📅 Oct 21, 2013 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: ion nicola

hi jeffrey, ..just wondering if you have any project you want me to do.. i e-mailed you like two weeks ago.., maybe you didnt get it? thank you, EFTA00707173 ion

hi jeffrey,

..just wondering if you have any project you want me to do..
i e-mailed you like two weeks ago.., maybe you didnt get it?

thank you,

EFTA00707173

ion

📅 Oct 21, 2013 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

Re:

From: jeevacation@gmail.com

i didn;t. come to the house thurs

i didn;t. come to the house thurs

📅 Oct 28, 2013 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: ion nicola

..i put on the wall in photoshop more of that botticelli painting. i reversed the image in the mirror.. what do you think? we can play more with the figures.., then maybe continue on the ceiling with the light blue color like the sky in the painting , ..and eventually use some gold leaf for the molding ceiling, and for other moldings..

..i put on the wall in photoshop more of that botticelli painting. i reversed the image in the mirror.. what do you think? we can play more with the figures.., then maybe continue on the ceiling with the light blue color like the sky in the painting , ..and eventually use some gold leaf for the molding ceiling, and for other moldings..

📅 Oct 28, 2013 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

Re: pictures on the stairway walls at the house

From: jeevacation@gmail.com

i like it, can you come to the island on thurs or fir to paint the inside of five palsm

i like it, can you come to the island on thurs or fir to paint the inside of five palsm

📅 Nov 7, 2013

RE: pictures on the stairway walls at the house

From: ion nicola

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

hi jeffrey, e-mailed you a few days ago asking if i should do the cherry flower on the ceiling in the dinning room while you are not in new york. i dont know if you got that e-mail or there are other projects? thank you, ion

hi jeffrey,

e-mailed you a few days ago asking if i should do the cherry flower on the ceiling in the dinning room while you are not in new york. i dont know if you got that e-mail or there are other projects? thank you, ion

📅 Nov 7, 2013

Sidewall table lid

From: Eric Roth

To: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>

ERIC H. ROTH | PRESIDENT EFTA00707176

ERIC H. ROTH | PRESIDENT

EFTA00707176

📅 Nov 5, 2013 REDACTED

November 5 update

From: Office of Terje Rod-Larsen

<u>5 November, 2013</u> <table><tr><th><change><u>Article 1.</u></change></th><th>The National Interest <change><u>Diplomacy Redux: Kerry's Opportunity, Obama's Test</u> <u>Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.</u></change></th></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 2.</u></change></td><td>Bloomberg <u>Israel Pushed Iran to the Table,</u> Says Hagel <u>Jeffrey Goldberg</u></td></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 3.</u></change></td><td>NYT <u>Mr. Kerry Fumbles in</u> Egypt <change><u>The Editorial Board</u></change

<u>5 November, 2013</u>
<table><tr><th><change><u>Article 1.</u></change></th><th>The National Interest
<change><u>Diplomacy Redux: Kerry's Opportunity, Obama's Test</u>
<u>Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.</u></change></th></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 2.</u></change></td><td>Bloomberg
<u>Israel Pushed Iran to the Table,</u> Says Hagel
<u>Jeffrey Goldberg</u></td></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 3.</u></change></td><td>NYT
<u>Mr. Kerry Fumbles in</u> Egypt
<change><u>The Editorial Board</u></change></td></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 4.</u></change></td><td>The Washington Post
<u>Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki: 'American policy has been wrong'</u>
Lally <u>Weymouth</u></td></tr><tr><td><change><u>Article 5.</u></change></td><td>Wall Street Journal
<u>Making the Most of the U.S. Energy Boom George P. Shultz and Frederick W. Smith</u></td></tr></table>
<change><u>Article 1.</u></change>
The National Interest
<u>Diplomacy Redux: Kerry's Opportunity, Obama's Test</u>
<change><u>Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.</u></change>
November 5, 2013 -- Since he succeeded Hillary Clinton last February as the country's sixty-eighth secretary of state, John Kerry has quickly built on relationships forged with foreign leaders during his Senate years to position diplomacy as the principal tool in addressing some of the most
< EFTA00707177
consequential international security challenges currently facing the United
States.
It is a big change. While Mrs. Clinton earned plaudits for her tireless travels, the sixty-seventh secretary will be remembered more for talking about diplomacy's importance than for actually using it to great effect. By contrast Mr. Kerry's legacy as Secretary of State is already sure to be defined by the success or failure of major U.S. diplomatic initiatives to secure compromises from parties to the Middle East's most deep-rooted conflicts.
Three simultaneous negotiations now offer the prospect of achieving strategically important objectives: one to produce an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution; another to rid Syria of its chemical-weapons arsenal; and the third to achieve an accord with Iran under which Tehran would forego developing nuclear weapons.
If Diplomacy Succeeds
The opportunity is hard to overstate. Officially ending sixty-five years of Palestinian grievance while according Israel universally-recognized borders—issues which, whatever one's views, have soured Arab attitudes toward the US and complicated US-Israel relations for generations—would fulfill the declared but unmet policy aspiration of every American president since Truman. Eliminating a large chemical-weapons arsenal that has been used repeatedly despite international prohibitions would restore the crucial deterrent effect of the Chemical Weapons Convention, undermined by the Syrian regime's lethal chemical munitions attacks on its own civilian neighborhoods.
Above all, reliably halting Iran's nuclear weapons quest without resort to military force would not only make good on the `reddest' of President Obama's much-remarked `red lines,' it would forestall a Persian-Arab nuclear arms race astride the oil-rich Persian Gulf, a scenario made all the more combustible by Sunni-Shia sectarian strife and Israel's unpredictable response to proliferating nuclear threats in its midst.
President Obama has much riding on the outcome of these negotiations. Not only has he staked the credibility of his office on redressing the nuclear and chemical weapons threats posed by Iran and Syria, respectively, but he has courted increased strategic risk in precipitously withdrawing forces from Iraq and (soon) Afghanistan and exhibiting only
EFTA00707178
perfunctory concern over large defense sector cutbacks imposed by sequestration. Achieving significant security benefits through negotiation, while not necessarily compensating for these risks, would enhance U.S. influence at a time when <change><u>many in the world are questioning America's political and economic vitality</u></change> and its appetite for continued global leadership.
One could envision the President, with Middle East successes in hand, making high diplomacy a more meaningful dimension of the Asia "pivot," seeking to defuse escalating tensions between China and its neighbors by mediating conflicting territorial claims—as Secretary Kerry proposed in his recent Asia travels—and probing North Korea's Kim Jong-Un for more reliable undertakings than his father and grandfather ever produced. Recognition is widespread that the U.S. has over-relied on `hard power' in recent years, and civilian policy tools—not having demonstrated comparable potency since perhaps the 1995 Dayton Agreement that ended hostilities in Bosnia—have lost stature and credibility compared to the military. Congressional funding has reflected the belief that DoD, alone among game-changing cabinet impact departments, on security has challenges the wherewithal overseas. to A generate demonstration that geopolitical dealmaking is not a lost art in Washington would be salutary on many levels.
Is the US Up to the Challenge?
To say that success could bring great benefits is not to predict it. Two impediments that Secretary Kerry has—justifiably, in the author's view— chosen to disregard are, first, the perennial penchant of White House advisors to shield the President from political exposure to high-profile endeavors carrying the risk of failure, and second, the potential that congressional partisanship—ignoring the old `water's edge' boundary— could impede US negotiators' ability to deliver on a major agreement. The stakes in all three of these arenas justify taking political risk, but as in military endeavors, clarity about the long-term stakes for all concerned parties, and the breadth of planning in support of negotiations, directly affect the prospects for success or failure. Here is where doubts arise about the Administration's readiness to deliver on the promise of the diplomatic tracks it has so vigorously embraced.
EFTA00707179
While each of these negotiations is underway without undue controversy, questions are already arising in the Syria and Iran tracks as to whether the US may be aiming too low, preemptively limiting its objectives to what it believes could be agreed upon most easily, quickly and with the least resistance from interested parties, including Congress.
The benefits of narrowly crafted agreements resulting in the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons and a monitored pullback of Iran's nuclear enrichment activities would be deemed by many in the US as preferable to no agreement with a corresponding increased likelihood of resort to military force. For Syria, Russia and Iran, modest concessions would represent a price worth paying if this meant the US would refrain from challenging their larger, more strategic and longer-term objectives in the region.
US negotiators, therefore, could encounter surprisingly little pushback from Syria and Iran, respectively, and have Moscow's support, if the goals pursued are tightly drawn and do not entail much if any political discomfiture for those parties. The one mystery emerging from this diplomatic blitz is the Administration's own view of long-term US national interests in the Middle East, and whether the current negotiations are aligned with a coherent strategy to pursue them.
Israeli-Palestinian Talks on Course, but what about the spoiler? Start with the track that is best-positioned: the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. US negotiator Martin Indyk brings the expertise and the diplomatic and bureaucratic credentials necessary to hold his own in a negotiation where required compromises can be brokered only by maintaining the complete trust of the parties. Ambassador Indyk has assembled a quality team and kept a low media profile—all steps consistent with a productive negotiating approach.
Unfortunately, neither party to the talks—Israeli or Palestinian Authority representatives—has the capacity to address what has in recent years become the greatest (if not the sole) source of insecurity in their midst, namely heavily armed nonstate actors equipped and funded by Iran. The range, accuracy and quantity of rocket and missile threats against population centers in Israel from Hizballah across the Lebanese border and Hamas in Gaza have steadily increased.
EFTA00707180
Any confusion about Israel's overriding security preoccupation should have been dispelled by Prime Minister Netanyahu's October 1 address to the UN General Assembly. While pledging his readiness to make "an historic compromise with our Palestinian neighbors," Mr. Netanyahu spent the majority of his speech articulating a detailed warning about the dangers posed by Iran's fundamentalist regime. Notwithstanding Ambassador Indyk's wide policy mandate, it very likely does not extend to US policy on Iran.
Syria—Understandable Reluctance but Troubling Missteps The Syria crisis—admittedly a dauntingly violent and complicated conflict where American interests are less than obvious to the public—has revealed the Administration to have a penchant for reacting to rather than shaping events. Much has been said about the sudden lurches in the President's approach. He postured to use force and then paused, belatedly submitting the issue for congressional authorization, only to pull back in the face of insufficient support.
Secretary Kerry's seemingly spontaneous response to a London press query about conditions under which the US might refrain from attacking Syria prompted a stunningly quick Russian initiative to negotiate the removal of Syria's chemical weapons, challenging Washington to take `yes' for an answer—which it did. While officials tout President Obama's effective threat of force in compelling Syria to forfeit its chemical weapons, the UN Security Council resolution adopted with US support would require a second resolution before punitive action under Chapter VII is authorized— a precedent the George W. Bush administration famously resisted on Iraq. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Secretary Kerry so readily welcomed Russia's offer of a negotiated dismantlement of Syria's chemical arsenal precisely because of Mr. Obama's unreadiness to authorize military action. Even assuming that the Syria chemical weapons disarmament process fully succeeds, major questions remain. Yes, Mr. Obama will have recouped a measure of presidential credibility by backing up his declared `red line' on Syria's use of chemical weapons, albeit months after their use had been confirmed by intelligence. But what of the President's other Syria `marker'—his August 18, 2011 declaration that "the time has come for President Assad to step aside"? That declaration, although <change><u>repeated</u></change> as recently as October 14 by Secretary Kerry, shows no sign of being pursued,
EFTA00707181
much less fulfilled, notwithstanding administration pronouncements that the eleven-country "Geneva process" will effect a governmental transition in Damascus.
The Atlantic Council's Fred Hof has posed <change><u>asuestion</u></change> that many Syrians are surely asking as well: has the US made Bashar al-Assad "an irreplaceable party to a long-term contract" to fulfill its chemical weapons agreement? President Obama appears as indifferent about whether his demand to rid Syria of its homicidal dictatorship will ever be carried out as he is ardent about having his red line restored on chemical weapons. Having gained this reprieve, President Assad can be forgiven for doubting that the threat of US military force remains a realistic danger to his regime's survival, or to his armed forces' freedom of action against the domestic opposition. It is Mr. Assad's good fortune that, with the military strikes options pulled back from the brink, the Obama national-security team left itself with no other levers of influence at hand to contain the spreading Syria crisis.
When President Obama initially solicited options to exert leverage on Syria in this crisis, his national-security staff turned straight to the Pentagon, which dutifully generated kinetic strike packages and target sets. Nowhere did that process <change><u>reflect the Administration's forward-looking doctrinal approach to international-security challengers</u></change> ying success to the whole-of-government integration military advisor, of operation. "all General of the The tools Martin President of American Dempsey, also ignored power" who had the in publicly a counsel cautioned of his top that in Syria "you need a strategy to tie military options with other instruments of power."
It is a rare spectacle to find the Arab League Foreign Ministers <change><u>formallycalling</u></change> for war crimes prosecutions against a fellow Arab leader and his inner circle, yet even more striking that US government—which sports Ambassador-at-Large, a solely full Office for this of purpose—apparently Global Criminal Justice has led not by seen an fit to lead on this issue or even consider the threat of war crimes prosecution as a potential tool of leverage on Mr. Assad's regime.
While Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guards have invested heavily in television and other media outlets as a means of shaping public opinion to their advantage, the administration apparently sees no opportunity in the
EFTA00707182
Arab world's information domain to expose the cynical and illegitimate misdeeds of those directly responsible for this crisis. And while President Obama's June decision to arm and train the Syrian opposition has translated into what the Washington Post <change><u>describes</u></change> as a "minuscule" clandestine program, Moscow and Tehran continue a robust flow of heavy arms, fighters and funds into Syria to sustain the Assad regime.
In sum, Washington shows no evidence of mustering either military or nonmilitary tools of influence that would offer a credible prospect of rescuing what remains of Syria's largely defenseless population from the ravages of Bashar al-Assad's conventional forces. With well over 110,000 killed and an estimated seven million displaced, one third of them overflowing refugee camps in neighboring countries, one finds no inclination within the Administration to invoke—as it had in Libya—the humanitarian intervention doctrine known as Responsibility to Protect. Indeed, the US-Russia-Syria chemical weapons disarmament project has become, pace the Nobel Committee, the ethical antithesis of Responsibility to Protect, veritably a License to Ignore.
These policy foibles obscure the larger strategic landscape at play in
Syria's conflict. Russia's opportunism in seizing upon Secretary Kerry's
press remark to offer full partnership in eliminating Syrian chemical
weapons was clearly motivated less by the fear of civilian casualties from
"one stiff breeze" of toxic vapors than by its interest in keeping the Assad
regime in power. Having no other major clients for its arms-export industry
since the fall of Muammar Qadhafi, no other port of access for its navy in
the Levant, and an affinity for a secular regime—however brutal—that
bills itself as a bulwark against Sunni Arab religious extremism, Russia has
deftly kept America from getting in the way of its core interests in the
region.
If the Administration sees advantage in giving Moscow a pass over its weapons being used by the Syrian military to lay waste to populated cities and towns, its passivity toward Iran's regional activities demands explanation. Iran and its proxy force Hezbollah have massively supported the Assad regime, revealing an historically rare condition of vulnerability to prospective regime change in Damascus.
Hezbollah, which has the blood of US Marines on its hands and has become so heavily armed that it sustained hostilities with Israel for several
EFTA00707183
days in 2006, is now politically exposed back home in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world for fighting and killing fellow Muslims in a neighboring Arab country on behalf of a secular dictatorship. Its operations, today as thirty years ago, are wholly dependent on continued support from Tehran.
The Iranian cleric leading an organization charged with countering the "soft war" against the fundamentalist regime in Tehran, Hojjat al-Islam Mehdi Taeb, <change><u>explained</u></change> the vital importance of Syria to the survival of the mullahs' regime, in remarks to student loyalists in February: **"Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic province for us. If the enemy attacks us and wants to appropriate either Syria or Khuzestan [in southern Iran], the priority is that we keep Syria....If we keep Syria, we can get Khuzestan back too, but if we lose Syria we cannot keep Tehran."**
As with the Israel-Palestinian negotiations, a proper US understanding of Syria's crisis must factor in an Iranian role animated by nothing short of a belief that preserving the Assad regime is an imperative, linked to the fundamentalists' own survival in power in Tehran. And yet, the Obama Administration appears strangely indifferent to the parlous circumstances of perhaps the most anti-American regime in the world for the past 35 years, and uninterested in the leverage on Iran now potentially within Washington's grasp after decades of enduring terrorist, nuclear and missile threats from Tehran's security services.
The willful averting by the Administration of its gaze from these and other core dynamics at play in and around Syria is certain to shape regional perceptions of American power for years to come. Funding copious humanitarian assistance, already $1.3 billion and counting, for the fleeing victims of Russian-armed Syrian forces or Iranian-armed fighters, worthy as that is, will not indemnify the US against the erosion of its superpower reputation.
Negotiations with Iran—How to Avert War and Build American Influence American politicians, including President Obama, have been justified in pledging to do whatever it takes to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Cold War notions of `containment' may offer no assurance of stability in the volatile Middle East, where in contrast to Kremlin leaders during the Cold War, surviving a nuclear exchange may not be a priority
EFTA00707184
for many extremist aggressors. As recently as September 30, the State Department <change><u>reiterated</u></change> the official US view that "We're not going to allow Iran to create a nuclear weapon."
The carefully engineered June election of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran, and this regime stalwart's genial pursuit of détente with the US and normalized foreign relations with others, have challenged Washington to respond with comparable tactical skill and strategic purpose. Some observers—press photographers, at the very least—were disappointed when President Obama's opportunity to greet President Rouhani personally at the UN in September did not materialize. Mr. Obama's telephone call to Mr. Rouhani as the latter headed for the airport to return to Iran was a hospitable gesture regardless of one's policy view of Iran, a privilege US presidents can exercise as a consequence of hosting the United Nations on American soil.
Yet the ensuing press statements by White House aides promoted the disturbing theme that, just as Secretary Kerry had met with Iranian foreign minister Zarif in New York, President Obama had made a connection with his own "counterpart," talking `president to president' with Hassan Rouhani. President Obama would have been well advised to initiate a call the next morning to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Not only would that have tested the sincerity of Tehran's apparent warming to the United States, it would have dispelled the damaging misimpression that an unelected religious autocrat holds a superior protocol rank to the president of the United States.
That Mr. Obama, in his September 24 speech to the UN General Assembly and subsequently, cited a fatwa by the Supreme Leader without irony or caveat, as though this carried some recognized legal effect, only underscored the uncertainty about the new Iranian President's own authority to set national policy on the very matter to be negotiated. US and European diplomats emerged from the initial mid-October nuclear talks in Geneva remarking on the change in Iran's posture from previous negotiations. Foreign Minister Zarif reportedly engaged in detailed, substantive discussions about the nuclear program, and told the press afterward that "serious give-and-take has taken place." It is a welcome change, and administration officials are now seized with two entirely predictable tasks: eliciting from the Iranian side a set of commitments that
EFTA00707185
the US and allies persuasively believe will prevent a future nuclear weapons "breakout;" and offering Iran in return a commitment to deliver an agreed level of sanctions relief. Lead US negotiator Wendy Sherman, in congressional hearings before the initial Geneva session, assured legislators that the President is pursuing a comprehensive agreement, not interim steps wherein a partial lifting of sanctions could deflate international solidarity to pressure Iran economically before a satisfactory nuclear deal is reached. It is the correct approach. Yet the Administration now, predictably, finds itself caught in a two-front negotiation, needing to overcome deep skepticism and a backdrop of troubled relations not only with Tehran but with Capitol Hill. As Congress plays its customary `bad cop' role in support of a satisfactory nuclear deal by <change><u>proposing</u></change> still tighter sanctions—the one factor Washington experts seem to agree has prompted Tehran's conciliatory turn —it is unclear how the US negotiators can elicit from Mr. Zarif and his masters a sufficient Iranian compromise that will not look to all the world like a capitulation. And if the US side cannot bring to the table assurances of sanctions relief sufficient to seal an acceptable deal, its predicament may induce paralyzing caution on other policy fronts deemed important to Tehran, lest the collaborative spirit at the nuclear talks be spoiled. All three negotiations underway, regarding Israel-Palestine, Syria, and Iran's nuclear program, are inescapably attached to larger region-wide dynamics that will frustrate American objectives if not addressed by US foreign policy. President Obama needs a strategy. American Interests, American Principles, American Influence—an American Strategy Policy veterans in Washington cannot point to any prior case where economic sanctions have "kicked in" strongly enough to produce the desired result—until now. Sanctions against the regimes led by Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad produced scarcity and hardship for the poorest of their citizens but enriched the leadership circle, who exacted higher rents on the basic commodities they alone could smuggle in. Kudos to the US Treasury Department for locating and constricting the key transactional nodes through which Iran's economy connects to the world. Yet the tool of economic sanctions against Iran, while more potent than any
EFTA00707186
previous instance, should be troubling to US policymakers. With the exception of the clerical regime, Iran's 79 million people ought to be the target of American goodwill, not collective punishment for the acts of their dictators. Sustaining the US economy as the world's strongest depends on free trade; a latter-day `blockade' of any country by the United States should be a rare exception, for policy and moral reasons.
One consequence of the Iran sanctions that mirrors past cases, <change><u>as Fareed Zakaria has pointed out,</u></change> is that Iran's Revolutionary Guards "profit from the sanctions because their businesses have become the only path for trade and smuggling."
For these reasons, President Obama should strengthen his negotiating hand with Iran by collaborating with Congress to make clear, not just what further economic pain and isolation will result from Tehran's refusal to accept a verifiable end to its nuclear weapons program, but the relief and rewards that a comprehensive nuclear concession by Iran's leaders will produce. Every citizen of Iran should become aware that the US is offering an end to those sanctions that were created for the purpose of pressuring Iran on the nuclear issue—whether via executive order or legislation. The Congress could also indicate its readiness in principle to support the lifting of UN Security Council sanctions relating to the nuclear issue.
This step would place the onus for compromise back on the Iranian side of the negotiating table, forcing the regime to explain to its people why it would not accept a deal codifying what it has already said is its policy, namely that it does not seek to build nuclear weapons that it wants sanctions relief in order to secure an immediate upsurge in the entire country's standard of living. Assuming Iran can say yes to comprehensive nuclear restraints for comprehensive sanctions relief, the Revolutionary Guards' lucrative smuggling business would be over. More importantly, the terrible choice between war with Iran or a regional nuclear arms race would be averted.
Reciprocating President Rouhani's expressed desire for improved relations, the Congress and administration should even consider fattening Iran's `prize' for an acceptable nuclear deal with a package of increased student visas, cultural and sporting exchanges and the like. Steps to empower Iranian civil society economically, counter internal censorship and propaganda, and spread goodwill between the two countries' populations
EFTA00707187
are all consistent with US security interests once the nuclear weapons threat is reliably controlled.
What President Obama should avoid, however, is encumbering the nuclear negotiation with other issues complicating US-Iran relations. "We are not seeking regime change," Mr. Obama declared at the UN in September. This statement cleverly spoke to two audiences—the clerics in Tehran whose singular priority is remaining in power; and the president's domestic political allies who associate `regime change' with neoconservative attitudes favored in the previous administration.
A more appropriate formulation in the President's speech would have made clear that if his Administration does not seek regime change, it carries no particular brief to maintain this regime in power either. The principle of popular sovereignty should be at the heart of US policy, and given the storied history of US meddling in Iranian politics, Iranian leaders would be hard-pressed to complain if an American president said that the Iranian people should have the ultimate say in how they are governed.
The fact is that Hassan Rouhani and the Iranian Foreign Ministry do not represent the Islamic Republic on some major issues relevant to negotiations in the Middle East. The commander of the elite Qods Force atop the Revolutionary Guards organization, Qassem Suleimani, is leading the effort in Syria to train and resupply Lebanese Hezbollah fighters in defense of the Assad regime—a vital interest to the Tehran regime, as noted. Suleimani also appears to run the "Iraq" account for Tehran, coordinating with Prime Minister Maliki in support of extralegal killings of defenseless Iranian dissidents inside Iraq by a special unit of Iraqi forces attached to the Prime Minister's office.
The paramilitary campaigns supported by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in Syria and Iraq are not unconnected to American interests. In Iraq, five Iranian-supplied armed attacks militias since passing mid-2009 through by Iraqi their military lines, against units, more or by than 3,000 unarmed Iranian dissidents place the United States in breach of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. A promise of protection, formally given by the US to every one of these individuals in 2004, remains an American duty today because the Iraqi government has repeatedly violated its 2009 commitment to provide protection for these
EFTA00707188
people, engaging instead in lethal attacks against them in coordination with Tehran.
The US understandably wants a robust and lasting security assistance relationship with Iraq's armed forces after so much sacrifice by American forces in Iraq. Yet it is compromised by its failure to live up to not only international humanitarian law, but Section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act so-called prohibiting Leahy Human arms transfers Rights laws to militaries prohibiting that training misuse for them, any and military the units implicated in gross human rights violations.
The latest assault, the September 1 execution of 52 defenseless Iranian exiles by Iraqi special forces using handcuffs and silencers, and the abduction of seven others who are still missing, occurred five days after Qassem Suleimani met with Prime Minister Maliki and his aides to plan the operation, according to the exiled group, the MEK. The massacre went largely unreported in the American media, the story overshadowed by the September 2 announcement in Tehran of President Rouhani's plans to travel to the United States.
America's policy lapses in both Syria and Iraq, the portfolio directly overseen by Qassim Suleimani on Iran's behalf, come as well at the expense of Iran's regional strategic rival: the Sunni Arab world and Saudi Arabia in particular. <change><u>Writes veteran international correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave,</u></change> "The longer the fighting in Syria, the more the situation in Iraq deteriorates and the closer Iran's military `mullahocracy' comes to dominating the entire region."
The Administration's recent move restricting Egypt's military assistance pipeline—a cornerstone of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty that has kept Israel's southern flank quiet for 34 years—only adds to the insecurity felt by America's longstanding Arab allies as well as Israel.
President Obama must separate these wider complications of US-Iran relations from the nuclear negotiations, but without disregarding them.
Although Mr. Obama expressed the hope at the UN that a nuclear agreement with Iran can "help serve as a foundation for a broader peace," it should be clear that Tehran's Revolutionary Guards have every intention non-state to continue actors, prosecuting to destabilize their rival campaigns, societies to working the west. through extremist
EFTA00707189
Until the day comes when no more Iranian arms, money, explosives and training are flowing to client militias, Ambassador Indyk is going to need to point to a regional American security posture that Israelis and Palestinians can believe in should they be otherwise prepared to bring forth an historic final-status settlement. If at the same time Egypt's military is casting about for alternative strategic partnerships, Mr. Indyk's task will be that much more daunting.
The US has every right, and every interest, in pursuing its own interests throughout the Middle East. If success in effecting a transition in Syria to a more acceptable successor government is taken as a setback in Tehran, that should not deter Washington. Nor should the US hesitate any longer to impose a principled, legally correct line with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in order that US-Iraq military relations will not be further tainted by dishonor or moral compromise. Should the Obama team see fit to reaffirm its commitment to the security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states, and to Egypt's military, this rebuilding of confidence with the Sunni Arab world should neither surprise Iran nor perturb the nuclear negotiations. `Peace through strength' has always entailed much more than combat power alone.
Conclusion—Discrete Deal with Iran, Invest in Syria's Outcome, Restore Regional Confidence, Enable Israeli-Palestinian Settlement With congressional support, the president should seize the initiative and give his negotiators the requisite leverage to secure, as soon as practicable, a comprehensive but discrete nuclear-for-sanctions agreement with Iran. Isolating that issue will guard against policy paralysis in other areas deemed to be sensitive for Iran, and empower the Administration to go to work repairing its frayed standing in the Arab world.
The dismantlement of Syria's chemical arsenal will be of little benefit if, thanks to US inaction, Hezbollah emerges strengthened and emboldened, Syria's Kurds break away, and the Sunni majority embraces the only `help' currently on offer—from radical Sunni religious extremists drawn to the sectarian fight from all over the region. What began as an idealistic `Arab spring' moment is deteriorating into another potential Afghanistan, placing enormous new security and economic burdens on Jordan, <change><u>Lebanon</u></change> [15], Turkey, Iraq and, by extension, Israel. Rather than <change><u>letting</u></change> [16] extremists maintain the initiative, <change><u>the President should challenge his national-security</u></change>
EFTA00707190
<change><u>team to devise a whole-of-government strategy worthy of the name for Syria</u></change> [17], one that does not place US forces on Syrian territory or pilots in Syrian airspace.
These regional circumstances will inevitably affect Ambassador Indyk's prospects of success as well. Israel's leaders will be less likely to trust in a settlement with the Palestinians if the surrounding Arab countries are engulfed in crisis. Israeli citizens will find it harder to perceive a peace benefit if they remain in the crosshairs of not only nuclear threats but also ever more deadly mortars, rockets and missiles smuggled to local extremists by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
With so much invested and so much at stake in the Middle East, it is never too late to step up efforts to advance American interests. The credibility of presidential red lines matters, but only by exercising leadership in taming the dangers clouding the region's future will the US preserve its influence and reputation, which are foundations of American power.
Secretary Kerry's big bet on Middle East diplomacy can pay big dividends if backed by a forceful presidential commitment, a coherent strategic vision, integrated lines of policy, and an active array of interagency tools of influence. The keys to success or failure now rest largely in President Obama's hands.
Ambassador Bloomfield is aformer US Special Envoy, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. He is Chairman of the Stimson Center.
Article 2.
Bloomberg
<u>Israel Pushed Iran to the Table,</u> Says <u>Hagel</u>
Jeffrey Goldberg
Nov 4, 2013 -- Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Obama administration's most fervent supporter of nuclear negotiations with Iran, <change><u>said in a speech</u></change> that the U.S. would "not succumb to those fear tactics and forces that suggest" it is wrong to even test Iran's willingness to make nuclear concessions.
EFTA00707191
This statement, made at an event sponsored by the <change><u>Ploughshares Fund,</u></change> a group that opposes nuclear proliferation but which sometimes seems overly relaxed about the danger of a nuclear Iran, was generally understood to have been a brushback pitch thrown at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been arguing that the American administration, and its European allies, are walking into a trap of Iran's devising.
In this latest phase of the Iran drama, the differences between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama (which I <change><u>wrote about here)</u></change> are mainly concealed from view, but we're now seeing some small fissures. I've been curious to know what others in the Obama administration think about Netanyahu's current stance (a stance he shares with many in the U.S.
Senate, by the way), so on a visit to the Pentagon late last week, one of the first questions I put to the secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, was this: Is Netanyahu, in fact, using scare tactics in order to torpedo Iran negotiations?
"I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is legitimately concerned, as any prime minister of Israel has been, about the future security needs of their country," Hagel said. Netanyahu, he continued, "has got a history of being very clear on where he is on this."
Hagel, now in his ninth month leading the Pentagon, argued that Netanyahu's threats of military action against Iranian nuclear sites, combined with the pressure of sanctions, may have actually encouraged Iran to take negotiations seriously.
"It's true that sanctions -- not just U.S. sanctions but UN sanctions, multilateral sanctions -- have done tremendous economic damage," Hagel said. "Even many of Iran's leaders have acknowledged that. And I think that Iran is responding to the constant pressure from Israel, knowing that Israel believes them to be an existential threat. I think all of this, combined, probably brought the Iranians to where we are today. Whether the Iranians will carry forth on that, we'll see."
Hagel made sure to absolve Netanyahu of the charge that he's intent on subverting the nuclear talks. "I don't think he's intentionally trying to derail negotiations," he said.
We were talking at a small table in Hagel's E-Ring office. A portrait of Winston Churchill, who coincidentally is Netanyahu's hero (but <change><u>not Obama's),</u></change> hangs on the wall. To those who haven't paid much attention to
EFTA00707192
Hagel since his confirmation hearings, his sympathetic reading of Netanyahu's position might come as a surprise. After all, Hagel had come under <change><u>sustained attack</u></change> by the conservative wing of the pro-Israel camp as a danger to the Jewish state, portrayed as someone who is soft on Iran and naive about the Palestinians and their intentions.
These accusations are now mainly forgotten. Hagel has worked assiduously to ensure that Israel maintains its so-called qualitative military edge over its foes; he has developed close working ties with Israel's defense minister and its top generals; and Jewish groups, once wary, have Anti-Defamation fast-tracked embraced the him. delivery League, Last week, of and six publicly V-22 he spoke Osprey confirmed to a tilt-rotor national that airplanes meeting the Pentagon of to the Israel. has "They're going to the head of the line," he said. These are aircraft that could be used to stealthily insert commandos into such hostile and distant locales as ... Iran. Still, Israel isn't getting all it wants from the U.S. -- specifically, the sort of munitions that could blast through the reinforced roofs of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"I suspect the Israelis would like an inventory of everything, but certain things we do keep as proprietary, and they know that," Hagel said. "On the standoff weapons piece, that's right on track -- the Israelis are signed off on that," he said, referring to weapons that can be fired at targets from far distances.
In a 75-minute conversation, Hagel gave me his version of the Middle East crisis tour. Talking with him, I found, was not like talking to Donald Rumsfeld. Interviewing Rumsfeld at this table was like interviewing a razor blade; one wrong move and you'd get cut. Hagel, on the other hand, is tranquil, conversational, and very, very discursive. I found it difficult, at certain moments in the conversation, to make out any obvious themes in the Obama administration's approach to the region. This might not be Hagel's fault, of course. The administration's current approach is, to borrow from Churchill, a kind of themeless pudding.
Circumstances have conspired to curse Hagel with a challenging diplomatic portfolio, even as he is forced to spend much of his time wrestling the Pentagon budget to the ground. It is well known that he is the main point of American contact for General Abdelfatah al-Seesi, the leader of the Egyptian military junta; the two men have spoken more than 25
EFTA00707193
times since the July couplike event that deposed the elected president, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Mursi. But Hagel has also been holding the hands of other Arab leaders of the (relatively speaking) moderate camp, who are uniformly worried that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Middle East. These figures include Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, and the most important defense figure in the United Arab Emirates. MBZ, as he is known, is one of the many Arab leaders who fear (as Israel's leaders do) that any vacuum created by the departure of the U.S. from the Middle East will be filled by Iran.
In my next post, I'll discuss Hagel's argument that, despite the creation of a "new world order" in which power is rapidly diffusing, there is no pro-Israel plausible record substitute as defense for the secretary, U.S., and he also is still why, married despite to his a set obvious of ideas about Middle East peace that may no longer be operative.
Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist.
Article 3.
NYT
<u>Mr. Kerry Fumbles in Egypt</u>
<change><u>The Editorial Board</u></change>
November 4, 2013 -- Secretary of State John Kerry's <change><u>trip to Egypt,</u></change> included in his Middle East itinerary at the last minute, served only to add to the confusion over the Obama administration's policy toward this critically important Arab nation. Mr. Kerry was the highest-ranking American official to visit Cairo since Mohamed Morsi, the country's first democratically elected president, was deposed in July. Mr. Kerry seemed to go further than necessary or prudent to make common cause with the authoritarian generals who led the coup and are now running the country. The trip was ill advised for several reasons, starting with its timing. Mr. Kerry arrived one day before <change><u>Mr. Morsi was to go on trial</u></change> for murder in a politically motivated case (now postponed until Jan. 8) that had the whole country on edge. Mr. Morsi has been held incommunicado and charged, along with other defendants allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, with
EFTA00707194
inciting violence in the deaths of about a dozen people in clashes last December outside the presidential palace after he took near-dictatorial powers.
Whatever validity the charges contain, there is little doubt that the case is part of an attempt by the military to crush the Muslim Brotherhood and other opponents. It is also hypocritical, since crackdowns engineered by the generals themselves have killed hundreds of people and led to the arrests and imprisonment of thousands more.
Mr. Kerry also misfired on the tone and content of his talks with Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the country's strongman and ringleader of the coup. The Morsi trial never came up. And they undercut whatever cautionary message President Obama had hoped to send last month when he suspended the delivery of major weapons systems to Egypt and withheld $260 million in aid. "It is not a punishment," Mr. Kerry said. He appeared to accept the notion that the generals and the civilian government they installed are on a path to real democracy. "The road map is being carried out to the best of our perception," he said cryptically, referring to plans for a referendum on an amended Constitution and promises to hold parliamentary and presidential elections by next spring. But the Constitution is still a work in progress, and the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood does not bode well for an inclusive political system. Moreover, General Sisi made no pledge to lift the hated state of emergency when it expires later this month.
The United States and Egypt share many important interests, including peace with Israel, security in Sinai, the free flow of traffic through the Suez Canal and cooperation against terrorism. It is important for both nations to keep trying to work together. But they also need to be clear about their differences, especially on what the word democracy means. Mr. Kerry has muddied the waters.
<change><u>Antcle 4.</u></change>
The Washington Post
<u>Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki: `American policy has been wrong'</u>
Lally Weymouth
EFTA00707195
Nov. 4, 2013 -- The Post's Lally Weymouth spoke this week with Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki, former chief of intelligence and brother of the foreign minister. Excerpts:
Q. Who made the decision to turn down the U.N. Security Council seat? A. It is always in the end the king [King Abdullah] who makes the decision. But it wasn't a whimsical decision. Nor was it, as some newspapers here have described it, done in a fit of pique. It was a studied and considered decision. The kingdom conducted a very high-level campaignfor the seat, and many people were surprised by the decision to turn it down. Some governments take decisions that not everybody knows about it. My understanding is that [the decision was based on] the <change><u>situation in the Security Council,</u></change> particularly on the Syrian issue, but not just on that. You had also the issue of nuclear non-proliferation ... and then you have the issue of Palestine, which has been with us since 1947. These three issues culminated in the decision where the kingdom felt that, by not taking the seat, it would make the point to the Security Council that there is a need to fix it. Do you think the decision was building for a long time? Were President Obama's decision not to act on Syria and the United Nations Security Council's decision to pass a weak resolution on Syria the last straws? It was based on U.N. Security Council decisions, especially the one on the issue of <change><u>[Syrian] chemical weapons removal.</u></change> Thefact that it had no enforcement powers? Not only that — the fact that even if it had enforcement powers, it would al-Assad only remove can continue the chemical to kill weapons. his people But using [Syrian aircraft, President] artillery, Bashar Scud missiles and other lethal means. This also followed the Chinese and Russian veto of the resolution that would have put in place an interim government composed of all the factions in Syria — that was put in front of the Security Council a year and a half ago by the Arab League. What do you and your country think is the best outcome in Syria? The best outcome is to stop the killing. How?
EFTA00707196
We had a proposal, put forth by our foreign minister, that you have to level the playing field. And that means Bashar's military superiority has to be checked by giving the <change><u>opposition the means to defend themselves.</u></change> You're not talking about sending troops on the ground. Over the past 2'/2 years, if anti-tank, <change><u>anti-aircraft defensive weapons</u></change> had been distributed to the opposition — and not all the opposition, [but] the opposition that is for an inclusive Syria — then they would have been able to checkmate the military superiority of Bashar al-Assad and force him to come to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Europe and America continued to deny the opposition the means to defend against Bashar's lethal weapons, the <change><u>Russians</u></change> and the <change><u>Iranians</u></change> continued to supply Bashar with whatever he needed.
So it's up to the U.S. and the Europeans to arm the opposition? Absolutely. The <change><u>Europeans put an embargo on arms to Syria.</u></change> They could see .. . that the embargo wasn't affecting Assad but it was definitely denying his opponents ... weapons. It took the Europeans 2'/2 years to change their view and finally say, `Okay, we can afford to sell these weapons to the opposition.' But none of these countries did. The Americans have not only not sold them, but they have declared they have no intention of providing these weapons to the opposition. So how can you level the playing ground if one side is continually supplied with what it needs by the Russians and the Iranians and the other side is continually denied those things?
Do you think your country will sit by?
My country has been trying to push not just the United States but the Europeans as well.
Do you feel Saudi explanationsfall on deaf ears with the Obama administration?
Every day there are more than 50 to 100 people killed in Syria. And the world sits back and watches.
Do you feel President Obama just doesn't get it?
I don't know if he gets it or not. But I think the world community is definitely at fault here. The Russians because they are supporting Bashar and allowing him to do the killing. The Chinese because they have vetoed any measures in the United Nations to prevent him doing that. The Europeans for not supplying the opposition with weapons. The United
EFTA00707197
States for continually not supplying the opposition with what they need.
It's a worldwide apathy — a criminally negligent attitude toward the Syrian people.
So what do you think will happen in Syria?
They are going to continue the killing.
And Assad will stay in power as things stand now?
As things stand now, Bashar al-Assad is under the protection of the Security Council because of the chemical weapons resolution. And [U.S.] Secretary [of State John] Kerry is saying that Bashar al-Assad has to stay in power until the chemical weapons are removed and everybody is saying these weapons aren't going to be removed until next year. So you can imagine the public opinion throughout the Muslim world, seeing this tragedy happening and nobody willing to come forward.
How do you see the situation in Iran?
When President [Hassan] <change><u>Rouhani was elected,</u></change> King Abdullah sent him a note of congratulations and expressed the wish for a fruitful relationship with Iran, and Rouhani responded in kind. Since then, he has made several statements about how he would like to see improved relations with Saudi Arabia. Under [former Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, there was a very strained relationship. The king during those years publicly called on Iran not to interfere in Arab affairs. As you can see from Lebanon to Syria, to Iraq to Bahrain, there is a chain of actions taken by Iran to interfere in Arab affairs....
The other aspect is the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. <change><u>Saudi Arabia has always been consistently supportive</u></change> of the "P5+1" positions at the United Nations against Iran — the sanctions, etc.... The kingdom's position is that . .. we need to have a United Nations Security Council statement establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. That statement should also include that the five permanent members will guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for the members of that zone, like America does for Germany and Japan. The other guarantee that they have to provide is that they will sanction anybody in the zone who is seen to be doing something to develop a weapon of mass destruction.
But the problem right now is that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
Don't forget there is another country in the area that already has a nuclear weapon, and that is Israel.
EFTA00707198
<table><tr><th>Aren't you worried about Iran producing a nuclear weapon?</th></tr><tr><td>Of course.</td></tr><tr><td>Is Rouhani taking the Westfor a ride?</td></tr><tr><td>It's too early to tell. <change><u>He's very clever.</u></change> Being able to engage with Iran is a
good thing. But his sweet words need to be translated into action.</td></tr><tr><td>Would Saudi Arabia consider becoming a nuclear power?</td></tr><tr><td>I suggested two years ago that the [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries
should consider seriously all options, including acquiring nuclear weapons
if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.</td></tr><tr><td>You left out Turkey.</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey would develop nuclear capabilities if Iran goes nuclear.</td></tr><tr><td>That would really change the region.</td></tr><tr><td>It will make it even more radioactive and dangerous. It is a doomsday
option. </td></tr><tr><td>How do you feel about Secretary Kerry's talks with the Palestinians?
What we hear from the <change><u>Palestinian negotiators</u></change> is that the talks are
substantive. </td></tr><tr><td>Palestine is one of the issues mentioned by Saudi Arabia as a reasonfor
turning down the U.N. Security Council seat, meaning the kingdom feels
the U.N. should do what exactly?</td></tr><tr><td>The U.N. should implement the resolutions passed by the Security Council
— <change><u>242</u></change> and <change><u>338.</u></change></td></tr><tr><td>And the roadblock standing in the way of implementation is the United
States? </td></tr><tr><td>The U.S. keeps vetoing whatever follow-up resolutions can be put in place
for 242. This was one of the complaints by Saudi Arabia. This veto system
allows Russia on one side and the United States on the other to do
whatever they like.</td></tr><tr><td>Russia created the chemical weapons resolution that has allowed Assad to
stay in power.</td></tr><tr><td>And they continue to supply him with weapons, and they don't get
sanctioned. </td></tr><tr><td>In this country, there seems to be a big anti-foreign-entanglement
movement. </td></tr><tr><td>That is correct, and who can blame you after Iraq and Afghanistan? In
Syria, I said from the beginning something should have been done to help</td></tr></table>
EFTA00707199
the opposition defend against Bashar al-Assad's lethal weapons. There would not have been need for more involvement than simply supplying the opposition with those defensive weapons.
And today?
My concern is for when this conflict spills over to Lebanon or Jordan or Turkey or Iraq — imagine what resources you will have to deploy to prevent an all-out conflagration.
You see it spilling over to Lebanon and Iraq?
Of course. And Israel. It's not going to remain confined to Syria. Hezbollah is already fighting in Syria. You have al-Qaeda and divisions thereof. There are volunteers from all over the world. That's not going to remain local to Syria if the fighting continues. The priority there is to stop the fighting by any means. But the world is not doing that.
The accusation is that Saudi Arabia has been arming extreme groups. <change><u>That is totally unfounded.</u></change> The kingdom was coordinating with the U.S. and our regional allies to supply the groups that are for an inclusive Syria.
Definitely we are not giving weapons to extremists.
But there's not enough aid.
No. America has been very generous with night-vision goggles, with protective gear, with training. But not with arms.
Because they think it will turn into another Afghanistan.
My view is that everybody should know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. But they continue to say, 'We are afraid these weapons will fall in the wrong hands.'
Do you see Syria splitting up?
I hope it doesn't split up. The Alawites are not confined to Syria. You have Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq. ... There will be this incentive to reach out to fellow ethnics — and then it will be even harder to contain. Better to stop the fighting now.
Jordan is already dealing with thefallout.
They have already a million refugees from Syria, and Jordan is not a rich country. And Jordan is still supporting Iraqi refugees.
Do you think it was a mistakefor the U.S. to support Iraqi Prime Minister [Nouri al]Maliki?
I am convinced of that. Since he became prime minister, Maliki has pushed aside the Sunnis from any meaningful positions in Iraq. When he came up
EFTA00707200
for reelection last time, it was an Iranian general, <change><u>Qassem Suleimani</u></change> , who came from Tehran to Baghdad to pressure the other Shiite parties in Iraq to join Maliki's coalition. Because of Iran's pressure, Maliki got a majority in the parliament. The irony is that Maliki is supported equally by the United States and Iran. It's as if there are blinders as far as Maliki is concerned.
There are more people dying in Iraq today than there were at the height of the insurgency in 2006. He is doing nothing for Iraq. There is no improvement in the security situation or the economy.
Obama said the use of chemical weapons would be a red line and then Syria used chemical weapons, the president brought the issue to Congress, and Russia eventually bailed him out. Does this make the U.S. look weak? Absolutely. Public opinion throughout the area is that the <change><u>United States is not playing the role</u></change> it should play.
Do you think Russia isfilling the gap in the Middle East?
I don't think Russia will ever fill the gap. [Russia's support of Syria] is costing the Russians the rest of the Muslim world. They are fighting on the wrong side.
How do you see the Egyptian situation?
I think it will continue to be uncertain. They have a road map and have put a timeline on it. They've finished writing the [new] constitution, which will be followed by parliamentary and presidential elections. If they succeed in that road map, that will put some stability in Egypt. I think <change><u>ey th have reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood.</u></change>
Isn't former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi going on trial?
Yes, but they aim to reach out to the membership of the <change><u>Muslim Brotherhood rather than the leadership.</u></change> The Muslim Brotherhood has gone underground and will remain a subversive anti-government opposition in hiding. That's why the situation will remain uncertain.
Do you think part of the kingdom's anger with the United States went back to 2011, when the U.S. allowedformer Egyptian president [Hosni] Mubarak to be ousted so quickly?
I think there was some disappointment that the United States did not stand by someone who for 30 years was a very staunch ally of the United States.
People say the moderate opposition in Syria is weak. What's your assessment?
EFTA00707201
They haven't been given the means to be strong. Imagine if [opposition leader] Gen. [Salim] Idris had been given the means of defending the Syrian people against the aircraft and tanks Bashar is wielding against them — everybody would be his follower. But he didn't have the means so people turn to whoever can defend them.
They turn to the groups who can get arms, the extremist groups? They are not all extreme. There are others that are efficient and are more willing to die for the cause. This is the fault of the Europeans and Americans.
Is it too late now?
No, it's not too late. The killing is still continuing. You need to provide the people with arms to defend themselves.
Is there enough ofa moderate opposition?
I think there is.
Would you be in favor of military action against Iran?
No, the consequences would be catastrophic. You're not going to stop Iran from developing its nuclear capabilities. <change><u>Military action would incentivize the Iranian people to develop a nuclear deterrent.</u></change> If you hit them, they will do their utmost to get one. If you don't, you can still work diplomatically through the zone free of weapons of mass destruction.
What about tightening sanctions?
That too.
But Israel won't comply with the weapons-free zone.
So what? If the [permanent five members] of the [U.N. Security Council] put out a statement with the guarantees I mentioned, then let Israel and Iran worry about how to fit in. Why should we care about what Israel wants or doesn't want? We should get them incentivized.
How do you feel about President Obama?
He raised expectations.
And now?
There is great disappointment. Syria is definitely an issue where American policy has been wrong. That's my opinion. That is also the opinion of much of the public in Arab countries. How you fix that is by showing that you can correct it. If Obama supports Kerry on the Palestinian issue and we get an agreement between Israel and Palestine — that will be something for President Obama to take credit for. If he can convince the Iranians to
EFTA00707202
stop building a nuclear weapon, that will be something he can show the rest of us. The Palestinian issue is the core issue.
But if you solved it today, it would not stop the Iraniansfrom building a bomb.
What it would do is decrease what Iran can do to interfere in Arab affairs because Iran portrays itself as the liberator of the Palestinians and the Syrians. That's where Russia and China and Iran are not just cynical in how they are supporting Assad but downright insidious.
Article 5.
Wall Street Journal
<change><u>Making the Most of the U.S. Energy Boom</u></change>
George P. Shultz and Frederick W. Smith
Nov. 4, 2013 -- In November 1973, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries implemented an oil embargo against the United States that imperiled the nation's prosperity and international influence. Forty years later, de-linking America's economy and security from high and volatile global oil prices is even more essential to protecting our domestic and international interests. And the U.S. now has the means to achieve true energy security.
The 1973 embargo, which effectively began Nov. 5 with the announcement of a 25% cut in production, occurred at defining moments of our lives. One of us was secretary of the Treasury, and the rise of OPEC and its "oil weapon" profoundly shifted the geopolitical paradigm and drove the U.S. into a severe recession. The other had just turned an idea to improve the airfreight industry into a new company—today's <change><u>FedEx</u></change> Corporation—that was nearly destroyed in its infancy by the spike in fuel prices.
Although America endured and ultimately recovered from the events of 1973, the embargo marked only the beginning of OPEC's manipulation of the global oil market. By tailoring oil production and investment strategies to keep markets tight and fearful, OPEC members have actively worked in the past decade to engineer expensive oil. As a consequence, prices have reached levels that would have seemed impossible even at the height of the oil crises of the 1970s. OPEC annual export revenue has exceeded $1
EFTA00707203
trillion in each of the last two years, which ranks among the greatest wealth transfers in human history.
While OPEC members are surely hoping to prolong this dynamic,
America's energy revolution—which is taking place on both the supply and demand sides—has the potential to disrupt the status quo to the nation's considerable economic and foreign-policy advantage.
On the supply side, the domestic energy boom has reestablished the U.S. as a production powerhouse. In fact, the increase in U.S. crude oil production during the past five years equates to adding another Kuwait to the global oil system. According to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. will surpass Russia in total liquid fuels production (including biofuels) and become the second largest global producer by the end of the year. The U.S. even could surpass Saudi Arabia to become the leading global producer within the next decade.
At the same time, the rise of oil-displacement technologies is creating an unprecedented opportunity to reduce U.S. oil consumption in the transportation sector. Electricity and natural gas are both cheap and domestically abundant. There are now nearly 20 plug-in electric passenger vehicle models—from nearly every major auto maker—available to U.S. consumers. Hundreds of commercial and municipal fleet operators around the country have integrated natural-gas trucks and buses into their fleets, and dozens of models are available in nearly all fleet applications, from transit to refuse hauling. The nation's fleet of internal-combustion-engine vehicles has made great strides in improved fuel efficiency, and further improvements will be achieved over the next decade.
These changes create the possibility of dramatic improvements to the security of America's oil supply with significant benefits for economic growth and national security. Yet our ability to capture such advantages is not a foregone conclusion.
Fully maximizing the opportunities presented by the American energy revolution will require a concerted national effort that prioritizes investment in the development of advanced energy technologies—such as low-cost advanced batteries for electric vehicles and more-efficient home refueling units for natural gas vehicles—along with continued growth in domestic energy production. The volatility of oil prices, the presence of anticompetitive forces like OPEC, and the political and fiscal risks to
EFTA00707204
significant and sustained energy-related research and development create an acute need for strong leadership from Washington if we are to capitalize on this moment.
Yet important philosophical differences now divide the major political parties on energy and environmental policies. Pretending such differences do not exist, or dismissing them as petty politics, defies reality and prevents progress on the pressing challenge of oil security.
To move forward, we suggest establishing oil displacement as a national goal. Such a target would advance the goals of robust economic growth, improved environmental protection and effective foreign policy. Best of all, a national consensus on reducing oil dependence should be possible without the resolution of the energy and environmental issues that will continue to be debated for some time.
OPEC's intervention in the global oil market creates price distortions that have cost the American economy trillions of dollars and stymied the very innovation required to develop competing technologies. OPEC operates as a cartel of governments, and the U.S. should not accept this condition as permanent. An American government policy response to counter OPEC's market manipulation would be in support of the free market. Preserving the current system only perpetuates a tax on American consumers imposed by foreign powers.
Meanwhile, replacing oil in the transportation sector by unleashing competition now shackled by OPEC's price manipulation would reduce pollution significantly. Petroleum fuels also account for a larger share of America's energy-related carbon-dioxide emission than any other fuel. For these reasons, the wide-scale adoption of alternative-fuel vehicles powered by natural gas, electricity and other fuels—or a flexible fuel combination— would represent a major environmental achievement.
Finally, as the U.S. confronts an increasingly complex foreign-policy landscape, meaningfully reducing oil dependence would allow the nation to set priorities with far less regard for the consequences of global supply interruptions. For realists and idealists alike, such independence holds tremendous value as the country contends with a fragmenting Middle East, an unstable North Africa, and a contentious Russia, among other challenges.
EFTA00707205
Since 1973, OPEC's "oil weapon" has dangled ominously over the U.S. While America remains dangerously exposed to changes in the price and supply of oil, our nation has never been better positioned to diminish the clout of cartel participants in the global oil market. We urge the nation's leaders to embrace both the supply revolution now well under way and the emerging demand revolution in oil-displacement technology that, together, promise a more secure and prosperous future.
Mr. Shultz served as Secretary ofState, Treasury and Labor, and as director of the Office ofManagement and Budget, between 1969-89. Mr. Smith is the founder, chairman, president and CEO of FedEx Corporation.
EFTA00707206

📅 Nov 1, 2013 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Richard Kahn

we are wiring out funds and closing 9 jpm accounts today the remaining 7 accounts will be closed next week hyperion air is one of 9 accounts that can be closed either today or next week (your choice) EFTA00707207 we have used hyperion to withdraw cash would you like us to take money - today? next week? if so how much? we currently have $97,000 in account the last time we withdrew cash from that account was on 8/1/2013 please advise Richard Kahn HBRK Associates Inc. 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th

we are wiring out funds and closing 9 jpm accounts today the remaining 7 accounts will be closed next week hyperion air is one of 9 accounts that can be closed either today or next week (your choice)

EFTA00707207

we have used hyperion to withdraw cash would you like us to take money - today? next week? if so how much? we currently have $97,000 in account the last time we withdrew cash from that account was on 8/1/2013

please advise

Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor,
New York New York 10022

📅 Nov 1, 2013 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

(no subject)

From: jeevacation@gmail.com

yes withdraw all in cash

yes withdraw all in cash

📅 Nov 1, 2013 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

(no subject)

From: jeevacation@gmail.com

either

either

📅 Nov 1, 2013 REDACTED

(no subject)

From: Richard Kahn

please advise on how to proceed I) all 97,000 today 2) increments of 48,500 2x 3) increments of approx 25,000 4x 4) all 97,000 end ofnext week before final 7 accounts will be closed Richard Kahn HBRK Associates Inc. 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York. New York 10022

please advise on how to proceed

I) all 97,000 today

2) increments of 48,500 2x

3) increments of approx 25,000 4x

4) all 97,000 end ofnext week before final 7 accounts will be closed

Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor,
New York. New York 10022

📅 Nov 1, 2013

Re: jpm account update

From: Richard Kahn

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

i am going to withdraw all 97,000 today i coordinated with Sue and was planning to meet her at 5pm at 9 east 71st and put 50k in your safe and keep 47k at office please advise if ok Richard Kahn HBRK Associates Inc. 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York New York 10022

i am going to withdraw all 97,000 today i coordinated with Sue and was planning to meet her at 5pm at 9 east 71st and put 50k in your safe and keep 47k at office please advise if ok

Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor,
New York New York 10022

📅 Oct 31, 2013

Re:

From: A. de Rothschild

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Sorry Jeff i m falling asleep and will answer tom mmg. Lets continue and thk u Envoye de mon iPhone Le 31 oct. 2013 a 21:23, "Jeffrey Epstein" <jeevacation@gmail.com> a ecrit : > Understood , but why can't you buy it as part of the share reorg On Thursday, October 31, 2013, A. de Rothschild wrote: Yes but they have the property of Rothschild.com which i am asking David to give back .the best would be to put it in a ' family fund' Protected from 3 rd parties . But they have refused until now

Sorry Jeff i m falling asleep and will answer tom mmg. Lets continue and thk u

Envoye de mon iPhone

Le 31 oct. 2013 a 21:23, "Jeffrey Epstein" <jeevacation@gmail.com> a ecrit :

> Understood , but why can't you buy it as part of the share reorg

On Thursday, October 31, 2013, A. de Rothschild wrote: Yes but they have the property of Rothschild.com which i am asking David to give back .the best would be to put it in a ' family fund' Protected from 3 rd parties . But they have refused until now

Envoye de mon iPhone

Le 31 oct. 2013 a 21:01, "Jeffrey Epstein" <jeevacation@gmail.com> a ecrit :

> maybe the domain name might be seperately valued?

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:56 PM, A. de Rothschild < wrote:

> He might face a problem with the financial authorities: the name was allowed to be valued provided that nobody was claiming it. In fact, they should have told told the suthorities that there "might " be a risk attached to it as we were already rthreatening to sue .

> For our accounting treatement, i have rather been looking at "royalties". We have until now refrained from valuing our name as an asset for mostly historical and moral reasons. However, if/and when we manage to build a solid brand " edmond de r " which could stand alone, then we might consider doing differently.

Envoye de mon iPhone

Le 31 oct. 2013 a 20:22, "Jeffrey Epstein" <jeevacation@gmail.com> a acrit :

> I wonder if you might be able to play with the tax and accounting treatment if you considered the name an asset??

********************

****************

************

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

EFTA00707209

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

*******

*********

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

**********

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

EFTA00707210

📅 Oct 31, 2013

FW: OFFER:

From: Boris Nikolic

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Please see below — there is a trail of emails (at least Steve did not make it up) — they came down to 6.6M but this is not much from 6.85 And they now want a bidding war. B From: Steven Gold [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:39 PM To: Boris Nikolic; Sam Jaradeh Subject: Fwd: OFFER: See below The image contains the word "TOWN" in the top left corner, followed by a solid black rectangle. There is no chart data or other identifiable information to extract. Sent from my iPhone Beg

Please see below — there is a trail of emails (at least Steve did not make it up) — they came down to 6.6M but this is not much from 6.85

And they now want a bidding war.

B

From: Steven Gold [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:39 PM
To: Boris Nikolic; Sam Jaradeh
Subject: Fwd: OFFER:

See below

The image contains the word "TOWN" in the top left corner, followed by a solid black rectangle. There is no chart data or other identifiable information to extract.

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

**From:** Evan
**Date:** October 30, 2013 at 7:30:54 PM EDT
**To:** [Redacted]
**Subject:** Re: OFFER: [Redacted]

Gotcha,

Thank you for trying. If they change their minds in the next week or so let me know. I'm going to move forward with our other buyers in the meantime and keep you posted if they should fall out.

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

EFTA00707211

From: Steven Gold [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 07:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Evan
Subject: Re: OFFER:

I don't give you their max. They haven't told me either. But it won't beat something north of $6.5mm., which you said you have already. They also won't get into a bidding war. Their last offer was $6.25mm non contingent and could close before year end.

The image is a solid black rectangle with the word "TOWN" in the top left corner. There is no chart or any extractable data.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:09 PM, "Evan" wrote:

Just to clarify you're client's max number is what?

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

From: Steven Gold [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 6:43 PM
To: Evan
Subject: Re: OFFER:

Evan,

They won't pay $6.6mm but if you will come lower to their number then we can probably do a deal. We could close before year end. Let me know if your other deal falls thru. thx

From: Evan Seiden C 
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:46 AM
To: Steven Gold
Subject: RE: OFFER:

Any update

EFTA00707212

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

From: Steven Gold [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 8:05 PM
To: Evan
Subject: Re: OFFER:

I have a breakfast meeting followed by a few showings with the client. I'm free anytime after 11am. Just call my cell below. I think it would be beneficial to have a quick talk. Thx

TOWN

The image is entirely black and does not contain any charts, data, or key information.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "Evan" <> wrote:

How's 830am tomorrow for a call?

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

From: Steven Gold rmaItto
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 07:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Evan
Subject: Re: OFFER:

Thanks Evan. I will let them know. Are you free to chat briefly?

From: Evan Seiden
Date: Monday, October 28, 2013 5:49 PM
To: Steven Gold
Subject: RE: OFFER:

EFTA00707213

Steven,

We have another offer in quite a bit above your clients with that in mind I'd come down to $6.6M

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

From: Steven Gold [mailto:
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 9:59 AM
To: Evan
Subject: Re: OFFER:

Are you going to counter? 60 days closing.

The image is not a chart. It contains the word "TOWN" in the top left corner and a large black rectangle below it. There is no other discernible information.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 18, 2013, at 2:01PM, "Evan" wrote:

would affect closing time frame and time is money can you find out before i counter again thanks

On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:12 PM, "Steven Gold" < wrote:

Not sure if cash or may finance but regardless, this offer has no contingencies.

The image contains the word "TOWN" and a large black rectangle. There is no discernible chart or data to extract. The surrounding text indicates a discussion about a real estate offer with no contingencies, which may or may not be cash or financed.

Sent from my iPhone

EFTA00707214

On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "Evan" <> wrote:

still very though assuming we got them up farther are they all cash or motgage contingent and to what extent mortgage contingent? Thank you

On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Steven Gold" < > wrote:

Hi,

While the price per square foot is very low compared to the Tribeca aggregate market, the fact remains that it would be difficult to create more bedrooms, which most people looking at this size loft would need/want. It is great space, do not get me wrong, but a lot of the space can be utilized. However, my client still likes it and wishes to try to come to terms. Therefore, my client will increase his offer to $6,250,000. Let us know. Thanks!

Best,

Steve

From: Evan [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:46 PM
To: Steven Gold
Subject: Re: OFFER:

sounds good thank you

On Oct 17, 2013, at 7:09 PM, "Steven Gold" < wrote:

Hi Evan,

I hope to be in touch tomorrow with a better number. Thanks for your patience here.

Best,

Steve

Steve Gold
Licensed Real Estate Salesperson
Nlv Exclusive listings

TOWN

From: Evan [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:21 PM
To: Steven Gold
Cc: David Grosvenor
Subject: RE: OFFER:

Thank you for your offer I must decline at this EXTREMELY low proposed level. Since we are already the least expensive unit per square foot in the market at $1,250 and fully renovated /never lived in. Your clients would be getting a steal at existing pricing let alone less especially buying before the building work is done and values increase further. That said I will come down from my ask by $150,000 to $6.7M.

EFTA00707215

Evan Seiden
Chief Executive Officer
Summit Equities LLC

From: Steven Gold fmailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Evan
Cc: David Grosvenor
Subject: OFFER:
Importance: High

Dear Evan and David,

On behalf of my client, Sam laradeh and Boris Nikolic, I would like to convey an offer in the amount of $5,900,000 fod , This offer is made in good faith and has no contingencies. My client can close in 60 days. We look forward to your response. Thanks!

Best,

Steve

Steve Gold
Licensed Real Estate Salesperson
My Exclusive Listings

TOWN

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the senders knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted

EFTA00707216

immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the senders knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

EFTA00707217

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

The information contained herein may include information that is privileged or confidential. If you have received this email in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or review

of the information herein is prohibited and this email should be deleted immediately together with any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, please note that any information contained herein is believed to be accurate yet is subject to change, errors or omissions without advance notice from the sender. To the sender's knowledge, this email and any attachments did not contain any virus, worm or malicious code when transmitted and neither sender nor

Town Residential LLC, its subsidiaries or affiliates are liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Thank you.

EFTA00707218

📅 Oct 29, 2013

White & Chrome desk chair

From: ann rodriquez

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Hey Bossman, Would you like me to order 1 for each Cabana? Ann R. DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged,confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies.

Hey Bossman,

Would you like me to order 1 for each Cabana?

Ann R.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged,confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies.

📅 Oct 30, 2013

Re:

From: Bella Klein

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Sony Jeffrey, is N a typo or it is a NO? On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: N On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, wrote: Hi Bella , Could you transfer 1200$ for my school payment . JE knows . Thanks ************ The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, dis

Sony Jeffrey, is N a typo or it is a NO?

On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

N

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, wrote: Hi Bella , Could you transfer 1200$ for my school payment . JE knows . Thanks

************

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Oct 30, 2013

Software Eats the World

From: Steven Sinofsky

To: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Do you remember in the 80's when MCI was beating up on ATT with "friends and family"? That was the start of software defining businesses. Walmart and their massive supply chain was another. When banks did the first NOW accounts, it was really a magical software trick that allowed a background secondary account with a 51 balance and essentially 'automatic overdraft protection" that skirted the regulations. And so on things evolved. But it still took 25 years for most companies to realize that no

Do you remember in the 80's when MCI was beating up on ATT with "friends and family"? That was the start of software defining businesses. Walmart and their massive supply chain was another. When banks did the first NOW accounts, it was really a magical software trick that allowed a background secondary account with a 51 balance and essentially 'automatic overdraft protection" that skirted the regulations. And so on things evolved.

But it still took 25 years for most companies to realize that no matter what they make they are really in the software business. It is crazy that way. But what used to differentiate companies was "service". Today that service is defined by software. Airlines, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, health clubs, and more are differentiated by software.

If your restaurant is not on OpenTable you will just lose. If you don't do online boarding passes business travelers avoid you. And so on.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460

Why Software Is Eating The World

By MARC ANDREESSEN

August 20, 2011

This week. Hewlett-Packard (where I am on the board) announced that it is exploring jettisoning its struggling PC business in favor of investing more heavily in software, where it sees better potential for growth. Meanwhile, Google plans to buy up the capthone handset maker Motorola Mobility. Both moves surprised the tech world. But both moves are also in line with a trend I've observed. one that makes me optimistic about the future growth of the American and world economies, despite the recent turmoil in the stock market.

In short. software is eating the world.

More than 10 years after the peak of the 1990s dot-com bubble. a dozen or so new Internet companies like Facebook and Niger are sparking controversy in Silicon Valley. due to their rapidly growing private market valuations. and even the occasional successful IPO. With scars from the heyday of Webvan and still fresh in the investor psyche. people are asking. "Isn't this just a dangerous new bubbler

In an interview with WSJ's Kevin Delaney, Groupon and Linkedln investor Marc Andreessen insists that the recent popularity of tech companies does not constitute a bubble. He also stressed that both Apple and Google are undervalued and that "the market doesn't like tech."

I. along with others, have been arguing the other side of the case. (I am co-founder and general partner of venture capital firm Andreessen-Horowitz. which has invested in Facebook. Groupon. Skype, Twitter. Zynga, and Foursquare, among others. I am also personally an investor in Linkedln.) We believe that many of the prominent new Internet companies are building real, high-growth, high-margin, highly defensible businesses.

Today's stock market actually hates technology, as shown by all-time low price/earnings ratios for major public technology companies. Apple. for example, has a WE ratio of around 15.2—about the same as the broader stock market. despite Apples immense profitability and dominant market position (Apple in the last couple weeks became the biggest company in America. judged by market capitalization. surpassing Exxon Mobil). And, perhaps most telling. you can't have a bubble when people are constantly screaming "Bubbler

QuickHoney

But too much of the debate is still around financial valuation. as opposed to the underlying intrinsic value of the best of Silicon Valley's new companies. My own theory is that we are in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy.

More and more major businesses and Industries are being run on software and delivered as online services— from movies to agriculture to national defense. Many of the winners are Silicon Valley-style entrepreneurial technology companies that are Invading and overturning established industry structures. Over the next 10 years. I expect many more industries to be disrupted by software, with new world-beating Silicon Valley companies doing the disruption in more cases than noL

Why is this happening now?

QuickHoney

Six decades into the computer revolution. four decades since the invention of the microprocessor. and two decades into the rise of the modern Internet, all of the technology required to transform industries through software finally works and can be widely delivered at global scale.

Over two billion people now use the broadband Internet, up from perhaps 50 million a decade ago. when I was at Netscape. the company I co-founded. In the next 10 years. I expect at least five billion people worldwide to own smartphones, giving every individual with such a phone instant access to the full power of the Internet, every moment of every day.

EFTA00707222

On the back end, software programming tools and Internet-based services make it easy to launch new global software-powered start-ups in many industries— without the need to invest in new infrastructure and train new employees. In 2000, when my partner Ben Horowitz was CEO of the first cloud computing company, Loudcloud, the cost of a customer running a basic Internet application was approximately $150.000 a month. Running that same application today in Amazon's cloud costs about $1.500 a month.

QuickHoney

With lower start-up costs and a vastly expanded market for online services, the result is a global economy that for the first time will be fully digitally wired—the dream of every cyber-visionary of the early 1990s. finally delivered, a full generation later.

Perhaps the single most dramatic example of this phenomenon of software eating a traditional business is the suicide of Borders and corresponding rise of Amazon. In 2001. Borders agreed to hand over its online business to Amazon under the theory that online book sales were non-strategic and unimportant.

Oops.

Today, the world's largest bookseller, Amazon. is a software company—its core capability is its amazing software engine for selling virtually everything online. no retail stores necessary. On top of that. while Borders was thrashing in the throes of impending bankruptcy, Amazon rearranged its web site to promote its Kindle digital books over physical books for the first time. Now even the books themselves are software.

Today's largest video service by number of subscribers is a software company: Walk. How Net0ix eviscerated Blockbuster is an old story, but now other traditional entertainment providers are facing the same threat. Comcast. Time Warner and others are responding by transforming themselves into software companies with efforts such as TV Everywhere, which liberates content from the physical cable and connects it to smartphones and tablets.

Today's dominant music companies are software companies, too: Apple's iTunes. Spotify and Pandora. Traditional record labels increasingly exist only to provide those software companies with content. Industry revenue from digital channels totaled $4.6 billion in 2010. growing to 29% of total revenue from 2% in 2004.

Today's fastest growing entertainment companies are videogame makers—again, software—with the industry growing to $60 billion from $30 billion five years ago. And the fastest growing major videogame company is Zynga (maker of games including FarmVille), which delivers its games entirely online. Zynga's first-quarter revenues grew to $235 million this year. more than double revenues from a year earlier. Rovio, maker of Angry Birds, is expected to dear $100 million in revenue this year (the company was nearly bankrupt when it debuted the popular game on the al= in late 2009). Meanwhile, traditional videogame powerhouses like Electronic Arts and Nintendo have seen revenues stagnate and fall.

The best new movie production company in many decades. Pixar. was a software company. Disney—Disney!—Isad to buy Pixar. a software company. to remain relevant in animated movies.

Photography, of course, was eaten by software long ago. It's virtually impossible to buy a mobile phone that doesn't include a software-powered camera, and photos are uploaded automatically to the Internet for permanent archiving and global sharing. Companies like Shutterfly. Snapfish and Flickr have stepped into Kodak's place.

Today's largest direct marketing platform is a software company—Google. Now it's been joined by Groupon. Living Social. Foursquare and others, which are using software to eat the retail marketing Industry. Groupon generated over $700 million in revenue in 2010, after being in business for only two years.

Today's fastest growing telecom company is Skype. a software company that was just bought by Microsoft for $8.5 billion. CenturyLink. the third largest telecom company in the U.S., with a $20 billion market cap, had 15 million access lines at the end of June 30—declining at an annual rate of about 7%. Excluding the revenue from its Owest acquisition. CenturyLinkS revenue from these legacy services declined by more than 11%. Meanwhile, the two biggest telecom companies. AT&T and Verizon, have survived by transforming themselves into software companies, partnering with Apple and other s.caallpitarte makers.

Linkedln is today's fastest growing recruiting company. For the first time ever, on Linkedln, employees can maintain their own resumes for recruiters to search in real time—giving Linkedln the opportunity to eat the lucrative $400 billion recruiting industry.

QuickHoney

Software is also eating much of the value chain of industries that are widely viewed as primarily existing in the physical world. In today's cars, software runs the engines, controls safety features, entertains passengers, guides drivers to destinations and connects each car to mobile, satellite and GPS networks. The days when a car aficionado could repair his or her own car are long past, due primarily to the high software content. The trend toward hybrid and electric vehicles will only accelerate the software shift-electric cars are completely computer

controlled. And the creation of software-powered driverless cars is already under way at Google and the major car companies.

Today's leading real-world retailer, Wal-Mart, uses software to power its logistics and distribution capabilities. which it has used to crush its competition. Likewise for FedEx, which is best thought of as a software network that happens to have trucks, planes and distribution hubs attached. And the success or failure of airlines today and in the future hinges on their ability to price tickets and optimize routes and yields correctly—with software.

Oil and gas companies were early innovators in supercomputing and data visualization and analysis, which are crucial to today's oil and gas exploration efforts. Agriculture is increasingly powered by software as well, including satellite analysis of soils linked to per-acre seed selection software algorithms.

The financial services industry has been visibly transformed by software over the last 30 years. Practically every financial transaction, from someone buying a cup of coffee to someone trading a trillion dollars of credit default derivatives, is done in software. And many of the leading innovators in financial services are software companies. such as Square. which allows anyone to accept credit card payments with a mobile phone, and PayPal, which generated more than $1 billion in revenue in the second quarter of this year, up 31% over the previous year.

EFTA00707223

Health care and education, in my view, are next up for fundamental software-based transformation. My venture capital firm is backing aggressive start-ups in both of these gigantic and critical industries. We believe both of these industries, which historically have been highly resistant to entrepreneurial change, are primed for tipping by great new software-centric entrepreneurs.

Even national defense is increasingly software-based. The modern combat soldier is embedded in a web of software that provides intelligence, communications, logistics and weapons guidance. Software-powered drones launch airstrikes without putting human pilots at risk. Intelligence agencies do large-scale data mining with software to uncover and track potential terrorist plots.

Companies in every industry need to assume that a software revolution is corning. This includes even industries that are software-based today. Great incumbent software companies like Oracle and Microsoft are increasingly threatened with irrelevance by new software offerings like Salesforce.com and Android (especially in a world where Google owns a major handset maker).

In some industries. particularly those with a heavy real-world component such as oil and gas, the software revolution is primarily an opportunity (or incumbents. But in many industries. new software ideas will result in the rise of new Silicon Valley-style start-ups that invade existing industries with impunity. Over the next 10 years. the battles between incumbents and software-powered insurgents will be epic. Joseph Schumpeter, the economist who coined the term "creative destruction." would be proud.

And while people watching the values of their 401(k)s bounce up and down the last few weeks might doubt it. this is a profoundly positive story for the American economy, in particular. It's not an accident that many of the biggest recent technology companies—including Google. Amazon, eBay and more—are American companies. Our combination of great research universities, a pro-risk business culture, deep pools of innovation-seeking equity capital and reliable business and contract law is unprecedented and unparalleled in the world.

QuickHoney

Still, we face several challenges.

First of all, every new company today is being built in the face of massive economic headwinds, making the challenge far greater than it was in the relatively benign '90s. The good news about building a company during times like this is that the companies that do succeed are going to be extremely strong and resilient. And when the economy finally stabilizes, look out—the best of the new companies will grow even (aster.

Secondly, many people in the U.S. and around the world lack the education and skills required to participate in the great new companies coming out of the software revolution. This is a tragedy since every company I work with is absolutely starved (or talent. Qualified software engineers. managers. marketers and salespeople in Silicon Valley can rack up dozens of high-paying, high-upside job offers any time they want, while national unemployment and underemployment is sky high. This problem is even worse than it looks because many workers in existing industries will be stranded on the wrong side of software-based disruption and may never be able to work in their fields again. There's no way through this problem other than education. and we have a long way to go.

Finally, the new companies need to prove their worth. They need to build strong cultures. delight their customers. establish their own competitive advantages and, yes, justify their rising valuations. No one should expect building a new high-growth, software-powered company in an established industry to be easy. It's brutally difficult.

I'm privileged to work with some of the best of the new breed of software companies. and I can tell you they're really good at what they do. If they perform to my and others' expectations, they are going to be highly valuable cornerstone companies in the global economy, eating markets far larger than the technology industry has historically been able to pursue.

Instead of constantly questioning their valuations. let's seek to understand how the new generation of technology companies are doing what they do. what the broader consequences are for businesses and the economy and what we can collectively do to expand the number of innovative new software companies created in the U.S. and around the world.

That's the big opportunity. I know where I'm putting my money.

—Mr. Andreessen is co-founder and general partner of the venture capital firm Andreessen-Horowitz. He also co-founded Netscape. one of the first browser companies.

EFTA00707224

📅 Oct 30, 2013 REDACTED

Re:

From: Unknown

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Im flying all day from CA and also flying tomorrow and fri. I can speak on Sat evening or email. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: can you talk this morning? ******* The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of

Im flying all day from CA and also flying tomorrow and fri. I can speak on Sat evening or email.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

can you talk this morning?

*******

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

📅 Oct 27, 2013 REDACTED

Re:

From: Unknown

Is it due to tomorrow night? Could you send me the link of the website where should I apply for it. I tried to look for it but I find few different websites and I would like to make sure I'm signing on the right one. Thank you so much for info!

Is it due to tomorrow night? Could you send me the link of the website where should I apply for it. I tried to look for it but I find few different websites and I would like to make sure I'm signing on the right one.

Thank you so much for info!

📅 Oct 27, 2013 FROM EPSTEIN REDACTED

Re:

From: jeevacation@gmail.com

make sure you apply for green card lottery tomoonv

make sure you apply for green card lottery tomoonv