US fraud charges brought against finance execs


 

•  Mortgage giant execs charged with fraud

  •  Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron left their jobs after GFC
  •  Both companies had to be bailed out by government

The two former top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been charged with fraud.

The SEC has accused the former executives of making “material mis-statements.”

Those charged are former chiefs of the mortgage firms, Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron.

Mr Mudd left Fannie after the government took over the institution during the start of the world economic crisis.

Mr Syron resigned from Freddie in 2008.

Mr Mudd, on hearing of the charges, instructed his lawyer to say they should never brought.

He claimed the US government had approved all of the company’s financial disclosures.

Mr Syron’s lawyers also said the case has no merit.

The US financial regulator has also brought civil fraud charges against four other top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over allegedly misleading investors about the exposure the companies had to risky subprime mortgages.

When the housing bubble burst both mortgage suppliers had to be rescued by the US government.

 

Advertisements

The US Outsmarted On Troop Withdrawal By Maliki And Iran


by , December 17, 2011

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmaneuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.

A central element of the Maliki-Iran strategy was the common interest that Maliki, Iran and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shared in ending the U.S. occupation, despite their differences over other issues.

Maliki needed Sadr’s support, which was initially based on Maliki’s commitment to obtain a time schedule for U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.

In early June 2006, a draft national reconciliation plan that circulated among Iraqi political groups included agreement on “a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq” along with the build-up of Iraqi military forces. But after a quick trip to Baghdad, Bush rejected the idea of a withdrawal timetable.

Maliki’s national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaei revealed in a Washington Post op-ed that Maliki wanted foreign troops reduced by more than 30,000 to under 100,000 by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of “most of the remaining troops” by end of the 2007.

When the full text of the reconciliation plan was published Jun. 25, 2006, however, the commitment to a withdrawal timetable was missing.

In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Maliki immediately sent Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Washington to dangle the bait of an agreement on troops before then Vice President Dick Cheney.

As recounted in Linda Robinson’s “Tell Me How This Ends”, Zebari urged Cheney to begin negotiating the U.S. military presence in order to reduce the odds of an abrupt withdrawal that would play into the hands of the Iranians.

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

Maliki’s national security adviser was also seeking to protect the Mahdi Army from U.S. military plans to target it for major attacks. Meeting Bush’s coordinator for the Iraq War, Douglas Lute, Rubaie said it was better for Iraqi security forces to take on Sadr’s militias than for U.S. Special Forces to do so.

He explained to the Baker-Hamilton Commission that Sadr’s use of military force was not a problem for Maliki, because Sadr was still part of the government.

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.

A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

In mid-March 2007, Maliki ignored pressure from a personal visit by Cheney to cooperate in taking down the Mahdi Army and instead abruptly vetoed U.S. military plans for a major operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki ordered an Iraqi army assault on the dug-in Sadrist forces.

Predictably, the operation ran into trouble, and within days, Iraqi officials had asked General Suleimani to intervene and negotiate a cease fire with Sadr, who agreed, although his troops were far from defeated.

A few weeks later, Maliki again prevented the United States from launching its biggest campaign yet against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. And again, Suleimani was brought in to work out a deal with Sadr allowing government troops to patrol in the former Mahdi Army stronghold.

There was subtext to Suleimani’s interventions. Just as Suleimani was negotiating the Basra cease fire with Sadr, a website associated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai said Iran opposed actions by “hard-line clans” that “only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers”.

In the days that followed that agreement, Iranian state news media portrayed the Iraqi crackdown in Basra as being against illegal and “criminal” forces.

The timing of each political diplomatic move by Maliki appears to have been determined in discussions between Maliki and top Iranian officials.

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.

In the end, however, Bush administration officials realized that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme, had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Gareth Porter

Iraqis: Good riddance to US Troops


by Jason Ditz, December 16, 2011

There’s plenty of concern about what the future will bring for Iraq, but after nine years of occupation there is also an overwhelming sense of relief as the last of the US occupation forces finally leave the country. With a death toll conservatively in the several hundreds of thousands and a crumbling infrastructure, the situation is grim, and questions about the Maliki government’s plans for the future could make it even moreso. Still and all, the exit appears to enjoy broad support.

Click here to read more at al-Jazeera

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

 

A Noble Lie-Oklahoma City Bombing 1995


http://www.ANobleLie.com – The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City was a direct blow to the heart of America. 168 people were killed, including nineteen children. For those watching the nightly news, terrorism had come home. For years following the bombing, countless victims’ family members, survivors, rescuers, and ordinary Americans, have questioned the official accounts about that fateful day.

Hoping to shed light on answers long ignored and censored, both by prominent media outlets and the U.S. government, A Noble Lie peels back what we thought we knew about the bombing and it’s perpetrators. This film exposes information never before examined or brought to the attention of the American public.

A Noble Lie is the culmination of years of research and documentation conducted by independent journalists, scholars, and ordinary citizens. Often risking their personal safely and sanity, they have gathered evidence which threatens to expose the startling reality of what exactly occurred at 9:02 am on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City.

Utilizing footage and eyewitness testimony, previously unseen, A Noble Lie will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism

US Troops Leave Iraq with Job Concerns


For American troops leaving Iraq this month, there is a sense of relief but also worry about returning to civilian life and searching for jobs in a weak U.S. economy. U.S. troops along the Iraq-Kuwait border, where thousands have been transiting on their way home are wondering about their future.

Staff Sergeant Brett Bolton, an Air Force truck driver who has served for six years, is now looking at life beyond his deployment in the Iraq war.”First thing, it would be just to get a secure job and then I’d like to start a family, me and my wife,” he says.

Jobs in the trucking industry at home are scarce. Staying in the military may not be an option, either.

Bolton is with the 387th Expeditionary Logistics Squadron, a unit created for this war. Clearing troops and equipment from Iraq is the squadron’s last mission before it is permanently deactivated. Most members will go back to military jobs in the U.S., but their futures are uncertain in the face of coming defense cuts.

For many troops, the joy of going home is tempered by worries about finding a job.

“Right now the unemployment rate nationwide is through the roof,” Bolton says. “I’ve done my six years. I feel like I’ve done enough and I want to go back to the civilian world, but right now it’s not looking too good for me.”

The Air Force and other branches of the U.S. military have programs to help troops prepare for their job hunts and find ways to apply their wartime skills in civilian settings. The troops’ battle now is to start new lives in a troubled economy at home.

They have sacrificed for their country and hope their country will now deliver to them. The U.S. government has made jobs for veterans a priority issue.

Preparing for martial law


Doug Hagmann  Friday, December 16, 2011

http://colonel6.com/2011/12/15/after-220-years-the-bill-of-rights-is-no-more/

 

Was the timing merely serendipitous or is something else at play? Yesterday was the “birthday” of the United States Bill of Rights, which our forefathers ratified exactly 220 years ago. The same people who believe the constitution is a living, breathing document just put it on a respirator, metaphorically speaking, by passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).  Obama has declared his intent to sign the legislation, despite initial indications from the White House of a veto (more on that dog-and-pony show later in this writing).

NDAA: The 2012 version

Every year, a new version of the defense authorization bill is crafted and ultimately enacted into law. It is an extensive piece of legislation that appropriates funds to defense projects. The current bill provides for a $662 billion defense budget and places the chief of the National Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff despite strong opposition of some military leaders. The massive budget allocation and the creation of a cabinet position for the chief of the U.S. National Guard is not at issue, however. The somewhat muted public frenzy over this bill stems from controversial and seemingly contradictory language that will have an impact on all United States citizens.

The language of the bill is readily available on numerous open source government sites, so it will not be included here. It was detailed in my previous article titled Connecting the dots of the National Defense Authorization Act, and its implications discussed in Judi McLeod’s article “Disappearing dissenters in Obama’s new Amerika.” Yet, there seems to be a full frontal assault by Democrats and Republicans alike to whitewash the bill’s actual ability and intent.

Clearing the controversy

While one section of the bill seems to exclude U.S. citizens from all aspects of this legislation, the key lies in the placement of discretion of exactly who fits the broad definition of a “terrorist” or broader still, someone who has engaged in a “belligerent act.” The bottom line is that the NDAA bill contains language that will codify, or make into law, the much debated act of defining U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. It will leave that discretionary power to the executive branch.

While many readers have contended that nothing in this bill applies to U.S. citizens, Senator Carl Levin, the bill’s sponsor, explicitly disagrees. Even more alarming, it was Senator Levin who announced in Senate chambers that it was Barack Obama himself who demanded the verbiage that includes U.S. citizens as fair game by our own military on U.S. soil. This followed Senator Lindsey Graham’s gleeful announcement that through the passage of this draconian legislation, the whole of America is now a battlefield and a venue in which the U.S. military may operate against its own.

Even in the face of such official pronouncements, there are many legislators who insist that this bit of lawyer-speak does not apply to citizens, and to think it does is just plain silly. Republican Congressman Tim Griffin, for example, has dedicated a Face Book site to decry the myths of the NDAA, showing readers in that venue where he is correct and others are not. Griffin is just one of many attempting to convince an unsuspecting public to relax, continue shopping and allow the government to handle such matters.

Coordinated confusion

Don’t be fooled into thinking that what is taking place in Washington is without purpose. The contradictory language, the circular arguments, and the much publicized threats of veto by this administration are intended as smokescreens as the collective attention of a nation is diverted as America prepares to “shut down” for the Christmas holiday. The bipartisan support for this bill adds to this confusion by convincing the American people that their Tea Party Republicans or their civil rights watchdogs would never betray the trust of the people. Unfortunately, they have. But few are asking the most important question of them all: why?

Information from intelligence sources: Follow the money

Within the last five weeks, I’ve been in contact with highly placed sources, their staffers and associates who work inside of the beltway. I’ve also engaged in dialogue with top security officials, all who state that this legislation is not about the security of our nation, but the ultimate control of the American people. According to these sources, the administration and congress are anticipating an apocalyptic scenario in the not-too-distant future.

While all eyes are on some type of unspeakable nuclear, biological or chemical event at the hands of “homegrown terrorists,” the real event is already in progress, although America has not yet experienced the full fallout from what is taking place. The terrorists are indeed homegrown actors, and they are engaged in actively destroying the United States, but not with bullets or bombs. Bullets and bombs are effective, but do not have the long-term capacity to effect every citizen from shore to shore. Additionally, such non-state terrorists don’t have the capacity to so effectively infiltrate the administration, the majority of congress, as well as the various regulatory agencies that exist in the U.S.

Driven not by a third world theology, the true terrorists are those whose god is greed, power and control, and who have effectively destroyed our monetary and economic system. For years they have been facilitated by all three branches of the American government, although they have been empowered by this administration in particular. Perhaps that’s why we have a man in the Oval Office who lacks the bona-fides of his predecessors, and why those in power refuse to address the lack of due diligence in that venue.

Who benefits?

After all, it is Obama and his closest political supporters who have been the largest financial benefactor of the incestuous Goldman Sachs-Federal Reserve-U.S. Treasury-IMF-World Bank Ponzi scheme, and it is Eric Holder, as attorney general, who has declined to prosecute the criminal behavior of the money changers. One has to look no farther than the MF Global rape of American citizens, where upwards of $1.2 billion turned up “missing” from customer accounts under the leadership of Obama administration confidant and Goldman Sachs alumni Jon Corzine. Testifying before congress, Corzine was stricken with a case of idiocy when questioned about where the money went.

The most telling part of those hearings was not Corzine’s display of hubris through amnesia, but statements made by the panel charged with the inquiry. Instead of ordering Corzine into custody to allow his memory to revive, the congressional panel spoke of “learning from mistakes” and “moving forward.” That’s akin to asking a masked bank robber about the location of stolen money, and when he fails to tell his questioners, they look at the bank to determine what steps could have been taken to prevent the robbery.

The MF Global and the Jon Corzines of the world are the mere tip of the iceberg. Money is being systematically stolen from each and every American at wholesale levels while this administration and this congress sits by, themselves the benefactors of the actions of the global banking takeover of our country and the world.

As the majority of American people are told by the nightly news that things are improving in Camelot and consequently continue their needless shopping at big box stores for items they don’t need and can’t afford, they are oblivious to what is coming. When the inevitable happens, they will be surprised, shocked and outraged.

Of course, that’s all hyperbole, according to the very people who created and perpetuate this madness.  And if it were true, wouldn’t the GOP nominees be talking about this in their debates? Oh, wait, considering who’s asking and answering the carefully scripted questions, why would they?

As watchmen begin to expose the people, companies and even lawmakers behind this money and power grab, they could be considered dangers to the “security” of the United States, or engaging in “belligerent acts.” So too could the people who will protest in anger about the bank holidays, the overnight evaporation of their retirement accounts, and even the fire sale of national assets to manage the unmanageable and unsustainable debt. Their anger must be controlled in the name of national security.

To be certain, their warnings will not be heard nor will protests be allowed from a detention facility.

You know, the facilities that don’t exist?

Ron Paul’s Constitutionalist, Anti-War Stance Supported By U.S. Troops


Establishment media attacks Paul after confrontation with Bachmann

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 16, 2011

Following Ron Paul’s clash with Michele Bachmann over foreign policy during last night’s Republican debate in Iowa, the establishment media characterized Paul’s views as an “outburst” that could cost him votes, when in reality the majority of Republican voters now want U.S. troops brought home, troops who themselves support Paul over every other GOP candidate.

Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.

“Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,” confirms Politifact.

In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000). In comparison, Michele Bachmann received just $2,250.

“We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our friend Israel off the map, and they would use it against the United States of America,” said Bachmann during last night’s debate, presumably unaware of the fact that Israel has as many as 400 nuclear weapons, backed by the United States which maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads, and could turn Iran into a parking lot overnight.

Bachmann then labeled Paul’s refusal to back an unconstitutional pre-emptive strike on Iran as “dangerous for American security”.

Bachmann’s characterization of Ron Paul’s constitutional, non-interventionist, founding father-inspired foreign policy as “dangerous” is not a view shared by active duty U.S. troops, because as Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton points out, “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”

To cast Paul’s opposition to neo-liberal interventionist wars which have intensified under Barack Obama as somehow unconservative represents more dirty tricks on behalf of the establishment press. The Texan Congressman’s views are completely in line with the founding fathers, who also advocated non-interventionism.

“It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists,” Paul explains in his article I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would. “The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.”

Not only is Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance backed by U.S. troops and other military workers, aspects of it also shared by the majority of Republican voters.

After Obama rapidly accelerated an interventionist foreign policy, with more troops deployed than at any time under Bush (Bachmann should love Obama), Republicans quickly began to lose their appetite for war.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that a slim majority of Republican voters now support pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. In addition, the survey found that just 13 per cent of Republicans supported U.S. military action in Libya.

Perhaps Michele Bachmann should try asking active duty U.S. troops if they think Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are “dangerous”. Judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.

A FINE DAY IN NEWPORT, RI


COLONEL SIXX:  GUNNY STAHL IS MERELY TRYING TO MAKE O.C.GOOD GET IN TOUCH WITH HIS “INNER SELF”.

AT TIMES THE ANGLE FROM WHICH A PICTURE WAS TAKEN FROM MAY GIVE A DIFFERENT IMPRESSION. I AM SURE THAT GUNNY STAHL WORKED OVERTIME THAT DAY TO WORK WITH GOOD, AND THAT GOOD FELT BETTER ABOUT HIMSELF. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE HELPING A YOUNG MARINE GET THE VERY BEST FROM HIMSELF.  HE WILL NEVER FORGET THIS CONVERSATION.

YOU KNOW,  I REMEMBER CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS THAT I HAD WITH GUNNY GLENN.  HE WAS FINE MAN.  I KNOW THAT NOW THAT I HAVE MATURED AND I AM ABLE TO ENJOY THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

YES, LIFE IN THE MILITARY IS FULL OF NEW AND EXCITING THINGS.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

WANT A BRIDGE?

NEWPORT, R.I. (Oct. 29, 2010) Gunnery Sgt. Robert Stahl encourages officer candidate Jared Good, from Towanda, Pa., during the first week of the 12-week Officer Candidate School at Naval Station Newport. (U. S. Navy photo by Scott A. Thornbloom/Released)
NEWPORT, R.I. (Oct. 29, 2010) Officer candidates perform calisthenics in the sand along Narragansett Bay during the first week of the 12-week Officer Candidate School at Naval Station Newport. (U. S. Navy photo by Scott A. Thornbloom/Released)

Marines promoted inflated Medal of Honor story, Obama description ‘untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated’


With Dakota Meyer standing at attention in his dress uniform, sweat glistening on his forehead under the television lights, President Barack Obama extolled the former Marine corporal for the “extraordinary actions” that had earned him the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor.

Obama told the audience in the White House East Room on Sept. 15 that Meyer had driven into the heart of a savage ambush in eastern Afghanistan against orders. He’d killed insurgents at near-point-blank range, twice leapt from his gun turret to rescue two dozen Afghan soldiers and saved the lives of 13 U.S. service members as he fought to recover the bodies of four comrades, the president said.

But there’s a problem with this account: Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined.

Iran To Afghanistan:Stop U.S. Drone Flights


COLONEL SIXX:  THIS IS A STRAIGHT UP GANGSTER MOVE.  IF I SEND YOU TO DELIVER A MESSAGE AND YOU DELIVER IT, YOU ARE O.K. AT THAT POINT.

HOWEVER,  IF THE PEOPLE I SENT YOU TO WITH THE MESSAGE DO NOT HEED IT,  YOUR PROBLEM IS NOT THEM.  IT IS ME.

 

By RICK GLADSTONE
Published: December 15, 2011

 

Iran escalated its confrontation with the United States on Thursday over the captured  American spy drone launched from Afghanistan, warning the Afghan government to halt such surveillance flights.

Any further flights would be regarded as a hostile act, the Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said in an interview with Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency.

His warning threatened to drag Afghanistan directly into the conflict for the first time.

There was no immediate response from the United States or Afghanistan to Mr. Salehi’s admonition. But Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, visiting with Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai in Kabul on Wednesday, said that surveillance flights over Iran would continue despite the loss of the drone. Mr. Karzai was more circumspect, saying Afghanistan wanted “the best of relations” with all its neighbors.

Iran has said it captured the drone — a sophisticated, batwinged RQ-170 model with radar-evading features — by way of an electronic attack on the aircraft’s navigation system as it hovered over northern Iran on Dec. 4, causing it to land without damage.

The drone was operated remotely by C.I.A. controllers in Afghanistan, in what American officials have acknowledged was part of a stepped-up effort to monitor suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The officials have said the drone was lost through an unspecified technical malfunction.

“We have called on the Afghan government to seriously pursue the case, and under no circumstances let such events happen again, as such events will be regarded as unfriendly,” Mr. Salehi said. He called the drone flight a “hostile and aggressive act.”

COLONEL SIXX:  IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL THE PEOPLE IN YOUR COUNTRY THAT HAVE TURNED YOU INTO WHORES,  WE WILL BECOME YOUR NEW PIMP!

Last week Iranian television showed images of what it said was  the captured drone, apparently intact, and called it an intelligence windfall that Iranian experts would reverse-engineer.

Iran reacted with a mixture of outrage and incredulity after President Obama said on Monday that the United States had asked Iran to return the drone.

COLONEL SIXX:  IRAN LAUGHS AT OBAMA.  BUT OBAMA IS GOING TO PUT YOU IN JAIL FOR NO REASON,  AS LONG AS  HE WANTS TO,  AND YOU ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR LAZY BOY AND THE REMOTE CONTROL.

“That is a shameless demand raised by the U.S. President,” Brig. Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy chief of staff of the Iranian military, was quoted by the semiofficial Fars News agency as saying. “They raise such claims instead of apologizing to our Islamic establishment and people.”