| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
Reuters: "Iran and the six world powers prepared on Friday for rare talks aimed at easing fears that a deepening dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program could plunge the Middle East into a new war. Officials from Iran and the six major powers arrived in Istanbul ahead of Saturday's bid to restart stalled diplomacy following months of soaring tension and persistent speculation that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear sites. The meeting is widely seen as a chance for the powers - the United States, France, Russia, China, Britain and Germany - and Iran to halt a downward diplomatic spiral and start to seek ways out of years of deadlock." http://t.uani.com/HFOTV6
NYT: "At negotiations this week between Iran and six world powers, the United States and its allies hope to make enough progress to take some of the urgency out of the confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program, to reassure Israel and to arrange a second round of talks soon. For the first time in years, both Iran and the six powers - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - seem interested in serious negotiations that both sides have agreed will take a 'step by step' approach and be 'reciprocal.' And both sides say they are coming to the talks here in Istanbul with proposals on the nuclear issue in discussions that may begin over dinner on Friday night and will continue formally on Saturday. Iranian state media said Tehran's delegation arrived in Istanbul on Friday morning. But considerable doubts remain about how far Iran is willing to go to satisfy the United Nations Security Council's demands to suspend uranium enrichment and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency." http://t.uani.com/HOtGrJ
Reuters: "When U.S. officials join talks this weekend about Iran's nuclear program, they will be armed with profiles developed by intelligence agencies offering insight into what makes foreign leaders tick. One key player will not be at the table in Istanbul, where negotiations are scheduled between Iran and six world powers, but his stamp of approval will be required for any deal to fly. 'Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has the final word on Iran's foreign, domestic, and security policies. He is the ultimate decision-maker,' a U.S. official said. Since U.S. severed diplomatic ties more than 30 years ago, first-hand observation of Iranian leaders is a rarity for Americans. U.S. spy agencies must rely on the inexact art of long-distance analysis to profile leaders of an opaque system. Former U.S. officials and Iran experts say Khamenei has a deep-rooted suspicion of the West and a streak of insecurity - he rose to power due to his loyalty to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rather than lofty religious credentials. A sense of inferiority has dogged him over the years and it would be especially important for Khamenei to be seen as not folding under Western pressure to reach an agreement, they said." http://t.uani.com/HI6j1c
Nuclear Program & Sanctions AP: "At a critical time in international diplomacy, the world's leading industrialized democracies on Thursday demanded that Syria comply with all portions of a U.N.-backed plan to end more than a year of deadly violence and warned Iran and North Korea not to engage in provocative behavior... At the same time, Clinton urged Iran's leadership to demonstrate it is ready to come clean about it nuclear program at talks to be held Saturday in Turkey between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States... 'We are united in our resolve and expectation that Iran will come to the talks prepared, and we are receiving signals that they are bringing ideas to the table,' she said. 'They assert that their program is purely peaceful. They point to a fatwa that the supreme leader has issued against the pursuit of nuclear weapons. We want them to demonstrate clearly in the actions they propose that they have truly abandoned any nuclear weapons ambition.'" http://t.uani.com/IJOH8p
Reuters: "India has vaulted to the top of the list of Iran's oil customers, overtaking China, in a first-quarter buying surge ahead of tighter sanctions against Tehran this summer, data published by a leading industry consultant showed. Direct imports to India from Iran were 433,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the first quarter, compared with 256,000 bpd to China, according to data compiled by Geneva's Petrologistics and seen by Reuters via an industry source. The Indian import figure was up by around 23 percent from the 351,0000 bpd imported over the same period of 2011 and significantly above the its 2011 average of 326,000 bpd." http://t.uani.com/HQAqER
Reuters: "Iran's oil shipping operator NITC is expanding its oil tanker fleet with the first of 12 supertankers to be delivered from China in May, fortuitous timing for the OPEC member as Western sanctions force Tehran to rely more on its ships to export oil. The new tankers, each capable of carrying 2 million barrels of crude, add much-needed capacity to NITC's fleet at a time when the number of maritime firms willing to transport Iranian crude has dwindled significantly amid European sanctions... NITC ordered the 12 vessels to be built at Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Co Ltd, a China CSSC Holdings Ltd unit based in financial hub Shanghai, and Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. Ltd, based in the northeastern port of Dalian. Each builder won an order for six vessels, with the total order financed mostly by China's Export and Import Bank, officials said, a policy bank that funds China's massive trade business and Chinese firms' overseas investment." http://t.uani.com/HG2QRj
Reuters: "Iran is concealing the destinations of its oil sales by disabling tracking systems aboard its tanker fleet, making it difficult to assess how much crude Tehran is exporting as it seeks to counter Western sanctions aimed at cutting its oil revenues. Most of Iran's 39-strong fleet of tankers is now 'off-radar' after Tehran ordered captains in the National Iranian Tanker Co (NITC) to switch off the black box transponders that are used in the shipping industry to monitor vessel movements, oil industry, trading and shipping sources said. 'Iran, helped by its customers, is trying to obfuscate as much as possible,' said a senior executive at a national oil company that has done business with Iran. And Iran may have countered a reported reduction in its oil sales in March by offering big discounts in the form of free freight, finance and insurance and generous credit terms, the sources said." http://t.uani.com/HG6AlT
FT: "MTN, the emerging markets mobile phone group, mounted a blistering defence of its Iranian operations after rival Turkcell made a series of spectacular allegations in a $4.2bn lawsuit. The South African group on Thursday described the allegations, which include claims that it bribed officials and used its influence to get South Africa to abstain from a vote on Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, as 'unfounded' and 'simply ludicrous'. The allegations relate to Iran's decision to grant MTN the republic's second mobile phone licence in 2005 ahead of Turkcell. MTN owns 49 per cent of Irancell, with the remainder indirectly owned by the Iranian regime. Turkcell filed its lawsuit in the US at the end of last month, seeking $4.2bn in damages. It says MTN created 'Project Snooker' to 'snooker its business competitor through these corrupt arrangements.'" http://t.uani.com/INo6CM
Reuters: "Iran's government is expected to start buying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of feed grains as western sanctions are causing enormous disruption to the financing of Iran's imports, traders said on Thursday. Iranian farmers face a shortage of feed for their huge livestock flocks as private-sector grain importers are unable to arrange payments, traders said. Though food shipments are not targeted under Western sanctions aimed at Iran's disputed nuclear program, financial measures have frozen Iranian firms out of much of the global banking system, hindering grain buying. The government, which had bought more than 2 million tonnes of bread-making wheat recently, is now poised to make substantial feed grain deals, traders said." http://t.uani.com/HD4OQq
Opinion & Analysis
WSJ Editorial Board: "American and Iranian negotiators will meet this weekend in Istanbul to try to hash out a deal over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and everyone says the stakes are high. President Obama is even warning the mullahs that it's their 'last chance' to come to terms with international demands. Or else? Mr. Obama won't specify, but Iranians can be forgiven if they don't take the implied U.S. threat seriously. This isn't the first encounter between Mr. Obama's envoys (along with the other four permanent Security Council members, plus Germany) and the Islamic Republic. In October 2009, months after the turmoil of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stolen election, hopes were high that Iran was primed to reach a 'grand bargain' with the West. 'Iran experts and regional analysts say... that Iran finally may be ready to make a deal,' reported the New York Times. 'The analysts cite a confluence of factors, from Iran's internal political crisis to the change in leadership in Washington, and one overriding point: Iran's leadership may have achieved much of what it set out to accomplish when it stepped up its clandestine nuclear program in 1999.' It didn't work out that way. After initially appearing to agree to a proposal to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium outside its borders, Iran rejected the offer. Far from being satisfied with its nuclear progress up to that point, Tehran continues to enrich its stockpile of uranium to higher concentrations and in more heavily defended sites. A report last November by the International Atomic Energy Agency all but accuses Iran of hiding the 'military dimensions' of its nuclear program, and IAEA inspectors have repeatedly been denied access to suspected military sites. So what hope is there for negotiations now? The Administration insists Iran is feeling the squeeze of the financial sanctions Mr. Obama signed at the end of last year, citing Iran's depreciating currency as evidence. Then there's the possibility that Israel may strike before Iran reaches what Israel's defense minister recently called the 'zone of immunity' from attack. As for the terms of the deal the U.S. is prepared to offer, that seems to be changing by the minute. Mr. Obama is reported to have sent word to the Iranians via Turkish channels that the U.S. would be prepared to accept Iran's civilian nuclear program so long as the Iranians close down their underground Fordo enrichment facility near Qom, relinquish their stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, and offer verifiable guarantees never to build a nuclear weapon. On Wednesday, though, White House spokesman Jay Carney appeared to backpedal by calling for the 'full suspension of uranium enrichment.' If we were the Iranian regime, we would probably take whatever deal is put on the table. It would offer a reprieve against the possibility of military strikes and lead to the easing of sanctions. And its terms could always be violated at a more convenient time, openly or in secret." http://t.uani.com/IDB07f
Mark Hibbs, Ariel Levite & George Perkovich in NYT: "AFTER a hiatus of more than a year, negotiations about Iran's nuclear program are set to resume in Turkey on Friday between Iran and France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the United States. Though the participants foresee several rounds of discussions, all will be acutely aware that time to reach agreement peacefully may be running out. So it is important to ask, at the start, how we will be able to tell whether the talks are moving forward. Though talks that have taken place since 2004 have produced no real progress, recent developments suggest some grounds for cautious optimism. Sanctions are hurting Iran, and even tougher ones are expected to go into effect July 1. President Obama and other American officials have repeatedly warned Iran in recent weeks that the window for diplomacy is closing. Israel's patience for a meaningful outcome from diplomacy is running thin. Iranian leaders presumably recognize that the likelihood of military action would be higher than ever if negotiations collapsed or began to stretch out aimlessly. In addition, there are some indications that Iran's attitude may have become more flexible. Iran still insists that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful use, and that it will not compromise on its right to enrich uranium. It continues to rebuff the International Atomic Energy Agency's demands for greater cooperation, while threatening retaliation for sanctions imposed on it. But its leaders may be creating room for compromise. Iran sought the new negotiating round. It has done so in the past under severe pressure, only to step away from real compromise; but this time the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has twice reiterated his fatwa prohibiting acquisition of nuclear weapons. And some of his recent moves suggest that he is maneuvering to build a domestic political base of support for a possible deal over the nuclear program. Still, tough and protracted negotiations undoubtedly lie ahead. Iran may never surrender some key elements of the hardware or material related to a bomb-making capacity, and its basic knowledge in this domain cannot be unlearned. At another level, any deal with the United States might ultimately run counter to preserving the clerical regime, for which opposition to America has long been a core political attitude. The United States, for its part, would be reluctant to let Iran leave the negotiations with a deal that left its nuclear option viable, bolstered the regime internally, and reinforced its regional influence and ambitions to the detriment of America's allies. In addition, the two sides distrust each other deeply, and their negotiating styles differ fundamentally. The Americans doubt that the Iranians ultimately can 'deliver' on any deal, and Iran's leadership has similar doubts about President Obama's capacity to deliver in an election year. Given these complexities, it won't be easy to assess the progress of the coming talks. But we can suggest benchmarks." http://t.uani.com/IQQEOr
Stephen Hayes in WSJ: "Top American diplomats will sit down across the negotiating table from their Iranian counterparts this weekend in what Obama administration officials have called a 'last chance' for Iran to give up its nuclear-weapons program. Although the Obama administration and Iran have conflicting long-term objectives-the mullahs want nuclear weapons, President Obama has promised repeatedly to stop them-their short-term goal is the same: to avoid military confrontation. The Iranians don't want their nuclear momentum reversed, and Barack Obama doesn't want a war complicating his re-election. So an agreement of some kind seems likely. Will it matter? Anything that retards Iran's nuclear progress is helpful. But even if the talks 'solved' the nuclear issue-virtually inconceivable, given the measures the Iranians have taken to preserve their program-a bigger problem would remain: the Iranian regime itself. Whatever progress is made in the context of overlapping short-term interests, it will do little to change the long-term strategic problems presented by a hostile Iran. And Iran is hostile. It is one of the most underreported stories of the past decade: As we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran went to war with us. Tehran has provided weapons to insurgents directly responsible for killing hundreds of American troops in those two countries. It has funded, trained and equipped jihadists-Sunnis and Shiites alike-targeting American forces and interests in the Middle East and beyond. And all along the way it has provided safe haven and support to al Qaeda leaders and those closest to them. Last July, the Treasury Department identified a network of al Qaeda operatives that 'serves as the core pipeline through which al Qaeda moves money, facilitators and operatives.' Added one official: 'Without this network, al Qaeda's ability to recruit and collect funds would be severely damaged.' The network is located in Iran. 'There is an agreement between the Iranian government and al Qaeda to allow this network to operate,' David Cohen, undersecretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence told me at the time. 'There's no dispute in the intelligence community on this.'" http://t.uani.com/HFkcBF |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment