| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
WSJ: "Internal divisions in Iran's government are hampering its effort to form a united front in the coming negotiations with the West over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Analysts say that could make it harder for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to strike a compromise to avoid the appearance of weakness, as the West demands concessions to the program... In its negotiations with the West, Iran has long followed a strategy that its officials call the 'grand policy' bargaining, meaning the country puts up a united front against the West and decisions on its nuclear program rise above petty domestic rivalries. That tactic appears to be faltering only days ahead of the talks. Rivalries between conservative Iranian factions loyal to Mr. Khamenei or to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appear to be influencing nuclear policy... Iran's officials have made contradictory public comments on whether the country is willing to compromise or stand its ground. Mr. Khamenei has the last word in all state matters but analysts say that percolating domestic divisions could sway his stance." http://t.uani.com/Hzggwv
Reuters: "Major powers will hold their first talks with Iran this week in more than a year, hoping Tehran will give enough ground over its nuclear program to continue negotiations and avert the threat of a Middle East war. Israel has hinted at military strikes on Iran, arguing time is running out to stop it developing atomic arms; Iran says it could respond by closing a major oil shipping thoroughfare, aware that would push up crude prices and hit the world economy. The six powers - the United States, France, Germany, China, Russia and Britain - will not lay out demands when the talks open in Istanbul on April 14, a Western diplomat said, but will be looking for signs Iran is ready to make concessions." http://t.uani.com/HDyC1k
NYT: "Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that he would offer 'new initiatives' at the coming talks with world powers on its disputed nuclear energy program, apparently trying to strike a posture of conciliation without specifying which ideas he intended to propose. The assertion by the negotiator, Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, came two days before the talks, suspended in mutual frustration more than a year ago, are to reconvene in Istanbul. Mr. Jalili's remarks, reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency, represented the first time he had publicly suggested that Iran would present something new at the talks since an agreement on resuming them was announced last month. Still, Mr. Jalili said nothing about the substance of Iran's position or the central issue in the dispute: Iran's enrichment of uranium, which at low-purity levels is used to produce energy and medical isotopes, but at much higher purity levels can fuel atomic bombs." http://t.uani.com/IXFa8v
Nuclear Program Reuters: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a defiant tone on Thursday two days ahead of key atomic talks with major powers, saying the Islamic state would not surrender its nuclear rights 'even under the most difficult pressure' ... 'You should know that the Iranian nation is insisting on its fundamental rights and even under the most difficult pressure will not retreat even one iota from its rights,' Ahmadinejad said of the upcoming talks, according to the official IRNA news agency." http://t.uani.com/I5Zhne
Bloomberg: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said 'there is still time for diplomacy' to resolve the Iran nuclear dispute, as an Iranian official said his nation plans to offer 'new initiatives' at talks with world powers in Istanbul on April 14... Clinton, speaking yesterday at a meeting of the Group of Eight foreign ministers in Washington, said the talks provide an opportunity for Iran to 'address seriously the international community's concerns about its nuclear program.' 'It is urgent that the Iranians come to the table to establish an environment conducive to achieving concrete results through a sustained process,' she said." http://t.uani.com/IqG6bo
WSJ: "The Obama administration is facing two critical foreign-policy challenges this week that Republicans and Democrats say could define President Barack Obama's foreign-policy record as he seeks re-election. Both of the developments-a planned rocket launch by Pyongyang and talks aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program-offer opportunities and serious tests for the White House. Mr. Obama entered office in 2009 citing the global reduction of nuclear weapons as among his most important foreign-policy initiatives. U.S. officials are raising hopes that the negotiations with Iran, which begin Saturday in Istanbul, can put in place a diplomatic process to end what many Western officials believe is Iran's steady march toward a nuclear-weapons capability." http://t.uani.com/IXIkZY
Sanctions
AFP: "Just days before crucial talks with world powers on its disputed nuclear programme, Iran was presenting a defiant face on Wednesday, announcing the halt of oil exports to EU nations and warning the West to drop its 'language of force.' ... Two Iranian broadcasters, Al-Alam and Press TV, reported that Iranian oil exports to Germany had been halted and exports to Italy could soon likewise be stopped, without identifying their sources. On Tuesday, the two networks said crude exports to Spain had also ended, expanding on a February decision to stop oil sales to France and Britain. Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi also said on Tuesday that Iran was no longer supplying oil to Greece." http://t.uani.com/HKFAmv
Bloomberg: "Iran's oil production may decline by as much as 950,000 barrels a day by the middle of this year as European Union and U.S. embargoes take effect, the International Energy Agency said. Output in March was 50,000 barrels a day less than the previous month, the Paris-based IEA, adviser to 28 industrialized nations, said in its monthly Oil Market Report today. Iran pumped 3.3 million barrels, compared with a pre- sanction rate of 3.55 million at the end of 2011, it said. 'Recently enacted E.U. and U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil and banking sectors are affecting shipping and trade flows as well as undermining Iran's crude production outlook,' the agency said. The 'long list of countries planning to implement import cuts in coming months suggests Iranian output could plummet to 2.6 to 2.8 million barrels a day by mid-summer, unless alternative buyers can be found.'" http://t.uani.com/Hxr4uT
Washington Jewish Week: "Maryland is poised to become the fifth state in the nation to sign an Iran trade sanctions bill thanks to the unanimous passage of the measure in both the state Senate and House of Delegates. The Iran Certification Act - supported by and at press time expected to be signed in the coming days by Gov. Martin O'Malley - calls for operations-seeking businesses with the state to show by Jan. 1, 2013, that they are not engaging 'in investment activities in Iran.' ... Maryland becomes the fifth state in the nation to pass such legislation, joining California, Florida, New York and Indiana. The move gained praise from Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, president of the nonprofit advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, which has been at the forefront of pushing for such measures. 'We applaud the state of Maryland for passing this legislation,' he said. 'No business that is active in Iran should be receiving U.S. tax dollars, and this law will force companies to choose between the Iranian regime and Maryland taxpayers.'" http://t.uani.com/HEDeDI
FT: "Iran is trying to skirt US and European sanctions by luring nations to buy its oil on highly advantageous credit terms, say officials in the industry. Tehran has been offering a handful of potential customers in Asia, including India, 180 days of free credit, according to the officials. They estimate that each month of credit amounts to a discount of roughly $1.2 to $1.5 a barrel. But Gulf-based officials and European traders said Tehran was struggling to find new customers despite its generous credit terms. Nations in the European Union, as well as Turkey, Japan, South Korea and China, have all announced hefty cuts in their purchases of Iranian oil." http://t.uani.com/IqGJ4J
Reuters: "Japanese insurers are warning ship owners that they will only cover one tanker at a time carrying Iranian crude oil through the Middle East Gulf due to tightening Western sanctions against OPEC's second biggest producer, industry sources said. The three major non-life insurers, Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, Sompo Japan Insurance and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, are limited to how much they can provide in maritime coverage without tapping into the European reinsurance market." http://t.uani.com/HCzQO3
Human Rights
Fox News: "Twelve Christians stood trial Easter Sunday in Iran, where they were called 'apostates' in a courtroom and tried on multiple charges, according to sources close to Iran's Christian community. The Christians had been acquitted on the same charges, including 'crimes against the order,' a year ago in Bandar Anzali, a city on the Caspian Sea. The group was first arrested when authorities found them drinking wine while taking communion, according to sources." http://t.uani.com/HNQC6e
Foreign Affairs
Reuters: "The United Arab Emirates criticised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit on Wednesday to a Gulf island claimed by both countries since the 1970s. 'His visit ... is a flagrant violation of the United Arab Emirates' sovereignty over its territory and a transgression of efforts to find a peaceful settlement to end Iranian occupation of the three UAE islands,' said Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan, cited by state news agency WAM." http://t.uani.com/HKEQ0x
Opinion & Analysis
WashPost Editorial Board: "THE NEGOTIATIONS with Iran due to begin this week in Istanbul may be the last chance for a peaceful settlement on its nuclear program, at least in a negative sense: If Tehran again refuses to make concessions, and continues to press ahead with uranium enrichment at a new underground facility, military action by Israel or the United States may become inevitable. Hardly anyone, however, thinks it likely that the United States and its five partners in the group negotiating with Iran will be able to strike a deal that ends the Iranian nuclear threat or satisfies United Nations resolutions on the issue. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears firmly opposed to any lasting accord. The pressing question, then, is whether some kind of partial bargain can be made that would break what looks like a slide toward war. Partly in public and partly in private briefings, the Obama administration has spelled out what it thinks is necessary: an Iranian agreement to cease its higher-level enrichment of uranium to the level of 20 percent; to export the some 100 kilograms of fuel already processed to that level; and to close down the new facility buried under a mountain near the city of Qom. While the administration hasn't detailed what it would be prepared to give Iran in return, the minimum looks like a pledge to freeze further sanctions and possibly to repeal some of the harshest already adopted, such as those aimed at the Iranian central bank. A deal along those lines would offend Israel and many in Congress. Like them, we have taken the position that Iran should stop all enrichment, as required by the U.N. resolutions, in order to obtain sanctions relief. But Iranian compliance with the administration's terms could greatly reduce tensions. It would represent the first voluntary curb by Iran on its program since 2003, and it could prevent the program from moving into what Israel describes as a 'zone of immunity,' in which it could be invulnerable to a conventional Israeli air attack. For those who, like us, believe that military action against Iran is neither necessary nor wise in the coming months, a deal in which Iran met the administration's terms would be a relief - but an unsatisfying one. It probably would prevent war. But the risk is that it would be counterproductive in the medium term, because it would ease what is now mounting economic pressure on Iran and allow the regime breathing space. It could leave the nuclear program in a stronger position than it was when the Obama administration began negotiations in the fall of 2009 - with more centrifuges and enough low-enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs with further processing. If the regime refused a more comprehensive deal, or cheated, it might be difficult to restore sanctions that only now finally appear to be biting." http://t.uani.com/IXxinm
Ronen Bergman in NYT: "IN January 2007, Israeli intelligence officials were horrified by information acquired when Mossad agents broke into the hotel room of a senior Syrian official in London and downloaded the contents of his laptop. The pilfered files revealed that Syria, aided by North Korea, was building a nuclear reactor that could produce an atomic bomb. Until then, according to military intelligence officials, Israeli intelligence thought Syria had no nuclear program. But that was because Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, had set up a parallel and separate system of command and control for building the reactor. The discovery caused a panic in Israel, and grave concern in Washington, which had relied heavily on Israel's assurances that it knew everything about Syria. By the time the reactor was discovered, it was almost ready to become operational. Deeming it too late for diplomatic action, Israel asked the Americans to attack the facility that spring. President George W. Bush refused, so Israel went ahead on its own, destroying the reactor in a bombing raid on Sept. 6, 2007, and risking a war. The lesson in humility that intelligence agencies should have learned from this affair is evident. I was therefore surprised by the assertions of American and Israeli officials I interviewed while researching a recent article on the prospect of an Israeli attack against Iran. They repeatedly stated, 'we will know,' when we talked about the possibility of Iran's moving to produce nuclear weapons. This month, playing down reports of disagreements between the United States and Israel, a senior American official said it plainly. 'There is day-to-day intelligence cooperation between the United States and Israel,' he told me. 'If and when the Iranians decide to go over to nuclear weapons production,' he added, 'we'll know about it and we'll share the information between us.' Today, the two countries agree that Iranians have not begun to assemble a nuclear device, won't do so until their supreme leader gives them a go-ahead, and would need about nine months to create a bomb. Both countries are convinced that they will obtain unequivocal intelligence when the order to start is given. Here and in Washington, officials assume that as soon as information is received that Iran has moved to build nuclear weapons, Israel will decide to attack its nuclear facilities. Therefore, any exchange of intelligence between Israel and the United States could have far-reaching consequences for the Middle East - and the world. In other words, the momentous decision will be driven to an extraordinary extent by intelligence reports." http://t.uani.com/HKCO0k
Fareed Zakaria in WashPost: "The Obama administration's Iran strategy has worked so far. Unprecedented pressure has forced Tehran to the negotiating table. It will take extraordinary diplomatic skills to reach a settlement in the talks this weekend among Iran and the 'P5+1' - the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany. But there is too much pessimism in the air. A robust deal is possible if, as with any successful negotiation, both sides can come away with something. What would a deal look like? The United States has long demanded that Iran stop all enrichment of uranium, a process that allows it to produce the fuel necessary for an atomic bomb. Iran has insisted it has the right to enrich for a peaceful nuclear program. Now, it seems a smart compromise might be reached. Washington has signaled that it will ask Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, the level from which fuel can be easily converted for military purposes. Iran has indicated that it might be willing to accept such a limit and would enrich up to only 3.5 or 5 percent. Then Iran could claim that it has preserved its right to enrichment. Iran would still have a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, produced over the past two years, perhaps enough to make a nuclear bomb. Tehran has rejected Washington's demands that this uranium be shipped abroad for safekeeping, saying it is needed for the production of medical isotopes. But Iran almost accepted a deal on this point in 2009 and proposed one in 2010 in which it would have shipped out low-enriched uranium. Statements from officials on both sides suggest that they might embrace elements of those proposals, which involved shipping away some of Iran's uranium stockpile in return for completed fuel plates that are used in the process of making medical isotopes. There have been reports that Washington will demand that Iran shut down its Fordo nuclear plant, where high-level enrichment takes place in a facility buried in a mountain near Qom. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly demanded this last week.) Iran has refused, saying it has the right to position nuclear facilities wherever it wants as long as its program is peaceful. Washington should soften its stance on this issue as long as Iran accepts intrusive inspections so it can be independently confirmed that the program is peaceful. The crucial point on which Iran should make deep concessions is comprehensive inspections." http://t.uani.com/HzhZli
Volker Perthes in IHT: "In his letter to the E.U.'s foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, who heads the 'P5-plus-1' group, Jalili declared that Iran was ready for the 'step-by-step' approach and the "reciprocity" she proposed for the discussions. In fact, such a gradual approach - tying the lifting or suspension of various sanctions to steps Iran must undertake - is the only chance for success. The mutual distrust is too great for any quick, comprehensive solution that would lead Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. But a few agreed steps could restore the minimum of trust needed for a constructive diplomatic process. The most important breakthrough would be for Iran to agree to suspend its 20 percent uranium enrichment, ship stockpiles of such uranium to agreed locations abroad, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect facilities that could serve to produce nuclear weapons. The idea that Iran could swap its enriched uranium for a research reactor would likely be put on the table again. Further steps could include the ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that gives the I.A.E.A. full inspection rights. All these steps cannot be achieved in one round of negotiations. They would require talks over several months. But that is only feasible if both sides act constructively in the first round. Iran will want to know what it will gain if it agrees to such an approach. The P5-plus-1 group should have a convincing answer, such as identifying which specific American or European sanctions would be suspended should Iran stop its 20 percent enrichment. Simply promising not to impose additional sanctions does not constitute a major incentive. And a total lifting of sanctions is as unlikely today as a full halt of Iranian enrichment activities. The P5-plus-1 negotiators should, however, be prepared to suggest what a final settlement might look like - what assurances and guarantees the international community would need in order to accept an Iranian nuclear program with limited enrichment activities. Given the lack of elementary trust, the new talks will be fragile. There is always the risk that Iranian domestic politics will halt the process, as it did in 2009. The talks can also crash if the P5-plus-1 group fails to make clear that they are really about limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, and not about regime change in Tehran. If the Iranian leadership is firmly convinced that the goal of the sanctions is only to weaken or overthrow its regime, why would it abandon a program that so troubles Israel and the West?" http://t.uani.com/IEaDBJ
Meir Javedanfar in The Diplomat: "A new round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, namely the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, is upon us. Based on the failures of previous talks, the upcoming discussions scheduled for April 14 have had an air of pessimism hanging over them. But not all hope is lost. A recent proposal by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), as well as a leaked report about U.S and European demands for the upcoming talks, suggest some common ground may be emerging between the two sides. The report, leaked to The New York Times, find the U.S and European position in the upcoming talks is centered around demands that Iran ceases uranium enrichment of 20 percent at the Fordo nuclear site near the city of Qom. This is in addition to a demand that Iran transfers its existing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium. Meanwhile, according to a proposal by Fereydoon Abbasi Davani, who is the current head of the AEOI, Iran 'could eventually stop its production of the 20 percent enriched uranium needed for a research reactor, used for medical research and treatments.' Davani then goes on to add: 'Iran would continue enriching uranium to lower levels of about 3.5 percent for power generation.' It's not clear whether Davani's view represents that of Ali Khamenei, and it's certainly the supreme leader who has the final word on nuclear matters. Still, his proposal that Iran could eventually stop production of 20 percent enriched uranium deserves attention. There are, of course, gaps between the current U.S and European position on the one side, and Davani's proposal on the other. For example, Davani's proposal doesn't include the transfer of existing stock of Iran's 20 percent enriched uranium. However, despite the differences, the proposals on each side show two important areas of common interest. One is the U.S and European proposal that shows there's tacit agreement to Iran enriching at lower levels on its own soil. This is a departure from previous Israeli demands, as well as those under the administration of George W. Bush, that enrichment in Iran must stop altogether. This overture also happens to chime with Davani's proposal that Iran continues with lower level enrichment on its soil. The other area of common ground is the idea of ceasing enrichment at Fordo. The difference between the two sides is a matter of timing - the U.S and European position calls for immediate cessation, while Davani's proposal calls for 'eventual' cessation... Meanwhile the P5+1 is for its part concerned about continued enrichment of 20 percent at Iran's nuclear site in Fordo, as well as Iran's existing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium. So, how to move forward? A quid pro quo proposal divided into two stages: interim and permanent. The goal of the interim part of this plan is to alleviate immediate concerns in the West about Iran's current stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, which would be useful for Khamenei's regime should he decide to go the bomb route. The interim stage could also be used to alleviate Iran's concerns about current unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States and the EU." http://t.uani.com/Hxt2LB
Joel Brinkley in Politico: "When world leaders meet with Iranian leaders in Istanbul Friday, topic No. 1, of course, will be Iran's nuclear program. But a variety of present and former security officials, members of Congress and others say the United States and other western nations are paying too little attention to a problem of near-equal gravity: Iran's open support of terror and criminal groups all over the world. Not since the fall of the Soviet Union has any nation so aggressively pursued alliances with bad actors in so many places worldwide, acknowledged Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer who focused primarily on Iran. 'Their outreach is bolder than it used to be' and is 'pretty disturbing' given 'their proclivity for nefarious activity.' 'They're fighting basically a shadow war every day,' Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of the military's Central Command, told a Senate hearing last month. And now Iran is turning significant attention to the Western hemisphere - including the U.S. 'We know they are in Mexico, we know they are in Canada, we know they are in Central and South America,' said Michael Braun, former chief of operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration. 'Who's better poised to carry out operations on the homeland than they are?' Late last month, Rep. Peter King, (R-N.Y.), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told Congress: 'Most disturbingly, we learned' that 'there are hundreds of Hezbollah operatives already inside this country' including some who were apprehended 'with military training and combat experience in Lebanon.' In the early 1980s, Iran created Hezbollah, a terror group based in Lebanon, and now Tehran sends its operatives on covert missions worldwide." http://t.uani.com/HDCvDf |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment