| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
AP: "A new Iranian offer to meet with the world powers is unusually short on preconditions and suggests Tehran may even be ready to touch on some nuclear issues that were previously taboo, according to the copy of a confidential letter from a senior Iranian official. Shared with The Associated Press, the letter is short on details of what the Islamic Republic is ready to discuss with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. But it differs from previous negotiating offers by avoiding demands the six powers are bound to reject out of hand. And it says Iran is 'ready to cooperate in ... nonproliferation and peaceful nuclear cooperation.' That's a possible nod to six-power demands that the Islamic Republic address world concerns over its nuclear program, and suspicions that it could used to make weapons - something Tehran has refused to do in earlier meetings. Compared to Iran's previous offer, the letter, by chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, is notable in its moderate tone. Western diplomats, however, characterized it Tuesday as part of Iran's new 'charm offensive' - an effort to derail plans to refer Tehran anew to the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear defiance... IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Monday that he plans to share some of that intelligence with his agency's 35-nation board, and diplomats say he will use his next report in November to detail his information on the allegations, including Iran's suspected work on a nuclear warhead. That report, in turn, could serve as a springboard for renewed IAEA referral to the Security Council, which first got involved in Iran's nuclear file in 2006 after the Vienna-based agency reported Tehran for resuming uranium enrichment. As word of such plans ripples through the IAEA, Iran has embarked on what appears to be a counteroffensive meant to blunt the Western-led efforts for new referral and possible new sanctions." http://t.uani.com/qXGRUf
Reuters: "Iran's judiciary said on Wednesday the release on bail of two U.S. citizens convicted of espionage was not imminent, state media reported, rejecting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement that they will be freed in a couple of days. Analysts say the contrast between the judiciary's statement and Ahmadinejad's promise highlights a rift between Iran's ruling hardline elites, germinated by Ahmadinejad's disputed 2009 re-election and the protests which followed. The statement is also an indication of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's powerful position in the Islamic state's complex political structure, analysts say. 'Ahmadinejad's announcement could not be made without getting a green light from the leader ... however, the judiciary's move reminded the president of his limitations,' said analyst Saeed Monfared." http://t.uani.com/qoypav
AFP: "Foreign Secretary William Hague on Tuesday vowed to confront Iran's 'repressive' human rights record by pushing for tough sanctions at next week's United Nations General Assembly. But in any case, the Islamic Republic would not be able to resist the popular pressure for reform sweeping the region, he predicted. Hague promised to support a 'strong resolution condemning abuses' at the UN meeting after accusing Tehran of being 'completely unwilling' to address claims of oppression. In a speech to a seminar organised by the Times newspaper, Hague said sanctions would be lifted if Iran improved its rights record, but increased if it failed to do so." http://t.uani.com/owrwr1
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
WSJ: "The State Department lifted sanctions against a prominent Israeli business family for allegedly doing business with Iran in violation of U.S. law, after acknowledging it misidentified the culprit. In clarifying the penalties first announced on May 24, U.S. officials did uphold sanctions on three shipping companies linked to the Israeli family that were involved in the sale of a tanker to Tehran in 2010. The clarification clears Ofer Holdings Group Inc. and the Ofer family itself of direct responsibility in the sale. The Ofer family called the clarification 'an important step forward.' ... Ofer Holdings was singled out for its role in allegedly helping to sell Iran a tanker in September 2010. The company had denied the charges. But on Tuesday, the State Department said three shipping companies sold the tanker unknowingly to a front company operating on behalf of the Iranian government. The companies are Tanker Pacific Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd., which managed the sale of the tanker Raffles Park; the Societe Anonyme Monegasque d'Administration Maritime et Aerienne, or SAMAMA, a Monaco-based company; and Allvale Maritime Inc. of Liberia, the owner of the tanker. SAMAMA acted as lead ship manager for Allvale. The companies firms are tied financially to Ofer Holdings, but the Israeli company didn't have controlling interests or representation on their boards, said people close to Ofer." http://t.uani.com/r2uFyW
Bloomberg: "Turquoise Partners, a Tehran-based investment firm that manages $180 million in assets, is looking to buy shares in power-saving companies after Iran cut energy subsidies. Iran began phasing out the three-decade-old subsidies last year to curb unnecessary energy use and boost profitability in the Persian nation that the International Monetary Fund said last year was 'one of the most wasteful.' Turquoise, which invests for foreign and domestic clients on the Tehran Stock Exchange, looks for companies using energy efficiently, Managing Director Ramin Rabii said. Turquoise overhauled its portfolio to correspond with the subsidy cuts, he said by phone from the Iranian capital. When selecting a stock now, 'it's very important for us to take into account the energy-efficiency of the company,' Rabii, who helped found Turquoise in 2005, said yesterday." http://t.uani.com/o6wADV
Human Rights
AP: "The Obama administration warned Tuesday of growing religious intolerance and violence in Arab nations undergoing popular revolts that could undermine fragile democratic transitions... In addition to highlighting concerns in those countries, the report also took aim at abuses of religious freedom in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia were identified once again as 'countries of particular concern' for their records, meaning that governments there 'engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.' That designation can bring about U.S. sanctions, but Clinton waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia, a key regional U.S. ally that forbids the public practice of any religion other than Islam. All religious minorities in Iran, particularly Bahais, Sufis, Christians and Jews, were targeted for discrimination in Iran, the report said." http://t.uani.com/ptT1dQ
Opinion & Analysis
NYPost Editorial Board: "It's September, which means the UN General Assembly is coming back to town -- which means in turn that it's time for Columbia University to cuddle up with its favorite bloody-handed dictator: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This time it's the Columbia International Relations Council and Association shouting, 'Hey everybody, we're here!' -- announcing plans for 15 students to dine with Ahmadinejad next Wednesday. CIRCA vice president Tim Chan told the Columbia Daily Spectator that he and his colleagues are 'really enthusiastic' and 'thrilled to have this opportunity.' No doubt. The fact that Iran is a leading supplier of weapons that are killing US troops in Afghanistan or that the medieval mullahs who A'jad is fronting for want to nuke Israel should be enough to put Timmy off his feed. But, no. This way, he's briefly a center of attention, which always sends tingles up adolescent legs. No word on whether university President Lee Bollinger is invited to the dinner, but who knows: He's played footsie with Mad 'Jad before. Bollinger caught a lot of flak in 2007 when he invited the Iranian strongman to speak on campus. He then tried to make amends when he introduced Ahmadinejad by denouncing him as 'a petty and cruel dictator.' New York will weather Columbia's annual 'we're so naughty!' event. But the folks up in Morningside Heights might want to consider that their shtick is getting really tiresome." http://t.uani.com/qZIsFY
Howard LaFranchi in CSM: "Now that Iran says it will soon free two American hikers jailed since 2009 for spying and illegally entering Iran, the major unanswered question is: Why now? With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about to undertake his annual charm offensive to the United Nations General Assembly session in New York next week, some Iran observers believe the country's leadership was keen to offer an international goodwill gesture. Or is the hikers' release somehow tied with the continuing international controversy over Iran's nuclear program? The country will face fresh suspicions about a possible military dimension of its nuclear development when it attends next week's annual conference of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For some, Iran wants to convey a cooperative and magnanimous air before confronting renewed international criticism at the nuclear meeting. 'The UN General Assembly meeting is next week, Ahmadinejad will be there, there will be a lot of press around him as in the past, and he will want to focus on this 'humanitarian gesture' as he himself called it, rather than on Iran's own human rights record,' says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington. Mr. Ahmadinejad used an interview Tuesday with the US television network NBC to announce that the two Americans would be released shortly as a 'humanitarian gesture.' Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal were sentenced to eight years in prison by an Iranian court last month on a conviction for espionage and illegally entering Iran. The two Americans insisted they had mistakenly wandered across the border from Iraqi Kurdistan when they were arrested in 2009." http://t.uani.com/rqz08v
Abbas Milani in The Daily Beast: "Iran's clerics are afraid. Very very afraid. With Syria in shambles, they rightly wonder if their alliance with Bashar al-Assad and his cronies will herald the end of their own despotic reign. The Syrian regime has been Iran's most reliable-indeed sole-ally in the Muslim Middle East. Tehran has handed over billions of dollars to keep Syria in its grip. In recent months there have even been allegations that units of the Iranian military-and its special forces, the Qods Brigade-have been sent to Syria and used as Assad's personal storm troopers. Yet as Syrian democrats continue to surprise the world with their tenacity, the long-sustained unity between Syria and Iran is beginning to fray. The Iranian regime's public statements are discordant. And this is both tactical-intended to confuse the world, and existential, reflecting the massive fissures and warring factions in the power centers of Iran. Initially, Iran offered unmitigated support for Assad. Today they are pulling back. The Iranian clerics want to claim both that the Arab Spring was inspired by their own Islamic model and yet Syria is meant to be the exception-nothing but a conspiracy designed and acted out by Israel and the United States. When Turkey, increasingly a rival to Iran for influence in the Muslim world, sided with the Syrian democrats, when polls in countries such as Egypt show a sharp decline in the popularity of the Iranian clerical regime among Muslims, when there were increasing signs of Sunni concern about the possible existence of an Iranian conspiracy to reestablish a 'Shiite empire'-a concern specifically voiced by some members of the Syrian opposition-the Iranian regime began to gingerly but discernibly distance itself from Assad. Iran's foreign minister declared that Syria must listen to the voice of its people, followed by another statement by Ahmadinejad reiterating much the same position. He even proposed hosting a meeting of Arab Muslim leaders to find a collective 'Muslim solution' to the problem. Unless we do something now, he told them, the same thing will happen in all Arab states! Iran and Syria are kindred spirits. Both are pseudo-totalitarian regimes that rule in the name of an ideology: in Syria, the Ba'ath ideology that is an odd amalgam of European fascism and Arab nationalism; and in Iran the theory of velayat-e fagih that is an eclectic mix of Shiite beliefs in the clerical interpretation of law and Plato's notion of the need for the absolute rule of the philosopher king." http://t.uani.com/q811ak
Leif Babin in WSJ: "Controversy erupted last week with the report that the United States will reduce troop levels in Iraq to as few as 3,000 by the end of the year. The assumption among many in the higher echelons of U.S. military leadership has long been that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq for decades, despite a formal security agreement with the government of Iraq for U.S. troop withdrawal in December 2011. I deployed three times to Iraq between 2004 and 2010, and my question is this: Why leave any troops in Iraq? Make no mistake, for those of us who have fought and bled and lost close friends and brothers there, we want more than anything to know that the sacrifices were worth it. But what does winning mean? What does completing our mission entail? Never have I seen this clearly articulated or defined. The vision of Iraq as a flowering democracy free of violent extremist attacks and wielding advanced military capability in close alliance with the U.S. was always a utopian fantasy. That is not to say the U.S. hasn't succeeded in Iraq. On the contrary, we've won... What about staying in Iraq in order to deter Iran? The fact is that the U.S. footprint in Iraq emboldens Iran. For years, Iran has targeted U.S. troops in Iraq through its proxies. Iran has armed, trained and sustained these insurgent groups and thousands of U.S. troops have been killed by so-called explosively formed projectiles, rockets and other weapons exported from Iran. U.S. forces have historically been severely limited in targeting these Iranian-backed insurgents, who are largely protected by the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq. Operatives from the Quds Force (part of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Iraq are virtually untouchable, with diplomatic protection from the very Iraqi government we've helped protect and support. As a result, the U.S. appears weak and powerless to take on Iran or Iran's proxies. Leaving only 3,000 troops in Iraq puts them at tremendous risk. Many fear that Iran will gain significant influence in Iraq after a complete U.S. withdrawal. But Iran already has significant influence there. From 1980 to 2003, Iraq's ruling Dawa Party was based partly in Iran (and partly in Syria), and it maintains strong ties with the Iranian regime. Hope of limiting Iranian influence in Iraq grew following the narrow victory of Ayad Allawi's secular party in the Iraqi national elections of March 2010. Yet the U.S. presence in Iraq remains a catalyst empowering Iranian influence through Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who drums up popular support based on opposition to the U.S. 'occupation.' Thus the U.S. presence subtracts credibility from the government of Iraq and empowers anti-American, pro-Iranian forces. Our presence in Iraq also limits us militarily. Every day that thousands of U.S. forces remain there, Iran can count on mounting U.S. public opinion against employing those forces to open another front in conflict with Iran or otherwise." http://t.uani.com/pDt9W0
|
No comments:
Post a Comment