United States Department of State Fvashington, D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. United States Department of State fVashington, D . C. 20520 April 29, 2016 Case No. F-2015-06322 Segment: IPS-02, IPS-04, IPS-05 Mr. William F. Marshall 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024 Dear Mr. Marshall: I refer to our letter dated March 31, 2016, regarding the release of certain Department of State material under the Freedom oflnformation Act (the "FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §552. Our review is ongoing and we have determined that 20 additional documents may be released in full and 84 may be released with excisions. All released material is enclosed. An enclosure explains the FOIA exemptions and other grounds for withholding material. Where we have made excisions, the applicable exemptions are marked on each document. All non-exempt material that is reasonably segregable from the exempt material has been released. We will keep you informed as your case progresses. If you have any questions, your attorney may contact Trial Attorney, Caroline Anderson, at (202) 305-8645 or [email protected]. Please refer to the case number shown above in all correspondence about this case. Sincerely, Eric F. Stein, Acting Co-Director Office of Information Programs and Services Enclosures: As stated. Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. The Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) FOIA Exemptions (b)(1) Withholding specifically authorized under an Executive Order in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and properly classified. E.O. 12958, as amended, includes the following classification categories: 1.4(a) Military plans, systems, or operations 1.4(b) Foreign government information 1.4(c) Intelligence activities, sources or methods, or cryptology 1.4(d) Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources 1.4(e) Scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to national security, including defense against transnational terrorism 1.4(f) U.S. Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities 1.4(g) Vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to US national security, including defense against transnational terrorism 1.4(h) Information on weapons of mass destruction (b)(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency (b)(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 USC 552), for example: ARMEX Arms Export Control Act, 22 USC 2778(e) CIA Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 USC 403(g) EXPORT Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 App. USC 2411(c)(1) FSA Foreign Service Act of 1980, 22 USC 4003 & 4004 INA Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1202(f) IRAN Iran Claims Settlement Act, Sec 505, 50 USC 1701, note (b)(4) Privileged/confidential trade secrets, commercial or financial information from a person (b)(5) lnteragency or intra-agency communications forming part of the deliberative process, attorney-client privilege, or attorney work product (b)(6) Information that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (b)(7) Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would: (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings (B) deprive a person of a fair trial (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (D) disclose confidential sources (E) disclose investigation techniques (F) endanger life or physical safety of an individual (b)(8) Prepared by or for a government agency regulating or supervising financial institutions (b)(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells Other Grounds for Withholding NR Material not responsive to a FOIA request, excised with the agreement of the requester UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No: C05938374 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. From: hr l [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 9: 20 PM !RELEASE IN FULL\ To: Miguel Rodriguez <migu~l_rodriguez@clinton . senate.gov> Subject: Re: Ledbetter Yeah! Well, that's only nght -·---Original Message-····· From: Miguel Rodriguez To: Hillary Clinton Sent: Jan 22, 2009 6:58 PM Su~ject: Ledbetter · I know you have a new portfolio, but I thought you'd be 111terested to know th~t the Ledbetter b1lljust passecl the Senate by a vote of6 l-37 The House will pass the bill next week; likely pemuttlllg the President sign it into law shortly thereafter. Congratulations on a great first day M4 nQ1n11?n1" UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05938374 Date: 04/29/2016 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05938417 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FO IA by Judicial Watch, Inc. From: H <[email protected]> JRELEASE IN FULLj Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:06 AM To: Huma Abedin <HAbedin@hillaryclinton com> Subject: Fw: Washington Post article on Administration's Iran policy Pis print. From: "Mills, Cheryl D" Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:38:14 -0500 To: <hdr22@clintonemail com> Subject. Fw: Washington Post article on Administration's Iran policy Fyi From: LaVine, Christopher M To: NEWS-Mahogany Cc: NEWS-NEA; SES-0; Knopf, Payton L; Hale, David M; NEWS-Iran Sent: Thu Jan 29 22:50:25 2009 Subject: Washington Post article on Administration's Iran policy Colleagues, Ops thought you might be interested in this WPost article on the Administration's Iran policy. Thank you, Regards, Chris LaVine Operations Center Writings Offer Look at Administration Debate on Iran By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 30, 2009; A12 President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rod ham Clinton in the past week have sent repeated signals to Iran that the door is now wide open for direct talks between the two countries three decades after the Irani.an revolution, but U.S. officials say the method, the pace and the tenor of that diplomacy still remain to be settled. But while officials say a plan will not be in place for several months, key players in the discussions have outlined their views in papers they wrote before joining the administration, giving a unique window into the administration's debate. Obama, during a private discussion with Jewish leaders a year ago, also provided a road map to his thinking. MA OR/01,,01!; UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05938417 Date: 04/29/2016 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05938417 Date: 04/29/2016 Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch, Inc. "The time, I believe, has come to talk directly to the Iranians and to lay out our clear terms: their end of pursuit of nuclear weapons, an end of their support of terrorism and an end of their threat to Israel and other countries in the region," Obama said, according to a transcript. Bigger "carrots," he said, will give the United States more leverage to win support for sanctions if Iran rebuffs the approach. One complicating factor is that Iran will hold a presidential election in June. American officials want to avoid taking steps that might bolster the stature of the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose anti semitic rants and hostile attitude toward the West make him a potentially difficult interlocutor for diplomatic outreach. Another complicating factor is that the United States and five other powers have demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program before substantive talks can begin on its nuclear program. Any sudden change in that approach may alarm allies. Finally, the government in Iran is so opaque that officials want to be sure they are communicating with the ri1ht power centers. "It is unclear who exactly that dialogue would be with in Iran," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday. Dennis Ross, the former Middle East envoy who will be Clinton's senior adviser on Iran, has recommended that the initial approach to Iran take place through a "direct, secret back channel," which would be one way to avoid empowering Ahmadinejad or publicly undercutting the ongoing nuclear negotiations. "Keeping it completely private would protect each side from premature exposure and would not require 0 either side to publicly explain such a move before it was ready," Ross wrote in a lengthy paper, titled "Diplomatic Strategies for Dealing With Iran," published by the Center for a New American Security in September. "It would strike the Iranians as more sign ificant and dramatic than either working through the Europeans or non-officials -- something that is quite familiar." Ross said the United States should ask the Iranian representative during the private talks to explain how his government sees U.S. goals toward Iran and how Iran thinks the United States perceives Iranian goals. The purpose of this dialogue, he wrote, is to "find a way to show the Iranians that we are prepared to listen and to try to understand Iranian concerns and respond to them, but ultimately no progress can be made if our concerns cannot also be understood and addressed." Ross conceded that it may be difficult "to set up such a direct channel that is also authoritative," because in the Iranian system, the president has much less power than the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another top Obama adviser, Gary Sa more of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued for a more public approach, without requiring Iran to suspend its enrichment activities: direct bilateral talks, preferably with a representative of the supreme leader, that would cover a range of issues, including the nuclear program, U.S. lranlan relations, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Sa more, who will be the top nonproliferation official at the White House National Security Council, co-authored with Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution a paper published last month that outlined this concept.