Top Stories
AP: "Seven-nation
talks on a deal meant to start a rollback of Iran's nuclear program in
exchange for sanctions relief were delayed Thursday as senior envoys from
both sides wrestled with a draft they hoped would be acceptable to both
Tehran and its six world powers negotiating with it. Deputy Foreign
Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested that the momentum characterizing much
of a previous round had been slowed, as top EU diplomat Catherine Ashton
sat down with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to discuss
the draft. As the two broke for lunch, Zarif said the two were discussing
'details and wording' of the document but pointed to what his country
sees as a potential problem ahead. 'We expect the West to have a united
stance over draft,' he told Iranian state TV, alluding to what Iran says
were complications to reaching a first-step deal at the last round
earlier this month because of differences among the six world powers.
Araghchi suggested those differences had set back the talks, telling The
Associated Press: 'What we are trying now is to rebuild confidence that
we lost in the previous round of negotiations.' He spoke of some
unspecified 'misunderstanding or ... mismanagement in the previous
round,' and of the 'difficult job' of trying to bridge differences."
http://t.uani.com/1bFmdGi
Guardian:
"Iran entrenched its position at nuclear talks in Geneva on
Thursday, insisting it would not sign an agreement that did not have
specific guarantees of its right to enrich uranium. The issue is one of
the thorniest at the negotiations and one of the main reasons the last
round of talks here broke up without agreement on 10 November despite
intense bargaining by ministers including the US secretary of state, John
Kerry, and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. This week Zarif
appeared to offer a concession on the issue, saying Iran did not need
international approval to carry on enriching uranium as it was already an
international right guaranteed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
(NPT). But a senior Iranian negotiator at the talks denied there had been
any give in the Iranian position. 'If this element is not in the text, it
is unacceptable to us. Without that, there will be no agreement,' the
negotiator said. The 1968 NPT is vague on the subject. It guarantees the
nation's right to a peaceful nuclear programme, without mentioning
enrichment specifically. Signatories are also obliged not to develop
weapons and to agree on inspection regimes with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)." http://t.uani.com/1c65NZj
Reuters:
"An interim deal to restrain Iran's nuclear programme aims to make
it harder for the Islamic state to build any bomb but may still leave it,
at least for now, with enough material for several nuclear warheads if
refined to a high degree. In a sign of how far Iran's nuclear activity
has advanced in a few years, the deal under discussion in Geneva this
week appears unlikely to achieve a central goal of an abortive one in
2009: reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to below that
needed for one nuclear bomb, if processed more. While details of the text
being negotiated in Geneva by senior officials from Iran and six world
powers have remained secret, it seems to focus mostly on halting Iran's
higher-grade enrichment and neutralising that material. That is because
enrichment to a fissile concentration of 20 percent - compared to the 3.5
percent usually required for nuclear power plants - represents most of
the work needed to reach weapons-grade uranium of 90 percent... But
diplomats have made little specific mention of Iran's growing LEU stocks,
which have increased four-fold since 2009 to an amount Western experts
believe would be enough for four bombs or more if refined to
weapons-grade." http://t.uani.com/1c5Xdd8
 Nuclear Negotiations
Daily
Telegraph: "Iran will only sign up to an international deal on
its nuclear programme if it is guaranteed the right to continue enriching
uranium 'from start to finish', the country's chief negotiator at talks
in Geneva said on Thursday. 'No deal that does not include the right to
uranium enrichment from start to finish will be accepted,' Abbas Araghchi
said ahead of negotiations in the Swiss capital aimed at ending the
decade-old nuclear dispute. Iran could discuss volumes, levels and
locations but 'the principle of enrichment is not negotiable', he
insisted. As representatives of Iran and six world powers - the US,
Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - prepared for the two days of
talks, the negotiator downplayed hopes of agreement. He said there were
'major differences' between Iran and world powers, adding: 'There is a
chance of a deal by tomorrow (Friday) but it's a difficult task.' Mr
Araghchi told state television that the main obstacle to agreement was a
'lack of trust because of what happened at the last round' - referring to
