| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
WSJ: "Iran's Revolutionary Court sentenced a 28-year-old American and former Marine to death on charges of spying for the Central Intelligence Agency, adding another point of conflict to heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran. Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, who was born in Arizona to Iranian parents and raised in Michigan, is the first American to be sentenced to death in the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to Iranian human-rights groups. The Obama administration denied Mr. Hekmati worked for the CIA and criticized Tehran for what it called a pattern of arresting innocent people for political reasons. Iran had spurned earlier calls by the State Department to allow Mr. Hekmati consular access through the Swiss Embassy, which handles U.S. diplomatic interests in Iran." http://t.uani.com/xYifkc
LAT: "The West's campaign to punish Iran for its suspected nuclear weapons program has begun to inflict far more damage on Tehran's economy in recent weeks, spurring a new phase of a dispute that carries acute risks as well as opportunities for the United States and its allies. Fear of potentially crippling new economic sanctions have helped send the Iranian currency into a tailspin, drive basic commodity and import prices sharply higher, and spark runs on Iranian banks. As the United States and European Union prepare steps designed to cut the oil revenue that is the Islamic Republic's chief source of income, Iran has responded with threats of military retaliation, including warnings that it might close the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for oil and gas shipments from the Persian Gulf. Though Iran would suffer in a blockade of the strait, it appears to be gambling that the West has more to lose." http://t.uani.com/A4lFdK
WSJ: "Both houses of the New York State legislature passed a bill on Monday barring companies that do business with Iran's energy sector from signing contracts with the state. The state bill, which was authorized under federal legislation passed in 2010, requires New York's Office of General Services to identify people or entities that invest more than $20 million in goods, services or credit in the Iranian energy sector, and those found doing so would be banned from entering or renewing contracts with state and local governments... United Against Nuclear Iran, an activist group, praised the vote in the New York legislature, and encouraged more states to take up a model bill the group wrote that imposes sanctions under the 2010 legislation. 'Three of America's four biggest states have now taken strong, meaningful stands against the [Iranian] regime, and UANI will continue working with lawmakers in other states to pass more contract debarment laws,' said Mark D. Wallace, the president of the group, in a statement." http://t.uani.com/xyvCEe
Nuclear Program & Sanctions NYT: "Atomic inspectors in Vienna confirmed Monday that Iran has begun enriching uranium at a new plant carved out of a mountain, an act of defiance that comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran over oil revenues and global sanctions. More than five years ago, the United Nations Security Council began calling on Iran to stop purifying uranium, which can fuel nuclear reactors or atom bombs. Instead, Tehran accelerated its efforts, saying its nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature. In past days, Iranian officials have claimed they were about to begin operating the new plant - known as Fordo and located in a mountainous region near the holy city of Qum. It is Iran's second major enrichment site, and it is buried deep underground. That makes it not only less vulnerable to attack but also potentially far more opaque. It remained an Iranian secret until its existence was unveiled more than two years ago." http://t.uani.com/xYifkc
WashPost: "Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, visiting Beijing this week, is expected to press China's leaders to reduce the country's oil imports from Iran. But Geithner is likely to find Beijing resistant to putting financial pressure on the government in Tehran. In a briefing for reporters Monday, Cui Tiankai, the vice foreign minister responsible for U.S. relations, said that China supports global nonproliferation efforts but that trade is separate from the Iranian nuclear issue. 'The normal trade relations and energy cooperation between China and Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear issue,' Cui said. 'We should not mix issues of different natures, and China's legitimate concerns and demands should be respected.'" http://t.uani.com/zGk1t7
Reuters: "The European Union is expected to bring forward a meeting of foreign ministers due to decide on an oil embargo on Iran by one week to Jan. 23, EU diplomats said on Monday. They said a final decision would be taken by a meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels on Tuesday, and the aim would be to avoid overshadowing a summit of EU leaders set for Jan. 30. 'It looks likely it will be brought forward to the 23rd,' one of the diplomats said. EU states have already agreed in principle to an embargo on Iranian oil, part of the latest Western effort to ratchet up pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme." http://t.uani.com/xy0lk0
WSJ: "India still gets normal crude-oil shipments from Iran, two senior officials at India's oil ministry said, though refiners in the South Asian nation have started looking for alternate arrangements to prevent any supply shortages. India gets about three-quarters of the crude it requires through imports, and Iran is its second-largest supplier after Saudi Arabia. The refiners have been making payments to Iran for oil supplies through Turkey's Halkbank since July, after India's central bank in December 2010 disbanded a settlement mechanism that the U.S. said could be used by Tehran to finance its alleged nuclear weapons program. Now, with the U.S. and Europe tightening sanctions to force Tehran into suspending the alleged nuclear program, Turkey may become unwilling to route India's payments, according to media reports." http://t.uani.com/A3epCG
Domestic Politics
AP: "Iran's mobile phone companies have denied blocking text messages with the words dollar and currency after the Iranian rial rapidly weakened on the announcement of new U.S. sanctions against Iran. Cell phone users had complained that messages containing the words 'arz,' or currency in Farsi, and 'dollar' were not being delivered. That triggered speculation the government was ordering the messages blocked out of fear they could spark panic and reduce the Iranian rial's value even more. The company denials appeared Tuesday in the pro-reform Shargh daily. The rial, which has fallen by about 40 percent against the dollar since December 2010, has come under more pressure since the United States announced new sanctions targeting Iran's central bank." http://t.uani.com/AFiTA5
Foreign Affairs
MSNBC: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez lavished praise on each other on Monday, mocked U.S. disapproval and joked about having an atomic bomb at their disposal. The fiery anti-U.S. ideologues have forged increasingly close ties between their fellow OPEC nations in recent years, although concrete projects have often lagged behind the rhetoric. Both leaders dismissed U.S. concerns about Iran's intentions in the Middle East and its growing diplomatic links with Chavez and his allies in Latin America." http://t.uani.com/z3urv3
AFP: "Iran is jamming broadcasts by Qatar-based news channel Al-Jazeera, satellite operator Arabsat said in a statement received on Tuesday. 'Al-Jazeera is affected... from two different locations in Iran' near Tehran and near the northwestern city of Maragheh, it said, adding that the cause was located at the request of the pan-Arab news channel. The satellite television on Sunday announced a new frequency for Arabsat viewers due to 'continued interference.' 'Over the past few months, Al-Jazeera has faced sustained interference to our satellite transmissions,' it said in a statement. Officials in Iran's regional ally Syria, have repeatedly slammed Al-Jazeera's coverage of the deadly revolt in the country, which has largely remained sealed off from the foreign media." http://t.uani.com/yQQaoU
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Rubin in Commentary: "There's a growing chorus of skeptics among the foreign policy establishment who argue that sanctions will not change the Iranian regime's behavior. After all, the Islamic Republic prioritizes ideology ahead of its own public's well-being and, having grown up at the height of the Iran-Iraq war, many of Tehran's ruling elite have faced far worse deprivation. It is curious that proponents of engagement cite Iran's pragmatism when it comes to the possibilities of successful diplomacy, but then acknowledge the Iranian leadership's ideological commitment when it comes to reasons not to utilize tools of coercion. History, however, can be a guide. Twice, in the Islamic Republic's history, the Iranian leadership has sworn no surrender. In 1979, they said they would not release their American hostages until Washington met Ayatollah Khomeini's demands not only of the forcible extradition of the Shah and his family, but also apologies, compensation, and a return of all Iranian assets, real or imagined. While cancer claimed the Shah during the crisis, Khomeini reversed course against the backdrop of the Iraqi invasion: The cost of Iran's diplomatic and economic isolation had simply grown too great to bear; Khomeini preferred to focus on the greater danger posed by Iraq and so cut the deal he had determinedly refused for the prior year. Saddam Hussein's invasion fanned the flames of Khomeini's fervor. While Iranian forces had largely expelled Iraqi forces from Iranian territory by 1982, Khomeini shrugged off suggestions that he accept a ceasefire and instead committed Iran to end Saddam's regime once and for all. During the course of the following six years, the Iranians lost hundreds of thousands of men and gained nothing. In the end, however, the tremendous human cost, isolation, and sanctions took their toll. When Khomeini announced a ceasefire with Iraq, he likened it to drinking a chalice of poison but said preserving the Islamic Republic gave him no choice. Herein, the precedent is clear: Years of diplomacy have achieved nothing. The Iranian government has mastered the art of stringing credulous diplomats along. But if the cost becomes too high for Iranians to bear, even the government will swallow its pride and reverse course. The only question for diplomats and congressmen should be how to maximize the pain sanctions can cause the Iranian regime." http://t.uani.com/zSdHZe
Samuel Segev in Winnipeg Free Press: "Iran has emerged as the 'big loser' of the Arab Spring. When Iran saw the fall of the pro-western regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, it believed that its road to dominance in the Arab world was paved. But it soon discovered that the Arab masses were not eager to replace their autocratic and corrupt leaders with intolerant and more repressive Shiite Muslim leaders. It's obvious that Iran underestimated the depth of resentment the masses have of Shiite dominance in the Arab world. This became crystal clear when Iran broke the sensitive balance between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and Lebanon. At that moment, Iran lost its ability to influence developments in Syria, where a solid Sunni majority refused to continue to be governed by a small Shiite-Alaouite minority headed by the Assad dynasty. This was indeed the greatest setback to Iran's foreign policy goals. At the beginning of the Syrian revolt 100 months ago, Tehran initially provided guidance and technology to the forces of President Bashar Assad. Its main concern was to assure a safe passage via Syria of arms and Iranian advisers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The swift changes in the Arab world led to a reshuffle of the cards in the Sunni world. Its leadership moved from Cairo to Saudi Arabia. Once the Shiite rebellion in Bahrain was put down, the Saudi-led Gulf Co-operation Council took the lead in resisting Iranian subversion. It spearheaded the Arab League's economic sanctions against Syria, stood behind the West's freeze of Syrian assets in the U.S. and Europe and imposed an embargo on investments in Syria. Saudi Arabia was very much opposed to a Libya-style military intervention in Syria. It feared the precedent of regime change through direct military intervention. (This also is the reason for the Arab League's opposition to Turkish military intervention in Syria.) As a result, defections from the Syrian army are still very limited. So far, it is estimated that 10,000 army officers and soldiers have defected from an army of 250,000. This is insufficient to tip the balance against Bashar Assad." http://t.uani.com/zTGI8x
Jeffrey Goldberg in Bloomberg: "Three years ago, President Barack Obama came into office with a very good idea: He would reach out to the mullahs in Iran to see whether they were interested in rethinking their hate-based relationship with the U.S. So Obama, despite criticism from Republicans, wrote private letters to the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and made a public appeal for a fresh start. 'In this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders,' Obama said in a message broadcast in early 2009. 'We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.' When the Iranian people rose up later that year, Obama only tepidly endorsed them, and he was measured in his criticism of the vicious manner in which the Iranian leadership suppressed the protests. He may have been motivated partly by an assessment that the uprising wouldn't succeed, and that the U.S. would still have to grapple with the Iranian theocracy. His approach was neither morally nor emotionally satisfying, but it showed a certain cold logic. Nothing happened, of course: The ayatollahs showed no interest in Obama's entreaties... The U.S. may one day have to stop Iran's nuclear program by force. Before it takes such drastic action, it should, once again, attempt to show Iran the possibility of a different future, one in which it is allowed to rejoin the community of nations. The president would have to spend significant political capital, in an election year no less, by once again reaching out to America's foremost adversary. He could do it in such a way that doesn't convey weakness, but simply horror at the prospect of war. Obama would have to convince the Iranians that he is offering one final chance at real dialogue -- not out of weakness, but because, as a peace-loving person, he doesn't want to order the destruction of Iran's military and industrial infrastructure. And he could offer material prospects for normalized relations with the West, which might be more meaningful now that he has demonstrated his commitment to isolating the regime economically. The chance for success is slim. Anti-Americanism is a pillar of the Iranian regime's faith, and the case of Muammar Qaddafi, who gave up his weapons of mass destruction and then saw the U.S. aid the rebels who eventually did him in, is on the minds of Iran's leaders. And Israel, along with the U.S.'s Arab allies, would have to be convinced that this is a time-limited offer. A war with Iran could be a disaster for everyone involved, and even those uninvolved. A last attempt at dialogue -- a last attempt to build an offramp for the Iranians -- seems to have fewer downsides than a rush to war." http://t.uani.com/z9jd1y
Ilan Berman in WT: "Last weekend, amid deepening tensions between his regime and the international community, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commenced a high-profile diplomatic tour of Latin America. The foreign visit, which will take the Iranian president to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador, is the latest sign of Iran's growing interest in, and intrusion into, the Western Hemisphere - a phenomenon with grave implications for U.S. security. Iran's contemporary presence in the region centers on its strategic partnership with Venezuela. Since Hugo Chavez became Venezuela's president in 1999, alignment with Iran's radical regime has emerged as a cardinal tenet of his government's foreign policy. The subsequent election of Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2005 kicked cooperation into high gear, with dramatic results. Today, Venezuela serves as a key source of uranium for Iran's sprawling nuclear program and an important diplomatic supporter of Iran's will to atomic power. The Chavez regime also has emerged as a safe haven and source of financial support for Hezbollah, Iran's most powerful terrorist proxy. In turn, Iran's feared Revolutionary Guards have become involved in training Venezuela's secret services and police. Economic ties between Caracas and Tehran likewise have exploded - expanding from virtually nil in 2007 to an estimated $40 billion today. But while Iran's interest in the region starts with Venezuela, it certainly doesn't end there. Tehran also has made serious inroads elsewhere in the region in recent years, animated by four concrete objectives. First and foremost, Iran's outreach is intended to lessen its own international isolation. Over the past several years, as its persistent nuclear effort has drawn growing criticism from the global community, Tehran has redoubled its efforts to forge new bonds with sympathetic foreign regimes, including in the Western Hemisphere. These include not only the Chavez regime in Venezuela, but also Evo Morales' Bolivia and the government of Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Even Iran's relations with Argentina, where Iranian-supported terrorists carried out major bombings in 1992 and 1994, have witnessed a marked uptick of late, as the government of President Cristina Fernandez has hewed a more conciliatory line toward Tehran. Through them, Iran's embattled regime gains a crucial diplomatic lifeline and willing partners in its efforts to resist the economic pressure being levied by the United States and its allies. Second, Iran has homed in on Latin America as an important source of strategic resources. In recent years, as its own supplies of uranium have begun to run out, Tehran has embarked upon a widening global quest for the critical raw material necessary to keep its nuclear effort up and running. Thus, with the blessing of the Chavez regime, it has begun exploring and extracting uranium from key deposits near Venezuela's border with Guyana. Bolivia, too, is believed to be providing Iran with uranium - and allowing Iran to mine lithium, a key strategic mineral with applications for nuclear-weapons development. Iran even appears to be eyeing Ecuador's uranium deposits; a $30 million joint mining deal concluded between Tehran and Quito in 2009 has positioned the Correa regime to eventually become a supplier for the Islamic republic." http://t.uani.com/yW3pkj |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment