| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
WSJ: "The Obama administration has quietly drawn up plans to provide a key Persian Gulf ally with thousands of advanced 'bunker-buster' bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran. The proposed sale to the United Arab Emirates would vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country's air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels-the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons. The move represents one way the Obama administration intends to keep Iran in check, as it struggles to find adequate backing for new United Nations sanctions-even after a report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog concluded this week that Tehran has been developing the technologies needed to produce a nuclear weapon. The oil-rich U.A.E. traditionally has had strong trade relations with Iran. But the ruling al Nahyan family in Abu Dhabi, the Emirati capital, is seen as one of the most hawkish against Iran among the monarchies in the Persian Gulf, and the country's leadership has openly expressed fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Tehran also has regularly claimed sovereignty over three of the U.A.E.'s Persian Gulf islands, though it denies its nuclear program is for anything but peaceful purposes." http://t.uani.com/tfGXjh
Reuters: "Military action against Iran could have 'unintended consequences' in the region, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday, hours after Tehran warned that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met by 'iron fists.' Panetta, who took over the Pentagon's top job in July, said he agreed with an assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a strike on Iran would only delay its nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at making an atomic bomb. Gates also warned it could unite the country and deepen its resolve toward pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is enriching uranium to power reactors for electricity generation. 'You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here,' Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon, when asked about his concerns about a military strike. He acknowledged military action might fail to deter Iran 'from what they want to do.' 'But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region,' he said. 'And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered.'" http://t.uani.com/tROgFt
Reuters: "The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a U.N. agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said Thursday... Diplomats in Brussels said preliminary discussions among EU capitals on new measures had begun and plans may be ready for EU foreign ministers in Brussels to approve on December 1. 'Experts are discussing a number of options on the table but it is difficult to foresee the outcome of the debate,' one EU diplomat said. Another said he expected a formal decision to be reached on December 1. Iran already faces a wide range of U.N. sanctions, as well as some imposed unilaterally by the United States and the EU. New EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog's report this week that laid bare a trove of intelligence suggesting Iran is seeking nuclear weapons." http://t.uani.com/scWUFm
Nuclear Program & Sanctions Reuters: "The White House said on Thursday that this week's International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program was 'very alarming' and said it would continue to pressure Tehran to 'change its behavior.' 'They need to get right with the world and live up to their obligations with regards to their nuclear program. We will continue to pursue that going forward in the wake of this very alarming report,' White House spokesman Jay Carney said." http://t.uani.com/suwvwz
AFP: "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China to use its influence to raise pressure on Iran after new charges that the Tehran regime is pursuing nuclear weapons, officials said. Clinton, meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Hawaii ahead of a weekend Asia-Pacific summit, talked 'extensively' about Iran amid Western calls for further sanctions on the Islamic state, a senior US official said. Clinton said 'it was critical for China to communicate both publicly but also privately with Iran that they were on a course that was dangerous,' the official, who attended the talks, said on customary condition of anonymity. China, which along with Russia is one of Iran's main sources of diplomatic support, earlier Thursday rejected calls for new sanctions against Tehran and instead urged further dialogue on its nuclear drive." http://t.uani.com/uEUJIB
Reuters: "China's Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that sanctions cannot 'fundamentally' resolve the Iran nuclear dispute, after Western leaders urged expanded sanctions against Iran over a U.N. watchdog report that Tehran has worked to design atom bombs. 'We always believe that dialogue and cooperation is the right way to solve the Iranian nuclear issue. Sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the issue,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said. 'The pressing task now is all parties concerned step up diplomatic efforts,' Hong added." http://t.uani.com/vIq7Om
AP: "Amir Sairafi was an Iranian trader doing business in Dubai, the free-wheeling Middle East commerce hub. When he flew to Germany to take his oral exams for his master's degree, he ran into the U.S. crackdown on illicit trade with Iran. The unusual U.S. criminal case against Sairafi has put a face on the international campaign to stop Iran from trying to build a nuclear bomb. Sairafi was arrested and deported to the U.S., where he pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy, money laundering and violating the 1995 Iran trade embargo. He is now serving more than three years in a prison unit in Indiana where many of the other inmates have been convicted on terror-related charges. U.S. officials hailed his arrest in January 2010 as a blow to Iran's nuclear smuggling networks, which the West says has supplied critical equipment to that country's nuclear programs... His case offers a glimpse into how the Obama administration has cracked down on Iran's nuclear efforts, using the embargo and sanctions in lieu of military action. It also shows the difficulty in piercing the elaborate veil of secrecy that the U.S. says Tehran weaves around its nuclear efforts." http://t.uani.com/tPK9V3
Domestic Politics FT: "For many Iranians, the most tangible impact of international sanctions is on their country's currency market, which struggles with a multiple-rate system and is jittery at the possibility of US restrictions on the central bank. For more than a decade Iran's central bank supported the national currency through a managed float system that helped it maintain a single rate against hard currencies. The system enabled the central bank to pump foreign currency into the market and bring down rates as soon as the rial showed signs of weakening, or to withhold the hard currency supply to earn more rial-denominated income when the government faced a budget deficit. The central bank's failure to prevent the gap between the market and official rates from widening for much of this year is largely the result of the increasing impact of sanctions on Iran's financial transactions, analysts say. Now there are three exchange rates for Iran's national currency, the rial. The varying exchange rates are the source of much uncertainty for Iranians, who are worried about the devaluation of their rial-based savings. One US dollar bought 13,350 rials on the open market on Thursday - far higher than the official rate of 10,900 rials. The gulf between the two rates has been widening since January, when the dollar was traded at 10,700 rials on the open market and 10,550 at the official rate." http://t.uani.com/uA1PFL
WashPost: "The first snow of the season fell in Tehran this week, but female ski bums planning to carve fresh lines at one of the three resorts in the Alborz mountain range will be able to hit the slopes only if they are accompanied by a male guardian. A police circular, reported Thursday on the pro-government Etedaal Web site, states that women and girls are no longer allowed to ski in the absence of a husband, father or brother. The mandate of Iran's morality police is currently being broadened by hard-liners attempting to roll back reforms enacted under former president Mohammad Khatami. The current government says the reforms led to a lack of observance of religious dress codes, among other things. Iran's ski resorts became something of a haven from the Islamic dress code - and from laws against boys and girls mixing." http://t.uani.com/tKDMo1
AP: "A dissident Iranian cleric said Friday he is confident of a resurgence of the protest movement in his country, calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency the most 'destructive' in Iran's history. Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari, an outspoken middle-ranking cleric who was jailed for four years in Iran, told a conference of Iran scholars and experts in Berlin that Ahmadinejad's administration has 'crossed almost all political and religious lines.' Eshkevari said through a translator there has never been a 'similar gang that has been so destructive' and that this Iranian regime is deeply at odds with Shia tradition, ultimately threatening to 'destroy Islam, the government and the country.' The cleric, who fled to seek political asylum in Germany two years ago, said he is confident that the protest movement that followed the disputed 2009 presidential election will eventually come back to the forefront again." http://t.uani.com/vjdk87 Foreign Affairs
Reuters: "Greece is relying on Iran for most of its oil as traders pull the plug on supplies and banks refuse to provide financing for fear that Athens will default on its debt. Traders said Greece has turned to Iran as the supplier of last resort despite rising pressure from Washington and Brussels to stifle trade as part of a campaign against Tehran's nuclear program... Shipping data obtained by Reuters showed four cargoes taking crude from the Middle East outlet of Sidi Kerir on the Egyptian Mediterranean to Greece in September. Three sailed in October. Traders said all carried Iranian Heavy crude and more was coming in November. 'Iran is the only one who might be working on an open credit basis right now, given its own difficulty in selling crude,' one trader said." http://t.uani.com/w07JKr Opinion & Analysis
WSJ Editorial Board: "The International Atomic Energy Agency this week released its most detailed assessment to date about Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, and if 'Paranormal Activity 3' wasn't enough to keep you awake at night, the report's 14-page annex detailing the state of Iran's weapons work should do the trick. It lays to rest the fantasies that an Iranian bomb is many years off, or that the intelligence is riddled with holes and doubts, or that the regime's intentions can't be guessed by their activities. So much, then, for the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which asserted 'with high confidence' that Iran had abandoned its nuclear-weapons work in 2003 and ended any chance that the Bush Administration would take action against Iran. So much, too, for the Obama Administration's attempts to move Iran away from its nuclear course, first with diplomatic offers and then with sanctions and covert operations. The serious choice now before the Administration is between military strikes and more of the same. As the IAEA report makes painfully clear, more of the same means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year. It's time, then, to consider carefully what that choice means for the United States. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, we wrote that 'the law of unintended consequences hasn't been repealed,' and that 'no war ever goes precisely as planned.' That was obviously true of a boots-on-the-ground invasion, but it would also be true of an aerial campaign to demolish or substantially degrade Iran's nuclear facilities. Planes could be shot down and airmen taken prisoner. Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz, sending energy prices upward. It could conduct a campaign of terror throughout the world, or attack shipping in the Persian Gulf, or fire missiles against U.S. military installations in the region, or spark a war with Israel or another insurgency in Iraq. These are among the contingencies that military planners would have to anticipate, though Iranian leaders would also have to think twice before responding to a strike with attacks that could mean further escalation. Yet these risks need to be weighed against the consequences of a nuclear Iran. This is a regime that took 52 American diplomats hostage and dared the Carter Administration to do something about it. It used its surrogates in Beirut to kill 258 American diplomats and Marines in 1983. The FBI believes it was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. airmen. It supplied IEDs to anti-American militias in Iraq, killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers. And only last month, the Obama Administration accused Iran of seeking to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant. These acts were perpetrated by Tehran without a nuclear umbrella. What would Iran's behavior look like if it had one? Advocates of a 'containment' strategy toward a nuclear Iran argue that its behavior would differ little from what it is today. By this logic, the U.S. and its allies would warn Iran that it would face nuclear annihilation if it crossed certain red lines, such as passing a bomb to terrorists, and Iran wouldn't dare breach them. But those red lines would be hard to credit once the U.S. squandered its credibility by allowing Iran to go nuclear after spending a decade warning that such an outcome was 'unacceptable.' Would the U.S. really risk nuclear war with a fanatical regime for the sake of, say, Bahrain, or even Israel? We doubt it, and so would every power in the region. One certain result would thus be a nuclear proliferation spiral in the Middle East, in which Saudi Arabia, Turkey and probably Egypt would acquire nuclear arsenals of their own. That would be an odd outcome for an Administration that has made nuclear arms control a cornerstone of its foreign policy." http://t.uani.com/tAVWUL
WashPost Editorial Board: "The International Atomic Energy Agency has now spelled out in detail what governments around the world have known for a long time: Iran's nuclear program has an explicit military dimension, aimed at producing a warhead that can be fitted onto one of the country's medium-range missiles. In a 14-page annex to its latest report, the agency summarizes the evidence behind its conclusion that 'Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.' It also says that these programs 'may still be ongoing' - a contradiction of the U.S. intelligence community's controversial conclusion that they were suspended in 2003. The IAEA's evidence, which includes 1,000 pages of documents, interviews with renegade scientists who helped Iran and material from 10 governments, ought to end serious debate about whether Tehran's program is for peaceful purposes. That's why Russia and China tried to block the report. Those governments would like to avoid the discussion that must now begin: what must be done to stop the program. One option is military action, which Israel's government appears to be debating. We continue to regard that as a last resort, and one that is not now justified. Military strikes would only slow - not eliminate - Iran's work on a bomb, while risking a conflagration in the Middle East. Though experts are divided over how much time Iran still needs to gain all the elements for a weapon, it is likely at least a year or more away from completing one - and international inspectors might detect a final push. So there is time, but the Obama administration and other Western governments must recognize that the sanctions they have so far put in place, and covert operations aimed at sabotaging Iranian centrifuges and killing scientists, have not succeeded in changing the regime's intentions or stopping its work. The IAEA reports that uranium enrichment continues at a steady pace - 4.9 tons of low-enriched material have been produced, enough for four bombs with further processing. Just as disturbing: Iran continues to install centrifuges in a new underground facility and says it will step up production of higher-enriched uranium, which could be quickly converted to bomb-grade material. The Obama administration has been saying since last month, when it revealed an Iranian plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States, that it intended to press for tougher sanctions. But in briefing reporters this week, officials appeared to back away from measures that would have real impact - such as a Treasury ban on transactions with Iran's central bank. Though that step has strong support in Congress, the administration is wary that, by effectively shutting down Iran's oil exports, it would provoke a spike in energy prices that would damage the fragile global economy. That is a legitimate concern. But President Obama has said repeatedly that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable - and the IAEA report makes clear the danger is growing, not diminishing. If Iran is to be stopped without the use of military force, the president, and the country, should be willing to bear some economic pain. The alternative - allowing Tehran to go forward - would be far more costly." http://t.uani.com/uUxCTc
Bob Feferman in RCW: "The new report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that details Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, combined with Iran's brazen plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, brings to mind the stark warning of U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman. He said that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, we will see 'terrorism on steroids'. To address this threat, the U.S. government has adopted tough sanctions on Iran. However, there is much more the American people can do to support the efforts of our government on Iran. First, it is important to understand how Iran earned the title as the world's 'most active state sponsor of terrorism' from the U.S. State Department. It is well known that Iran is the primary sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and has provided both organizations with thousands of rockets and missiles that have targeted Israeli civilians over the past decade. More recently, Iran has supplied terrorists in Gaza with upgraded Grad rockets that now extend their range to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area... However, the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador highlights the fact that Iran is not just a threat to Israel. A report on the website of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) provides details of Iran's longstanding connections to al-Qaeda (www.uani.com). We should also be aware that Iran provides weapons and training to the Taliban in Afghanistan that has resulted in the killing and wounding of American soldiers. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Iranian regime has been helping Syria, its close ally, in the brutal repression of the popular uprising through the provision of technical support. If the facts mentioned above are not enough to get our attention, imagine the nightmare scenario of Iran passing a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization that puts it in a suitcase and explodes it in London, New York or Tel Aviv. Given the increasingly dangerous nature of the Iranian regime, now is the time for us to use the vast economic power of America to compliment the sanctions imposed by the U.S. government. To that end, UANI has sponsored a bold new model for action at the state level called Iran Debarment Legislation. The idea behind this legislation is simple. It requires any company signing a contract with the state for more than $1,000,000 to certify that it is not engaged in Iran's energy sector. This strategy is premised on the fact that most of the revenues of the Iranian regime come from the production and sale of oil and natural gas. Yet absent the help of foreign companies, Iran is incapable of exploiting its own natural resources. So far, the state legislatures of California and Florida have passed this law and similar bills are now being introduced in Indiana and New York. In California, nearly 50 companies will be impacted by this legislation and presented with a clear choice: if they choose to do work in Iran's energy sector, they will be barred from signing contracts with the state of California... Finally, we can begin to ask ourselves some tough questions. Since American companies are not allowed to work in Iran's energy sector, should American citizens invest in non-U.S companies working in Iran's energy sector? Should the international mutual funds that we invest in have holdings in these companies? Our investment decisions do have moral consequences. Investing in foreign companies doing business as usual with Iran- especially its energy sector- legitimizes Iranian sponsorship of terror, its flagrant abuse of human rights and undermines the sanctions of our own government... By supporting Iran Debarment Legislation in our state legislatures and avoiding investment in companies engaged in Iran's energy sector, we can send the Iranian regime a powerful message: No more business as usual with the world's leading state sponsor of terror." http://t.uani.com/t28y5X |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment