012,” according to the lawsuit.

Judicial Watch also requested “any and all records of communication between any official or employee of the Department of State and any official, employee, or representative of the Muslim American Society and/or the Islamic Council of North America.”

The State Department failed to respond to the FOIA by March 7, as the law dictates. It has continued to ignore Judicial Watch’s ongoing requests.

Ward “conducted a seminar focused on career opportunities for Muslim youth” during his appearance at the conference, according to Judicial Watch’s Weekly Update, which published a description on the event on Friday.

“Besides being a citizenship duty, there are benefits that Muslims can add to the American Muslim community and the global Muslim world by joining the U.S. Foreign Services,” according to the event’s description.

“This session will shed light on the different career opportunities for Muslim youth in the US. Foreign Services Department. It will also clear any concerns that many people have feared about pursuing in this career.”

Judicial Watch maintains that Ward’s participation in the event is part of the Obama administration’s wider effort to court the Muslim community while ignoring certain groups’ ties to Islamic extremism.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Boston Marathon bombings provide a disturbing context for the State Department’s recruitment efforts.

“The Boston Marathon bombing shows why it is dangerous for a high-ranking State Department official to join with terrorist front groups to recruit for government employment,” Fitton said in a statement. “It is a scandal; which explains why we’ve had to sue in federal court to get past the cover-up of what exactly took place at the recruitment conference.”

Ward participated in the 2012 conference with several controversial figures who have ties to radical Muslim groups and Hamas.

One speaker, Kifah Mustapha, has reportedly advocated for violent jihad. He also was cited in a lawsuit as a paid fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a Muslim charity that was shut down by the federal government for funneling money to Hamas.

HLF was ultimately convicted on more than 100 counts of supporting terrorism and funneling millions to Hamas.

“Also at the podium with Ward was MAS co-founder and Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi,” who was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case, Judicial Watch stated in a press release. Badawi in 2009 was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against the HLF and who praised the jihad of Gaza terrorists during a speech titled “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.”

“With Ward and Badawi were Ayman Hammous and Oussama Jammal,” Judicial Watch added. “Hammous is the Executive Director of the New York chapter of MAS and Jammal is the president of the Mosque Foundation, an extremist Islamist mosque in Bridgeview, Illinois, that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the HLF and other Islamic charities accused of financing terrorism.”

A State Department spokesman did not respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment about the lawsuit.

Lawmakers will likely press the officials to pinpoint the security failures that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The three witnesses announced are: Mark Thompson, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism; Gregory Hicks, a foreign service officer who formerly served as the deputy chief of mission/charge d’affairs in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who formerly served as the State Department’s Regional Security Officer in Libya.

Nordstrom revealed in October 2012 during a similar hearing that his superiors in the State Department stymied his efforts to boost security at the Benghazi compound in the months prior to the attack.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the Oversight Committee’s chairman, praised the officials for coming forward to testify.

“I applaud these individuals for answering our call to testify in front of the Committee,” Issa said in a statement Saturday. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points from what Administration officials—including those on the Accountability Review Board—have portrayed.”

“Numerous other individuals” who have first-hand knowledge about the Benghazi attack have contacted the Oversight Committee and could come forward to testify in the near future, Issa revealed.

Anonymous whistleblowers have come forward in recent days to detail the Obama administration’s efforts to pressure them not to testify about the attacks.

“Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” Issa said.

“In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers,” he said. “While we may yet add additional witnesses, this panel will certainly answer some questions and leave us with many new ones.”

There are new details that administration officials misled the public in its initial public assessments of the attack, withheld relevant information that may have been politically damaging, waged “subtle intimidation” campaigns against multiple government employees who sought to testify about the attack, and neglected evidence in its own internal investigation of the attack and its aftermath.

The new revelations, made ahead of next week’s House Oversight Committee hearing, have propelled the Benghazi issue back into the news cycle and reopened a politically uncomfortable wound for the White House and possible 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The CIA talking points on which administration officials relied during initial public interviews were edited multiple times to remove references to al Qaeda and terrorism at the behest of State Department and White House officials, according to emails obtained by congressional investigators.

Two of these officials were former State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland and White House national security official Ben Rhodes, the Weekly Standard reported Friday.

Nuland said her superiors were not happy with the talking points and were concerned Congress would use them against the State Department, according to the Standard. She did not name the superiors.

The emails were quoted in a recent congressional report suggesting former Secretary of State Clinton had an interest in downplaying the consulate attack since she had approved a plan to reduce security at the U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya in April 2012.

The talking points originally stated the government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” The final draft was reportedly edited to remove references to al Qaeda, and “Islamic extremists” was changed to just “extremists.”

The term “attack” was replaced with “demonstrations.”

State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declined to comment during a press briefing Friday when asked about Nuland’s involvement and why details about al Qaeda were removed.

“We regularly discuss our public messaging with our interagency counterparts, that’s part of what happens in the interagency,” said Ventrell. “We’re not going to get into the details … of our internal deliberative process on these. We continue to be transparent with the congress, and have been, and shared thousands of documents. Talking points is something that they’ve looked into.”

Other aspects of the administration’s narrative have also come under scrutiny this week. The administration has said there were no forces close enough to get to the mission in time.

“It is not reasonable, nor feasible, to tether U.S. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world,” former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen told Congress last December.

But an anonymous special operations officer said in an interview with Fox News Channel this week that the United States had forces in the region and could have intervened to stop the assault on the diplomatic mission.

“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” he told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours … four to six hours.”

There are also new concerns that witnesses to the attack have been discouraged from speaking out. Three State Department employees and one CIA employee have faced a “subtle intimidation campaign” by administration officials, as they prepare to testify at the upcoming hearings before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to an attorney for one of the witnesses.

“They’re not telling them they’re going to put them through the guillotine tomorrow,” attorney Victoria Toensing, told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday. “It’s subtle intimidation.”

Toensing said this includes suggestions employees who testify about Benghazi might lose their jobs, get passed over for promotions or be pushed into early retirement.

The Government Accountability Project’s Jesselyn Radack, who has represented whistle-blowers at the State Department and CIA, called the alleged intimidation “classic whistleblower reprisal.”

Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) told the Free Beacon Friday that such pressure could discourage witnesses from testifying unless they are subpoenaed.

“If you’re in your mid-50s and you have a couple kids, and you’re working for federal agencies … you’re not going to risk your job to come forward unless you’re subpoenaed,” said Wolf. “You have to have that subpoena power and right now they haven’t used that subpoena power. You can jeopardize your career.”

Meanwhile, the State Department inspector general has launched an investigation into an internal panel tasked with reviewing the State Department’s response to the attack, Fox News reported Thursday.

Clinton had convened the Accountability Review Board (ARB), led by Mullen and former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, to investigate security lapses and errors by the State Department that left the Benghazi mission vulnerable to attack. The White House has repeatedly referred to the review board’s investigation when questioned about the attack.

Now the State Department’s top watchdog has launched a review of the review board, which has been accused of ignoring accounts from key witnesses and failing to run a complete investigation.

State Department officials have downplayed the inspector general investigation, characterizing it as a general review of the ARB process going back decades.

The White House, which was previously accused of slow-rolling the Benghazi investigation until after last November’s election, is now downplaying it as old news.

“Let’s be clear,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”

But there is no indication the issue will disappear anytime soon. The FBI released photos Thursday of three men who were allegedly at the Benghazi mission on the night of the attack.

“The FBI is now asking Libyans and people around the world for additional information related to the attacks,” the FBI said in a statement, adding that the three men might be able to provide information on the attack but stopping short of calling them suspects.

The House Oversight Committee will resume its hearings into the administration’s response to Benghazi next Wednesday.

Senior writer Adam Kredo contributed reporting.

The suit, which was originally filed by 24 Americans living in Israel, alleges that Clinton, the State Department, and White House have “not been complying with the regulations and reporting obligations” governing the more than $500 million in aid that America gives to the PA annually, according to an Israeli law group.

“As a result of this non-compliance, U.S. funds have been flowing to terror groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Palestine Liberation Front,” according to the Israel Law Center, which is handling the lawsuit.

The Department of Justice moved to dismiss the suit last week on the grounds that D.C. courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. The complainants, they argue, are suing the government based primarily on disagreements over U.S. foreign policy and can therefore prove no real injury.

“The apparent impetus for plaintiffs’ challenge is their strongly felt disagreement with United States foreign policy—a disagreement that pervades nearly every page of their [original] complaint,” the DOJ argued in its motion to dismiss. “Such disagreement, no matter how passionately held, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish constitutional injury.”

The plaintiff’s argument that they “live in fear of Palestinian terrorist attacks” is not grounds for a lawsuit challenging U.S. aid to the PA, the DOJ maintained.

“Without minimizing the threat of terrorism in Israel, Plaintiffs’ fear of the possibility of a future terrorist attack is ‘too speculative to satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be ‘certainly impending,’” according to the motion.

“Fear of a speculative future event, such as a possible terrorist attack, is the type of ‘conjectural or hypothetical’ interest that is insufficient to establish standing,” the DOJ said.

Israel Law Center director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said the government’s motion was expected, but unjustified. The threat of terrorism is real and ongoing, she said. For example, Palestinian terrorists fired three rockets at Israel on Monday, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

“With rockets being fired everyday out of Gaza and the Palestinian rioting escalating in the West Bank, everyone in Israel is afraid the Palestinians will soon launch another intifada,” Darshan-Leitner told the Washington Free Beacon in an email.

“Hundreds of Americans were killed and injured during the last intifada by Palestinian terrorism and the rockets and suicide bombers make no distinctions based on citizenship,” she said. “The very reason Congress enacted these restrictions on aid were to safeguard against a very real threat to civilian life and now comes the government saying that this fear is speculative.”

Darshan-Leitner maintained that the DOJ and State Department are trying to avoid explaining the rationale for U.S. aid to the PA.

“They would much rather have the proceeding thrown out on a legal technicality then have to explain the reasonableness or legality of their actions,” she said. “Even more so when what they are doing is violating clear restrictions placed on their actions by the Congress.”

The Israel Law Center will soon file a response to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, Darshan-Leitner said.

“No one is challenging the president’s foreign policy powers nor the basic policy of aid to the Palestinians, but simply the failure to comply with the transparency and reporting regulations the Congress put in place as safeguards on Palestinian aid,” she said.

The plaintiffs in the case are all Americans who are living in Israel in close proximity to the Palestinian territories.

Their original lawsuit argued that Clinton and the State Department violated federal law by failing to implement “transparency safeguards” on U.S. aid to the PA, potentially allowing U.S. dollars to pay for terrorist activities.

The State Department “authorized, sanctioned, encouraged, and/or facilitated funding to the Palestinian Authority without imposing the controls and oversight mandated by federal statute,” the complaint said. “In addition, defendants have ignored reporting requirements and allowed the Palestinian Authority to evade transparency safeguards mandated by American law.”

“In so doing, they have allowed federal dollars into the hands of Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (both recognized foreign terrorist organizations), the Palestinian Liberation Organization (a terrorist organization), employees of the Palestinian Authority who are barred access to federal funds pursuant to federal statute, and other supporters of terrorism against civilians who live in Israel,” the complaint argued.

Two of the 24 Americans who initiated the lawsuit have been victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks.

“All of the plaintiffs live in fear of Palestinian terrorist attacks,” the lawsuit said.

DOJ lawyer Bryan Diederich, who is working on the case, declined comment, saying it is the department’s policy to not comment on ongoing cases. A DOJ spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the case.

U.S. lawmakers have sought to eliminate funding the PA in recent weeks.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) recently introduced a bill that would cut aid until the PA “recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state” and cuts off all ties with the terror group Hamas.

“It’s a huge blind spot in those trying to implement sanctions” on Iran, Roger Noriega, a former United States ambassador and assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, told the Washington Free Beacon.

Venezuela served as Iran’s closest Western ally under the late President Hugo Chavez, who allowed the rogue regime to establish a military and financial presence at the highest levels of the Venezuelan government.

Iran’s foothold in the country is expected to grow exponentially under the rule of Chavez’s likely successor, Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

Noriega and other experts warned House lawmakers at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday that Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is gaining power in Venezuela.

Hezbollah, which carries out terrorist attacks on Iran’s behalf, has helped Tehran access Venezuela’s sophisticated financial sector, experts said.

“It’s easy to say billions have been laundered through various Iranian enterprises and institutions through the Venezuelan economy,” Noriega told the Free Beacon in an interview Thursday. “The Iranians have seized on this as a way to evade sanctions.”

Hezbollah has not only infiltrated Venezuela’s governmental bodies. The organization has also established terrorist training facilities on the country’s Margarita Island, according to Noriega.

Hezbollah has been able to form from this Caribbean haven “a marriage of convenience” with various narcotics traffickers and drug gangs that bring the terrorist “threat to our doorstep,” Noriega told lawmakers Wednesday.

The Mexican drug lord Joaquin Guzman, ringleader of the deadly Sinaloa Cartel, is known to have spent time on Margarita Island where he likely established ties with Hezbollah, according to Noriega.

“Our [belief] is that the brokered a relationship, a collaboration between Hezbollah and that narco group,” said Noriega, who also served as the U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American states from 2001 to 2003.

Hezbollah has been able to profit from its partnerships with drug traffickers and smugglers, money that likely goes to fund its terrorist operations across the globe.

Lawmakers and experts believe the U.S. government has failed to properly combat Hezbollah’s Latin American activities or even take the issue seriously.

“We have to do more and we have to do it quicker,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), explaining that economic sanctions and other measures have failed to stymie Iran’s illicit behavior.

“The presence of Hezbollah in the region could serve as an important part of Iran’s [ability] to retaliate for [Western] efforts to curtail its nuclear program,” Sherman said.

The State Department, however, has mostly ignored the issue, Noriega said.

“They pass off statements of concerns,” he said. “That’s the best they’re able to do.”

Senior U.S. officials “minimize discussion of this problem and it has to change,” Noriega added. “At this point it’s bordering on criminal negligence.”

Hezbollah’s presence in the country is likely to grow as Venezuela determines Chavez’s successor, according to Noriega.

The terror group is likely “to emerge with potentially more powerful roles [in the Venezuelan government] because of their relationships with Maduro,” said Noriega. “This could go from bad to worse. If anything, they’ll have greater access at the highest levels.”

The only way for the U.S. to effectively combat this threat is to take action against the narcotics traffickers tied to Hezbollah.

U.S. authorities must investigate the money laundering activities, capture operatives as they travel across the region, and seize various bank assets associated with these groups, Noriega said.

“You track their involvements and do your best to intercept these people,” he said.

But “it all starts with an acknowledgement of the problem,” Noriega added. “It’s very frustrating, the State Department’s ostrich-like response.”