| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
WSJ: "Chinese telecommunications-equipment maker Huawei Technologies Co. said Friday it plans to scale back its business in Iran, where the company provides services to government-controlled telecom operators, in the wake of reports that Iranian police were using mobile network technology to trace and arrest dissidents. Shenzhen-based Huawei will 'voluntarily restrict its business development there by no longer seeking new customers and limiting its business activities with existing customers,' according to a statement on the company's website. It said the company was making the move due to 'increasingly complex situation in Iran,' but did not elaborate. The Wall Street Journal reported in October that as Western companies pulled back from the Iranian market in the wake of the crackdowns, Huawei won more contracts in the country. Iranian human-rights organizations outside Iran say there are dozens of documented cases in which dissidents were traced and arrested through the government's ability to track the location of their cellphones. Huawei's move marks the first time a Chinese company has decided to scale back its business in Iran, increasing pressure on the country, according to Mark Wallace, president of United Against Nuclear Iran and a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Iran is under global sanctions for allegations it is developing a nuclear weapons program. Iran has denied this. 'This is a significant milestone,' Mr. Wallace said. 'For the first time a major Chinese business is pulling back from Iran in the face of mounting international scorn for Iran's brutal regime.'" http://t.uani.com/sv8oW9
NYT: "Iran paraded what its military described as a captured C.I.A. stealth drone on national television on Thursday and lodged an official diplomatic protest, portraying the visual images as an intelligence and propaganda windfall in its conflict with the West over its nuclear program. American officials viewing the video declined to confirm or deny that the aircraft shown was the one that they have said was lost several days ago by controllers in neighboring Afghanistan. The two-and-a-half-minute video clip of the remote-controlled surveillance aircraft was presented by Iran as the first visual evidence that it had had possession of the drone since Sunday, when Iran asserted that its military downed the aircraft 140 miles inside Iranian territory. American officials have said the drone was lost because of a malfunction. The aircraft shown on Iranian television appeared to be in good condition, which would seem to be inconsistent with an uncontrolled landing, although a close inspection of the images appeared to show a fracture on part of the wing that had been taped. The aircraft was displayed on a platform clearly constructed for propaganda purposes, with photographs of ayatollahs who led Iran's revolution behind it and a desecrated version of the American flag." http://t.uani.com/rtVbZ9
AFP: "US President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his policy on Iran amid fierce Republican criticism of his effort to halt the Islamic republic's nuclear drive, saying Tehran is under the 'toughest sanctions' ever. 'I think it's very important to remember, particularly given some of the political noise out there, that this administration has systematically imposed the toughest sanctions on Iran ever,' Obama told reporters. 'When we came into office the world was divided. Iran was unified and moving aggressively on its own agenda,' he said. 'Today Iran is isolated and the world is unified and applying the toughest sanctions that Iran's ever experienced, and (that) is having an impact inside of Iran.' The president, assailed in recent weeks by Republican foes who portrayed Obama as unable or unwilling to toughen US policy on Iran, added that he was still 'considering all options' with respect to ways to get Tehran to rein in its controversial nuclear program." http://t.uani.com/vDJ6pA
Nuclear Program & Sanctions AP: "Republicans and Democrats determined to look tough on Iran and avoid any election-year challenges to their pro-Israel bona fides are rebuffing Obama administration pleas to ease proposed sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. The administration argues that the crippling penalties would undercut a carefully calibrated international effort targeting Tehran and drive up oil prices, a potential economic boon that would help finance Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon while hitting cash-strapped Americans at the gas pump. Just weeks after announcing a new round of restrictions, President Barack Obama on Thursday dismissed 'some of the political noise out there' and said his 'administration has systematically imposed the toughest sanctions on Iran ever.' Obama also reiterated that he was considering all options for dealing with Iran but declined to say what those options included. Still, Republicans and Democrats are pressing ahead with sanctions that would target foreign banks that do business with Iran's Central Bank, a measure that the Senate resoundingly endorsed last week on a 100-0 vote." http://t.uani.com/vmcZL4
Bloomberg: "Rep. Howard Berman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, vowed to resist pressure from the Obama administration to weaken legislation intended to isolate the Central Bank of Iran. 'I will not -- and Congress should not -- give in to entreaties from the administration or elsewhere to dilute our approach to sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran's petroleum transactions,' Berman said today at a conference sponsored by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy group in Washington... Also today, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview that she expects a House vote as early as Dec. 13 on separate Iran sanctions legislation. Her bill includes sanctions on Iran's Central Bank, drafted by Berman, and penalties for individuals who do business with Iran's petroleum industry." http://t.uani.com/ulrh4n
WSJ: "Japan said it will impose a fresh round of financial sanctions against Iran, after steps taken by the U.S., U.K. and the E.U. in recent weeks to intensify the global crackdown on Tehran's nuclear development program. But energy-starved Tokyo rejected pressure to curb imports of Iranian oil. With the new sanctions, approved by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's cabinet Friday morning, Japan said it will freeze the assets of an additional 106 organizations, one individual and three banks, widening to more than 350 the circle of Iran-based entities believed to be linked to the country's nuclear development program and subject to these restrictions. Masaru Sato, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said that the latest action has been under review since the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in early November that Iran is building a nuclear bomb and was made 'in close coordination with the international community.'" http://t.uani.com/vIPGqm
WSJ: "Europe may be pressing ahead with plans to slap an oil embargo on Iran, but the plan certainly won't be plain sailing. Italian energy major Eni's admission Thursday that it is concerned about a potential ban on Iranian crude imports complicating payments it receives in oil shipments from the Islamic republic is another spanner in the works for Europe's plans... Eni's fears add a legal caveat to the E.U.'s plan to tighten the financial screw on Tehran. Iran is paying off Eni in crude cargoes for previous work done by the Italians in the country. Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni very much hopes any E.U. ban on buying Iranian crude would still allow Eni to receive oil payments from Iran, but he isn't sure." http://t.uani.com/unhsOi
Human Rights
AP: "The family of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who vanished years ago in Iran, issued a plea to his kidnappers Friday and, for the first time, released a hostage video they received from his unidentified captors. The video message released on the Levinson family's website publicly transformed the mysterious disappearance into an international hostage standoff. Despite a lengthy investigation, however, the U.S. government has no evidence of who is holding the 63-year-old father of seven. 'Please tell us your demands so we can work together to bring my father home safely,' says Levinson's son David, seated beside his mother, Christine. The video plea represents a sharp change in strategy in a case that, for years, the United States treated as a diplomatic issue rather than a hostage situation. Christine Levinson, who lives in Coral Springs, Fla., has issued many public statements over the years, but she typically directed them to her missing husband or to the government of Iran. In the hostage video, which the family received in November 2010, Levinson pleaded with the U.S. government to meet the demands of the people holding him, whom he did not identify." http://t.uani.com/sDwuIS
Opinion & Analysis
WashPost Editorial Board: "Iran has been showing signs of increasing nervousness about the possibility that its nuclear program will come under attack by Israel or the United States. From the West's point of view, this alarm is good: The more Iran worries about a military attack, the more likely it is to scale back its nuclear activity. The only occasion in which Tehran froze its weaponization program came immediately after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when it feared it might be the next American target. That's why the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, regularly repeats that 'all options are on the table.' What doesn't make sense is a public spelling out of reasons against military action - like that delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last Friday before a U.S.-Israeli conference in Washington. Mr. Panetta said that a strike would 'at best' slow down Iran's program for 'maybe one, possibly two years'; that 'some of those targets are very difficult to get at'; that a now-isolated regime would be able to 'reestablish itself' in the region; that the United States would be the target of Iranian retaliation; and that the global economy would be damaged. Some of Mr. Panetta's assumptions are debatable: For example, would Arab states - many of which have been quietly hoping for a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran - really rally behind a regime they regard as a deadly enemy? And if bombing destroyed thousands of Iranian centrifuges, which are manufactured from materials Tehran cannot easily acquire, would it really be so simple to rebuild? But even if every point were true, there is no reason for the defense secretary to spell out such views in public. No doubt President Obama and the Israeli defense ministry are well aware of the Pentagon's views, but alarmed Iranian leaders could well conclude that they have no reason for concern after all. The public disparaging of the force option is not the administration's only waffling signal to Tehran. Though Mr. Obama boasted Thursday that his administration has orchestrated 'the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever experienced,' he is resisting pressure from allies such as France and from Congress to sanction the Iranian central bank. Last week the Senate passed 100-0 an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would sanction foreign banks that conduct transactions with the Iranian central bank, with an option for a postponement if the White House determines that the effect on the oil market would be too severe. The administration opposed the measure and is trying to narrow its scope in a conference committee." http://t.uani.com/v4uc32
Marc Theissen in WashPost: "It went virtually unnoticed (and unreported by this newspaper), but last week a federal court found the government of Iran liable for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Wait, you say, wasn't al-Qaeda responsible for the embassy bombings? Al-Qaeda carried out the attack, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the bombings would not have been possible without 'direct assistance' from Tehran as well as Sudan. 'The government of Iran,' Judge John D. Bates wrote in his 45-page decision, 'aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, and al Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States by utilizing the sophisticated delivery mechanism of powerful suicide truck bombs.'Iran's assistance was not peripheral to the plot, Bates found. 'Al Qaeda desired to replicate Hezbollah's 1983 Beirut Marine barracks suicide bombing, and Bin Laden sought Iranian expertise to teach al Qaeda operatives about how to blow up buildings,' Bates wrote. 'Prior to their meetings with Iranian officials and agents Bin Laden and al Qaeda did not possess the technical expertise required to carry out the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The Iranian defendants, through Hezbollah, provided explosives training to Bin Laden and al Qaeda and rendered direct assistance to al Qaeda operatives... [I]n a short time, al Qaeda acquired the capabilities to carry out the 1998 Embassy bombings, which killed hundreds and injured thousands by detonation of very large and sophisticated bombs.' These facts are worth some reflection in light of a report released this week by Tom Donnelly, Danielle Pletka and Maseh Zarif, my colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), on the tremendous difficulties of 'Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran.' They warn that Iran could very well have a weaponized nuclear capability when the next president takes office in January 2013. Imagine what this means. If Iran helped al-Qaeda attack the United States without a nuclear umbrella to protect it from retaliation, what might the regime do once it possesses nuclear weapons? Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has been difficult to deter." http://t.uani.com/tlrhBh
Ilan Berman in Forbes: "Ever since the late October release of the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran, the White House has been working overtime to convince the world that it is, in fact, committed to preventing the Islamic Republic from going nuclear. Last month, responding to criticism of his Iran policy from Republican challengers, President Obama argued that the sanctions levied by his Administration to date have had 'enormous bite.' The reality, however, is considerably more modest. While it has publicly pledged its commitment to a serious economic offensive aimed at derailing Iran's nuclear drive, in practice the White House has done far less than necessary to achieve that objective... And most recently, Administration officials are putting the brakes on what may be the most crucial step yet in sanctions against Iran: targeting the country's Central Bank. The logic behind the measure is obvious. Quite simply, Iran's Central Bank represents one of the most potent ways to hit Iran's chief export commodity: oil. Iran currently ranks as the second largest producer in OPEC, exporting an estimated 2.4 million barrels of crude daily. In turn, oil and natural gas sales account for some 80 percent of the country's hard currency export earnings. The Central Bank of Iran lies at the center of this energy architecture. It serves as an intermediary between the state oil company, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and the Iranian regime's international energy customers. By isolating the Bank from global markets, the thinking goes, the United States can help dry up critical funding for the Iranian regime and its strategic programs. The impact, moreover, could be magnified exponentially if such sanctions are coupled with an international embargo on Iranian crude oil exports-something that European countries have begun to discuss in earnest. Congress understands this very well. Last week, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously in favor of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill taking serious aim at Iran's Central Bank, and establishing a framework for penalizing those global firms that do business with it. The bipartisan measure, sponsored by Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), passed the Senate with an unprecedented vote of 100 to 0-the clearest indication to date that Congress is committed to waging real economic warfare against the Iranian regime. The White House, however, doesn't seem to be. The Administration reportedly is now actively working to dilute the sanctions, requesting material changes to the amendment that would significantly soften the proposed economic pressure on Tehran. In the process, it has sent the unmistakable signal this it is not truly serious about putting the financial squeeze on the Islamic Republic. Why has the White House gone wobbly on Central Bank sanctions, a measure it itself supported not so long ago?" http://t.uani.com/svz22t
Shirin Ebadi & Hadi Ghaemi in WSJ: "It may not come as a surprise to learn that the Iranian government invests heavily in internet filtering, mobile-communication restrictions and jamming of international satellite broadcasts to control and manipulate the Iranian people. What may be surprising is that European companies, particularly satellite providers, continue to provide services to Tehran despite its comprehensive assault on free expression and free access to information. Iran leads the world in illegal jamming of international satellite broadcasts, but it is a prolific user of international broadcasting platforms for its own programming. European satellite companies like Eutelsat, Intelsat and Arqiva provide extensive services to the Iranian state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), including for domestic Iranian radio and television broadcasts, and for Iran's growing list of foreign-language channels, like the English-language PressTV and the Arabic Al-Alam. But Eutelsat also hosts many of the stations whose programming Tehran jams. It has not stopped carrying IRIB channels on its satellites, which are facilitated through Arqiva, even though the Iranian government is effectively destroying the products of its other clients. Over the past two years, during which Iran increased its jamming of Persian-language broadcasts from abroad, Eutelsat and Arqiva have done little to hold the Iranian government accountable. Either company could have contractually required Iran to stop its jamming, which is politically motivated censorship, or refused to carry IRIB. Instead Eutelsat's response was to discontinue broadcasting BBC Persian and VOA Persian on the most accessible and popular satellite, Hotbird6, and to move them to less accessible satellites. Providing continuous service to the IRIB as long as extensive jamming of Persian-language media is taking place is essentially a gift to the Iranian government from European satellite companies. Worse, the IRIB is not a simple broadcasting service. It is an integral part of the Iranian intelligence and security services, engaged in unprecedented domestic repression. The IRIB's camera crew and staff act as interrogators, going inside prisons to obtain coerced confessions from prisoners of conscience, hand in hand with interrogators and torturers from the Iranian intelligence services. One of its most well-known victims is journalist Maziar Bahari, who has given extensive testimony on how the IRIB and its affiliates sent their staff to prison to prepare him for being paraded in front of television cameras after his arrest following the 2009 presidential election." http://t.uani.com/swW7K5 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment