| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
National Journal: "The Pentagon is preparing an array of military options for striking Iran if hard-hitting diplomatic and economic sanctions fail to persuade Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told National Journal in an interview on Thursday. Panetta said such planning had been under way 'for a long time,' a reflection of the Obama administration's mounting concern over Iran's continued progress towards a nuclear weapon. In the interview, Panetta said he didn't believe Israeli leaders had made up their minds about whether to order a high-risk raid against Iran's nuclear facilities. Panetta, President Obama, and an array of other senior U.S. military and civilian officials have counseled Israel to give the sanctions more time to work before resorting to military force. They've also warned that an attack would set Iran's nuclear program back only by a few years, a high price to pay for the inevitably violent Iranian retaliation likely to follow... Panetta said in the interview that a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran would be less effective than one conducted by the U.S., which has a significantly larger air force and an array of advanced weapons more powerful than any possessed by the Jewish state." http://t.uani.com/AdE5ZX
NYT: "The six world powers that have agreed to resume negotiations with Iran over its disputed nuclear program issued a blunt request on Thursday that the Iranians allow international inspectors unfettered access, most notably to Parchin, a large restricted military complex that the inspectors suspect may house a testing chamber for explosives used in atomic weapons triggers. In a joint statement, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - plus Germany signaled a unified resolve in their renewed negotiations with Iran, which were suspended in frustration more than a year ago. The six agreed this week to Iran's request to restart negotiations. Their statement also sent a message of impatience with any possible Iranian attempts to prolong or stall negotiations over the nuclear program." http://t.uani.com/x8uMKx
CBS: "The former head of Israel's intelligence service believes the Iranian regime is a rational one and even its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who has called for Israel to be annihilated - acts in a somewhat rational way when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions... 'The regime in Iran is a very rational one,' says the former top Israeli spymaster. And President Ahmadinejad? 'The answer is yes,' he replies, but 'not exactly our rational, but I think he is rational,' Dagan tells Stahl. It's a different kind of rational says Dagan, not rational in the Western-thinking sense. 'But no doubt, they are considering all the implications of their actions ... They will have to pay dearly ... and I think the Iranians at this point in time are ... very careful on the project,' says Dagan. 'They are not running.'" http://t.uani.com/zeiDBu
Nuclear Program
AP: "Three days of protracted negotiations held under the specter of war highlighted the diplomatic difficulties ahead for nations intent on ensuring that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. In a statement Thursday that was less than dramatic, six world powers avoided any bitter criticism of Iran and said diplomacy -- not war -- is the best way forward. The cautious wording that emerged from a weeklong meeting of the U.N. nuclear agency reflected more than a decision to tamp down the rhetoric after a steady drumbeat of warnings from Israel that the time was approaching for possible attacks on Iran to disrupt its nuclear program." http://t.uani.com/wMh47a
Reuters: "The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief accused Iran on Thursday of seeking to 'tie our hands' and of spreading incorrect information about talks between his inspectors and Tehran, in unusually blunt public criticism that highlights strained ties.Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, gave a frank account of two rounds of meetings between a senior IAEA team and Iran in January and February that failed to produce any breakthrough in the nuclear dispute... 'Before the recent talks in Tehran, I had hoped that Iran had recognised that its old restrictive approach was not the way forward and that Iran was ready to engage with us to resolve outstanding issues,' he said in a statement to reporters." http://t.uani.com/x0zqGF
Reuters: "A 30,000-pound (13,600-kg) bunker buster bomb designed to smash through some 200 feet (65 metres) of concrete before exploding is a 'great weapon' that could be used by U.S. forces in a clash with Iran over its nuclear program, an Air Force general said on Thursday. Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, said the massive ordnance penetrator, which the military began receiving only last year, is part of the U.S. arsenal available for strikes against countries like Iran, which has some buried nuclear facilities." http://t.uani.com/w8K5hp
Sanctions
FT: "PSA Peugeot Citroën, the French carmaker that has more expatriate employees in Iran than any other western company, is bringing the staff home until further notice. One senior western diplomat said the move was the first sizeable evacuation based on fears of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear and military sites. Peugeot has 52 French nationals in Iran, including 20 technical and engineering advisers and their spouses and children... Iran Khodro, the country's biggest car producer, is Peugeot's joint-venture partner, producing hundreds of thousands of Peugeots annually." http://t.uani.com/wBAcS4
Dow Jones: "European oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC will stop buying crude oil from Iran ahead of July 1, when a European Union embargo of Iranian oil takes effect, a company spokesman said Friday. The spokesman confirmed a Reuters report that quoted Shell Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser, who was speaking in Houston. 'We are complying with the sanctions. They do recognize previous commitments and contracts,' Voser said in the report, adding that old contracts will be fulfilled and shipments delivered 'within a matter of weeks.' Though expected, the development signals that Tehran may lose at least some of its customers well before July 1 because some annual term contracts expire at the end of March... Traders said it wasn't clear if Shell's move would affect joint venture Showa Shell Sekiyu K.K., Japan's largest buyer of Iranian crude at 100,000 barrels a day." http://t.uani.com/yagRoN
AFP: "A 70-member Indian trade delegation headed to Iran on Friday to explore 'huge' commercial opportunities created by US-led sanctions against the Islamic republic over its disputed nuclear plans. The visit comes despite criticism from pro-Israel groups in the United States and other critics who have accused India of undermining international efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear programme... 'They have left and will be there tonight (Friday) and will stay until March 14,' Anand Seth, a spokesman for the Indian government-backed Federation of Indian Export Organisations, which is leading the delegation." http://t.uani.com/xcW6Af
Opinion & Analysis
Robert Casey, Lindsey Graham & Joe Lieberman in WSJ: "The Iranian nuclear program continues to advance, despite unprecedented economic and diplomatic pressure by the United States and its international partners. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian production of enriched uranium has sharply expanded in recent months, while agency inspectors have been prevented from accessing sites and scientists. Key components of Iran's nuclear program are being dispersed and moved underground. Some have suggested that if economic and diplomatic efforts fail, we should accept a nuclear-armed Iran and seek to contain it, much as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Others argue that Iran's illicit nuclear activities are primarily a problem for Israel and are not as much of a threat to the U.S. Both assertions are profoundly wrong. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to the entire world, including particularly the U.S., and its destabilizing consequences are not containable. To begin with, Iran's nuclear ambitions are a mortal threat to the global nonproliferation regime. If Iran succeeds in acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability, neighboring Arab states will seek their own atomic arsenals. The Middle East will become a nuclear tinderbox, and the odds of nuclear material falling into the hands of rogue terrorists will dramatically increase. Iran itself is already the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world. If it acquires a nuclear-weapons capability, its proxies-groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq that have the blood of hundreds of Americans on their hands-will become significantly more dangerous, because they could strike at us and our allies while being protected from retaliation by Tehran's nuclear umbrella. A nuclear-armed Iran would also threaten the global economy by holding Middle Eastern oil supplies hostage. Recently, Iran's leaders threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran tried to do so now, the U.S. and our allies, including those in the region, would have an overwhelming military advantage. But what if Tehran had nuclear missiles? ... As importantly, however, we must put to rest any suspicion that in the end the United States will acquiesce to Iran's acquisition of a nuclear-weapons capability and adopt a strategy of containment. For this reason, we introduced a bipartisan resolution last month that explicitly rules out a strategy of containment for Iran and reaffirms that the U.S. has a vital national interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability... Some have asked why our resolution sets the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a 'nuclear weapons capability,' rather than 'nuclear weapons.' The reason is that all of the destabilizing consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will ensue as soon as Iranians have the components necessary for a weapon-and by then, it will be too late to stop them. When some say that our red line is a 'nuclear weapon,' it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send. That is why the comprehensive sanctions legislation passed by Congress in 2010 and signed into law by President Obama identified the U.S. goal as preventing a 'nuclear-weapons capability.'" http://t.uani.com/xD4d4a
Charles Krauthammer in WashPost: "It's Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs. This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue. These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution. If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking? This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama's campaign-year posturing about Iran's nukes. Speaking Sunday in front of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), he warned that 'Iran's leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States.' This just two days after he'd said (to the Atlantic) of possible U.S. military action, 'I don't bluff.' Yet on Tuesday he returned to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously failed. Won't sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama's own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran's nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever. Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not prevention. Holding talks is not prevention. Imposing sanctions is not prevention. Prevention is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities." http://t.uani.com/ykrec2
Mehdi Khalaji in WINEP: "A specter is haunting the Middle East: The specter of the nuclear bomb. Iran's potential nuclear capability worries Middle Eastern countries -- including its immediate neighbors. Not only does Israel see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, but also Arab countries -- especially members of the Gulf Cooperation Council -- consider an Iranian atomic bomb as an ultimate factor in changing the region's balance of power to their disadvantage. This year an international conference will be held in Finland, on ridding the Middle East of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But the dream of a Middle East as a WMD free zone is fading fast. Saudi Arabia and UAE have not only tried to acquire more weaponry and equip themselves with cutting-edge military technology, but they are also justifying the idea of launching a nuclear program. Other countries in the region -- including Turkey -- are also on this path. The only hope for a Middle East nuclear free-zone is to stop Iran from reaching nuclear capability. While Israeli nuclear capability primarily aims to protect a country surrounded by enemies, Iran's attempt to obtain such capability remains unjustifiable in the eyes of the West and also neighboring countries -- who have made it a priority to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Without Saudi Arabian and Gulf countries' intensive efforts in enforcing sanctions on Iran, the Islamic Republic would not be as economically and politically isolated as it is today. With this year's escalation in sanctions, Saudi and other Persian Gulf states have demonstrated that they are ready to compensate for the loss of Iranian oil to European markets, by meeting the shortfall. In this way harsher sanctions on Iran will have little impact on the oil market, paving the way for the sustained isolation of Iran. The Islamic Republic has many reasons for seeking to attain nuclear weapons. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei firmly believes that the ultimate goal of the West in pressuring Iran over its nuclear program is not the end of the program itself, but an attempt to destroy the regime. For him, the Islamic Republic and the West are inherently at odds. After the decline of Communism in the world, Khamenei held that Iran represented a new pole -- political Islam -- opposing the other pole, namely, the West. In his Manichaeism view, the battle of good and evil will continue until good wins. Any compromise with the West, let alone normalizing the relationship, is against the nature of the Islamic Republic. For Iran's supreme leader, what is at stake is regional supremacy. Since the US and its allies have achieved hegemony in the Middle East, they are able to squeeze Iran whenever they want, on whatever issue they please. Gaining nuclear capability would change this course and make it harder for the West to impose its will on Iran." http://t.uani.com/ynBLhY
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment