Morning Wire - Iran’s Frozen Funds & Gender Employment Guidance | 10.13.23

Episode Date: October 13, 2023

The U.S. refreezes billions of dollars of Iranian funds, alleged “high level Iranian spy ring” in D.C. leads to calls from investigation, and the Biden Administration issues new employment guidance regarding gender. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Black Rifle Coffee: Get 10% off your first order or Coffee Club subscription with code WIRE: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ ZBiotics: "Get 15% off your order with promo code WIREhttp://www.ZBiotics.com/Wire" Shopify: "Get a $1 per month trial at https://www.shopify.com/morningwire" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S., along with Qatar, has refrozen billions of dollars in Iranian funds following conflicting reports that the country coordinated the attacks on Israel. What I can tell you is that every single dime of that money is still sitting in the Cuttery Bank. Not one dime of it has been spent. I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire editor-in-chief John Bickley. It's Friday, October 13th, and this is Morning Wire. An alleged high-level Iranian spy ring in D.C. has led Republicans to call for an investigation. What do we know about the man at the center of the scandal and what's being

done to protect American interests? We could have a treasonous character who's been negotiating on behalf of us in the Department of State. This could be happening. And misgendering is now grounds for a harassment lawsuit according to new employment guidance from the Biden administration. We break down the new rules and the likely legal challenges. Thanks for waking up with Morningwire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. The United States and Qatar have frozen Iran's access to a $6 billion humanitarian account. The Biden administration has faced mounting pressure to block Iran's access to the funds in recent days because of Iran's connection to the terror group Hamas.

Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce is here to talk about Iran's role in the attack and the state of Israel's war against Hamas. Hi, Tim. So first off, what happened to the humanitarian fund? Well, the Biden administration and Qatar have reportedly come to a quiet agreement that no money will be spent from the $6 billion fund. That's what Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adyamo reportedly told House Democrats on Thursday. This report follows days of mounting pressure from Capitol Hill to cut off Iran's access to the funds

which Secretary of State Anthony Blinken fought against. The pressure from Republicans and Democrats probably became too great for the White House to ignore. Half a dozen Democratic senators from purple states, each of which is up for re-election next year, called on President Biden to freeze the funds. On the GOP side, Republican Senator Tom Cotton and minority leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill to the Senate Wednesday that would require a freeze. Here's Cotton talking about that on Fox News. It may be the case that it hasn't been released yet or it's being held offshore, but that obviously emboldened Iran that America would pay ransom for five American hostages. And it freed up $6 billion to their own money to continue to support groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now, while it appears that the Biden administration has frozen those funds, it's not really clear how secure the fund is. After all, it's being controlled by Qatar, an Iranian ally that is suspected of giving a safe harbor to Hamas leadership. If the Biden administration does have a lever to control that fund, it hasn't publicly said what that is. Now, we've seen some conflicting reports about Iran's hand in the Hamas invasion of Israel. What's the latest there? Right. The White House is saying that, according to U.S. intelligence, It doesn't seem like there's a direct link between Iran and the Hamas attack. The Biden administration has actually said that Iran was taken by surprise that Hamas would

launch such a big operation. Here's Blinken talking about that on NBC News Thursday. Iran's had a long relationship with Hamas. Hamas wouldn't be Hamas without the support over many, many years from Iran. And so we know that. We see that. When it comes to this specific attack, in this moment, we don't have to. direct evidence that Iran was involved in the attack, either in planning it or carrying it out.

Now, the conclusion isn't final and the investigation is still ongoing, but what's confusing is the administration's initial report is completely contradictory to earlier news reports from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. It also contradicts what many experts on the Middle East and terrorism have said about how Iran's terror networks operate, and Hamas is a client organization of Iran. It's hard to believe that Iran, with all the training, and support it's given to Hamas over the years, was completely in the dark on this. And several reports have said

that Iran actually greenlit the operation for geopolitical reasons. It wanted to provoke a serious Israeli response and drive a wedge between the Jewish state and Arab Saudi Arabia. Well, and Israel went on to use overwhelming force against Gaza in this war, correct? Right, and it's taking a toll

on Palestinian civilians living in the area. But that's really by Hamas design. The terror group actively discourages civilians from leaving areas that the Israeli military plans to bomb. Hamas then uses Palestinians killed and wounded in the strikes in propaganda. Israel has even tried to negotiate with Egypt to take Palestinian refugees from Gaza, but Egypt has refused to open its borders. Well, a really devastating situation. Tim, thanks for reporting. Thanks for having me. Republicans in Congress have opened an investigation into what's being called a high-level

Iranian spiring embedded directly in Washington, D.C. At the center is a man named named Robert Malley, who had his security clearance pulled earlier this year, omitted investigation into his connections with the Iranian government. Here to discuss the latest developments in the story is Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. So, David, first, who is Robert Malley? What's his role? And why did he have his security clearance taken? Morning, Georgia.

Malley was Joe Biden's special envoy to Iran, an important diplomatic post. And in June, he was put on leave and had his clearance revoked as an investigation was launched into alleged mish of classified documents. He's viewed as rather dovish on Iran. For example, he was a big proponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which critics argue

as just a big giveaway to the regime. Another interesting side note, according to Omnis Seren, a national security advisor to Senator Ted Cruz, Obama actually dropped Mali as an advisor back in 2008 due to concerns

that he was too entangled with Hamas. Now, according to reporting from semaphore, the investigation has now widened to include close associates of Mali's and an Iranian government-linked information operation known as the Iranian Experts Initiative, or IEI. That's the organization that Republicans in Congress really want answers about. So what is the Iranian Experts Initiative and what's Mali's connection to it? IEI is an influence or information operation that recruits international experts

or people with either power or influence to argue on behalf of the agenda of the Iranian government. provided that there's disclosure that a person is acting as a foreign agent, there's nothing illegal about this, but reports suggest that three of Mali's close confidants were part of the IEI, including one who works at the Pentagon and has security clearance. The question really is whether IEI is simply operating as a legitimate lobbying firm, or if there's something more nefarious going on, including possibly obtaining classified materials from Americans. Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill have been frustrated thus far by the state department's

unwillingness to share documents and information about this case, what specifically are they trying to get access to? Yes, they claim that state has been dragging its feet on this. The GOP and Congress specifically wants to know more about a Pentagon official named Ariane Tabatabai, who worked closely with Mali, as well as an official from IEI named Ali Vez, who has close contact with the Iranian government, but also with the White House, having even met with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Basically, Congress wants to know if the investigation into Mali and the polling of his clearance were related to IEI. And so far, the State Department has not shared that information. Though the Pentagon has confirmed it's investigating Tabat-Tabai's security clearance and whether she should have had one to begin with given these connections.

Right. Now, what is the main threat of these information operations like IEI and others? American foreign policy operates on what is called the dime, D-I-M-E paradigm. That's diplomacy, information, military, and economic. These are the levers that the U.S. can pull to influence other nations. On three of them, we're dominant. But as far as informational power goes, that's things like propaganda, spying, social media, troll farms. Where did a disadvantage precisely because we are such a free and open society.

That's why it's so important that we aggressively investigate and expose the information operations that can weaken our country. That's ultimately what these Republicans are trying to do. All right. Well, we'll just have to see what come. out of that investigation. David, thanks for reporting. Thanks for having me. Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its new enforcement guidance for workplace harassment. Among the behaviors, it says qualifies as harassment is failure to use preferred pronouns. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter with

similar language to all employees. Religious groups are crying foul. Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham is here now to explain the new EEOC rules. So, Megan, when the EEOC proposes new rules on harassment. Employers obviously sit up and take notice because they know this means potential lawsuits if they fail to abide by them. So what exactly does this new proposal say? So it's based on the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in that Bostock v. Clayton County decision. That was a decision that granted civil rights protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Well, the EEOC says Bostock means that sex-based harassment now does include how gender identity, is expressed. And as an example of harassment, they offered intentional and repeated use of a name

or pronoun inconsistent with the individual's gender identity, misgendering. So that was their language. Now, it's not clear if this only applies to standard pronouns like him and her, or if it also applies to these so-called neo-pronouns or non-binary pronouns. And as we all know, I think those can be a little difficult and unnatural for people to get accustomed to you. Now, to illustrate, for employers, what this would look like in the workplace, they then presented something of a fast food scenario. So they said a cashier who is a biological man, but identifies as a woman, is bothered that his superiors, coworkers, and customers regularly and intentionally misgender him. The story then goes on to say, and I'm quoting, one of her supervisors, Allison, frequently uses Jennifer's prior male name,

male pronouns and dude when referring to Jennifer. Other managers also intentionally refer to Jennifer as a he. So they say that is harassment under this new code. Exactly. Yes. So the EEOC also included an example in which customers of the fast food restaurant use the wrong pronouns. And then the manager might fail to respond appropriately to that. So even if the manager, him or herself, doesn't use an offending pronoun, they could be liable if they fail to address. customer harassment, or if even they address it in the wrong way. And then importantly, in this case, they say that reassigning the employee to have less customer interaction in these cases, you know, in order to avoid future misgendering incidents, well, that would also be harassment.

Well, a consequence of this, I have to imagine, is that managers are going to be very nervous to hire trans-identifying people if they foresee these issues coming up. Yeah, possibly. Now, were there elements of this new rule that directly related to that Bowstock ruling? Yeah, you know, it also said that denying a person access to a bathroom or other private space that's designated exclusively for the opposite sex could also be a form of harassment. And I do think it's important to note that this has been a key focus of the Biden administration since really its first day in office. Immediately after his inauguration, President Biden issued an executive order that added sexual and gender identity to Title VII, which if you don't recall this, it is the part of the civil rights. Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on things like race, color, religion, sex, national origin. Also this week, the Health and Human Services Department, as you said,

also sent out that mandate requiring its employees to use preferred pronouns. So obviously, it's a priority. Yeah. Now, are there any religious exemptions? You know, I went through it, and I did not see any specifically cited in that section, though the 2021 EEOC fact sheet did provide exemptions for religious institutions. But groups like the Alliance defending freedom, which often represents religious plaintiffs in these cases, it's pointed out that the government isn't clear which organizations qualify as religious.

And the ADF points out, your religious rights don't stop at the workplace door. If you're a Christian or Muslim, for example, who can't in good conscience use these non-biological pronouns, they say the government constitutionally cannot compel you to. worth noting Justice Samuel Alito actually warned in his dissent from Bostock that compelled speech, the government requiring you to voice particular views, was where that decision might lead. So once again, pretty guaranteed that we are going to see challenges to this.

Right. Well, like so many issues that we've been reporting on, eventually it's just going to have to go to SCOTUS. Yep. Megan, thanks for reporting. Anytime. Another story we're tracking this week. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise announced Thursday evening that he's dropping his bid for Speaker of the House after failing to gain enough support. Scalise edged out judiciary chairman Jim Jordan at 113 to 99 in a secret ballot vote on Wednesday. However, a day later, several GOP members were holding out on support for the Louisiana Republican. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.