November talks when world powers toughened up the terms of a draft deal -
insisting that 'as long as trust is not restored, we cannot continue
constructive negotiations.'" http://t.uani.com/I6HCRP
AFP:
"Secretary of State John Kerry vowed Wednesday that the United
States would not let any deal with Iran become a ploy by the Islamic
republic to buy time to increase nuclear capability. As talks between
western powers and Iran resumed in Geneva, Kerry said the negotiations
were the 'best chance in a decade ... to halt progress and roll back
Iran's program.' ... 'We will not allow this agreement, should it be
reached ... to buy time or to allow for the acceptance of an agreement
that does not properly address our core, fundamental concerns.' Kerry
spoke as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on a visit to
Moscow seen as a last-minute bid to influence the emerging nuclear deal
with Iran strongly opposed by the Jewish state. 'We would all like a
diplomatic solution, but it needs to be a real solution,' said Netanyahu,
adding that this would involve Iran halting nuclear work in the same
manner that Syria is allowing its chemical weapons arsenal to be
dismantled." http://t.uani.com/1e3qAhl
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday the issue of
whether Iran will ultimately be allowed to enrich uranium will not be
decided in an interim deal under discussion between major world powers
and Iranian officials in Geneva. 'Whatever a country decides or doesn't
decide to do, or is allowed to do under the rules, depends on a
negotiation,' Kerry told reporters. 'We are at the initial stage of
determining whether or not there is a first step that could be taken, and
that certainly will not be resolved in any first step, I can assure
you.'" http://t.uani.com/I6GX2Q
WSJ:
"French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on Thursday said world
powers were united in supporting France's hard line in international
talks over Iran's nuclear program... France has angered Iran's leadership
by demanding that Tehran take concrete steps to roll back its nuclear
program before sanctions relief is granted. Two weeks ago, Mr. Fabius
broke from the U.S. and other P5+1 members by publicly questioning
whether the terms of the agreement being pursued with Tehran was a
'fool's game.' On Wednesday, Mr. Fabius said there were no longer any
rifts within the P5+1. 'France has a firm position that is now accepted
by everyone' apart from Iran, Mr. Fabius said. The world powers support
Iran's 'right to a civil nuclear [program], but not a right to a nuclear
arm.'" http://t.uani.com/I1uWei
Reuters:
"France and Iran traded tough words on Thursday before major powers
began to negotiate the details of a preliminary accord to curb Tehran's
nuclear programme with Paris warning the West had to remain firm and
Tehran deploring a loss of trust... French Foreign Minister Laurent
Fabius, who spoke out against a draft deal floated at the Nov. 7-9
negotiating round, was asked by France 2 television if there could be a
deal. 'I hope so,' he replied. 'But this agreement can only be possible
based on firmness. For now the Iranians have not been able to accept the
position of the six. I hope they will accept it.' France has consistently
taken a tough line over Iran's nuclear programme, helping Paris forge
closer ties with Tehran's foes in Israel and the Gulf. In what appeared
to be a response directly aimed at France, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister
Abbas Araqchi said: 'We have lost our trust ... We can not enter serious
talks until the trust is restored. But that doesn't mean that we will
stop negotiations.' Asked how trust could be restored, he said: 'If they
(the P5+1) create one front and stick with united words.'" http://t.uani.com/1bFfTyG
WSJ:
"Failure to engage in serious negotiations with Iran would pose a
greater threat to the international sanctions regime on the country than
the 'limited' easing of sanctions being proposed as part of a
confidence-building deal, a senior U.S. official said late Wednesday. As
international talks with Iran on its nuclear program resumed Wednesday in
Geneva, the senior official said much progress had been made recently,
but securing a confidence-building deal with Iran this week would be
'difficult' and 'tough.' However the official took sharp aim at some of
the key arguments made by Israeli leaders and some in Congress against a
first step that would offer modest sanctions relief in exchange for Iran
largely freezing its nuclear activities... The official said that if the
rest of the world believed the U.S. 'were not negotiating in seriousness,
that in and of itself might unravel the international sanctions regime.'
'If we were not engaged seriously, they would say the United States is
not giving diplomacy a chance. Why should we (therefore) continue to
enforce the sanctions that have been put on?' the person added. The
official also dismissed concerns about businesses rushing back into Iran.
'Business operates on principles of certainty...We believe that the only
long-term benefits will come in a comprehensive agreement, and we do not
expect a flood of business to rush in on the basis of a six-month
agreement,' the U.S. official said." http://t.uani.com/1fYnCw6
BBC:
"The Iranians are good at 'smiling, encouraging you on and then
cutting your throat' former US Secretary of State George P Shultz has
told the BBC...Mr Schultz was himself involved in top level talks as part
of the Reagan administration in the 1980s and suggested Iran was 'a tough
customer' to deal with." http://t.uani.com/1jpbELI
Sanctions
NYT:
"For most of the past decade, particularly since Western financial
sanctions began to bite hard two years ago, the dollar has been king
around Tehran's currency bazaar. With government oil revenues plunging
and inflation surging, the Iranian national currency, the rial, plunged -
to 40,000 to the dollar at its lowest point, from 10,000 to the dollar.
For most people, the question was never whether to exchange rials for
dollars but how soon. But these days, the tenor of the bazaar has
changed. With the prospect of an interim deal on Iran's nuclear program -
and the loosening of the sanctions, which might help revive Iran's
moribund economy - the fortunes of the long-suffering Iranian currency
are looking up. Some people have even begun to think it may even make
sense now to dump dollars." http://t.uani.com/Ii7eKx
Syria Conflict
AFP:
"Twin bombings against Iran's embassy in Hezbollah's Beirut
stronghold point to a confrontation between Tehran and Al-Qaeda in
Lebanon, which is paying a heavy price for the Syrian war, analysts said.
'It is a direct confrontation between Al-Qaeda on one side, and all those
who back the Syrian regime and Iran on the other,' said Hilal al-Khashan,
a political science professor at the American University of Beirut. 'The
two blasts are a direct message to Iran that says: You are the origin of
the problem in Syria, we will face you directly, not by proxy.'" http://t.uani.com/18qFEp4
Human Rights
AFP:
"Iran's foreign ministry on Wednesday rejected as politically
motivated a United Nations resolution which expresses 'deep concern' over
the Islamic republic's human rights record. The Canadian-drafted UN
resolution on Tuesday criticised abuses, the widespread use of the death
penalty, particularly for minors, and amputations and flogging as a
punishment in Iran... Foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said
the resolution had made 'brief references' to developments in Iran since
Rouhani took office in August, but that it had generally made 'false'
accusations. 'Iran condemns the use of human rights issue as a political
tool... and strongly rejects the resolution and its content,' she said,
quoted by the official IRNA news agency." http://t.uani.com/1c5YRvi
NYT:
"They have few rights, can be arrested on sight and deprived of a
trial, and are often deported four, five or more times - and no sooner
are they across the border than they head back. Sometimes they are
victims of vigilante justice; routinely, as unauthorized immigrants, they
are denied work. But for all those problems, up to three million Afghan
migrants still seem to be finding a generally better life in Iran, with
greater job and educational opportunities and more rights for women. This
often contradictory situation is addressed in a new report released by
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday. The study found that Afghans in Iran are
routinely deprived of their rights as refugees and subjected to arbitrary
abuse... But as the number of Afghans there has grown, Iran has made it
nearly impossible for them to claim the refugee status that would give
them international legal rights and access to aid, medical care and
education." http://t.uani.com/1h4Qd5J
Amnesty:
"Amnesty International has launched a campaign calling for the
immediate and unconditional release of Omid Kokabee, a 31-year-old
Iranian physicist pursuing a PhD in the USA, serving a 10-year prison
sentence in Tehran's Evin Prison. The organization considers Omid Kokabee
a prisoner of conscience, held solely for his refusal to work on military
projects in Iran and as a result of spurious charges related to his
legitimate scholarly ties with academic institutions outside of Iran.
Omid Kokabee, a member of Iran's Turkmen minority who was undertaking
post-graduate studies at the University of Texas in the USA in optics and
photonics, which includes studying the detection of light, was arrested
at Imam Khomeini Airport in Tehran on 30 January 2011 while waiting for
his flight back to the USA after visiting his family during a university
break. He was held in solitary confinement for 15 months and was
subjected to prolonged interrogations, and pressured to make
'confessions.'" http://t.uani.com/1axrkLO
Opinion
& Analysis
UANI Advisory Board Member Joseph Lieberman & Vance
Serchuk in WashPost: "As nuclear
negotiators in Geneva renew their attempts to strike a deal with Iran,
predictions of a diplomatic breakthrough are rife. Yet rather than
reassure the countries most directly threatened by an Iranian nuclear
weapon, the prospect of an agreement with Tehran is provoking
unprecedented anxiety among America's Arab and Israeli allies. Why? Part
of the reason is that these countries worry the White House will accept a
flawed agreement that ultimately will not prevent Iran's nuclear
breakout. While the Obama administration has emphasized in recent weeks
that a 'bad deal' with Tehran would be worse than no deal, it has failed
to build a consensus - in Washington or internationally - about what a
'good-enough' agreement must entail: which Iranian nuclear capabilities
need to be verifiably abandoned and which safeguards put in place to
instill sufficient confidence that Tehran can't continue creeping toward
the nuclear finish line. But the uneasiness of our Middle Eastern allies
is also rooted in the recognition that the danger posed by the Iranian
regime is about more than its illicit nuclear activities. Iran's pursuit
of nuclear weapons is the most alarming manifestation of a much more
profound strategic problem: a perceived long-standing hegemonic ambition
by Iran's rulers to dominate the Middle East. This ambition has driven
the Iranian government to build up a range of unconventional capabilities
alongside its nuclear program over many years. These include Tehran's
elite paramilitary force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds
Force; its extremist proxies and partners, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon,
Shiite militias in Iraq and the Assad regime in Syria; and a growing
arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles. President Obama has often, and
rightly, framed Iran's nuclear activities as a threat to the global
nonproliferation regime. But the White House has not yet reassured our
friends that it is equally convinced of the need to combat Iran's
revisionist, destabilizing regional agenda, regardless of the status of
the nuclear dispute. On the contrary, U.S. actions in recent years have
inadvertently fostered the impression that this is a fight we
increasingly do not consider our own... Could a deal on Iran's nuclear
program pave the way to a broader strategic reorientation by Tehran,
including an abandonment of its long-cultivated proxies and hegemonic
ambitions? Perhaps - though everything we know about the Iranian regime
should make us skeptical. Far more plausible is the possibility that,
while Iran's leaders may be prepared to make some tactical concessions on
their nuclear activities, they would do so hoping that this would buy
them the time and space needed to rebuild strength at home - freed from
crippling sanctions - while consolidating and expanding the gains they
are positioned to make in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan.
None of this is to say that the United States shouldn't pursue a nuclear
deal with Iran - provided the deal verifiably closes and locks the door
against Tehran achieving a breakout capability. As with arms-control
agreements with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Washington should
proceed with the explicit understanding that it faces a determined,
resourceful adversary with which we are engaged in a long-term geopolitical
struggle - and that it is an authoritarian regime whose repression and
mistreatment of its citizens we must continue to condemn. In short, even
if we reach an acceptable nuclear agreement with this Iranian government,
it is not our budding strategic partner. For this reason, we must think
carefully - and coordinate with allies - about how we can continue to
contain and combat Iran's malignant regional influence, should a nuclear
agreement be reached. While sanctions relief would be at the core of such
an agreement, how do we ensure that this doesn't empower or embolden
Tehran's efforts to destabilize its neighbors? Part of the answer must
involve much more credible and robust U.S. policies to confront Iran in
two places the Obama administration has kept at arm's length: Iraq and
Syria." http://t.uani.com/1aIUrej
UANI Advisory
Board Member Fouad Ajami in Bloomberg: "Hassan
Nasrallah, the dreadful Shiite cleric who commands the Lebanon-based
Hezbollah movement, couldn't get what he wanted. He had plunged his
militia into the war in Syria, he had helped turn the tide of war in
favor of the Bashar al-Assad regime, and he had bragged about the prowess
of his fighters. Yet he had asked that the fight for Syria be waged only
on Syrian soil. The two bombings that hit the Iranian embassy in a
Hezbollah neighborhood of Beirut on Tuesday should have delivered to
Nasrallah a truth known to all protagonists in this fight. There are no
easy victories, no way that the fire could rage in Syria while life went
on as usual in Beirut. It was Nasrallah -- and by extension his Iranian
paymasters -- who wrote the grim new rules of the Syrian war. Assad
hadn't been able to prevail against the Sunni rebellion. The Russian
weapons and Iranian money, deployed on his behalf, hadn't sufficed. The
Iranian desire for a measure of deniability had come up against the
incompetence of Assad's armed forces: The dictator's supporters were
barbarians, but defections from the ranks, and the flagrant sectarian
base of his regime, had forced the Iranians into the open. This is when
Iran decreed the entry of Hezbollah into the fight. It didn't matter
whether Nasrallah and his lieutenants were enthusiastic about this new
mission beyond Lebanon's borders. The Hezbollah leaders are at once
players in the Lebanese political game and self-professed soldiers in
Iran's revolutionary brigades. The effective leader of Hezbollah isn't
Nasrallah in his bunker, but Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in
Tehran. Iran's power and money and protection raised Nasrallah, a child
of Beirut's most wretched slum, to his position as mightiest warlord in
Lebanon. Iran may have been pressed for money at home, hobbled by
sanctions, but the money kept coming to Beirut. There was money for
Hezbollah's gunmen, there was a television station, Al Manar, that spread
Iran's message. A vast relief network enabled Nasrallah to pose as a
benefactor of impoverished Shiites and to ask his followers for ever
greater sacrifices. Nasrallah's mission was clear: He and his fighters
were to make Iran a power of the Mediterranean and, by way of Lebanon, a
veritable neighbor of Israel. Once Iran had committed itself to Assad's
survival, Hezbollah forces were on their way to Syria. This war kept no
secrets. At first, Hezbollah fighters who fell in battle were given quiet
burials. Their death notices were ambiguous -- they died while performing
'jihadi duty.' ... The two suicide bombers who struck the Iranian
embassy, one on a motorcycle and the other behind the wheel of a car
loaded with more than 100 pounds of explosives, were Lebanese members of
al-Qaeda, 'two heroes of the Sunnis of Beirut,' according to a statement
on Twitter. The Sunni jihad in Syria had come to Beirut, and Nasrallah
and his Iranian masters have to accept that this was the war they made.
Iran plays a double game. It feigns respectability in regional affairs;
it even wants a role in the negotiations over Syria, if and when these
negotiations materialize. Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, described
Syria in an article under his name in the Washington Post as a
'civilizational jewel,' even as Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah
fighters have heaped grief and loss on Syrian civilians. But the attack
in Beirut is a stark confirmation that Iran has run out of deniability
for its deeds in Syria." http://t.uani.com/I1CtKd
George Schultz in
WSJ: "With U.S.-led talks to curb Iran's nuclear
program underway in Geneva this week, American diplomats would do well to
take a few pointers from the Gipper-my former boss, Ronald Reagan, that
is-on how to negotiate effectively:
1.
Be realistic; no rose-colored glasses.
Recognize opportunities when they are there, but stay close to reality.
2.
Be strong and don't be afraid to up the
ante.
3.
Develop your agenda. Know what you want
so you don't wind up negotiating from the other side's agenda.
4.
On this basis, engage. And remember:
The guy who is anxious for a deal will get his head handed to him...
Apply these ideas to the Iranian problem-the regime's
increasing nuclear capacity and its unacceptable behavior. The reality is
that Iran is the world's most active sponsor of terror, directly and
through proxies such as Hezbollah, and it has developed large-scale
enrichment capacity that far exceeds anything needed for power-plant
operations. Worse, Iran openly expresses its intent to destroy Israel.
The election of President Hasan Rouhani, a 'moderate' in the eyes of
some, may provide a slight opening. But don't bet on it. At this point,
strength in the form of sanctions is taking its toll. As with the INF negotiations,
the U.S. shouldn't be afraid to up the ante. Tehran maintains that it
wants nothing more than to produce nuclear power for its people, medical
research and the like. As former Sen. Sam Nunn, currently CEO of the
Nuclear Threat Initiative, said on Nov. 11 in an address to the American
Nuclear Society: 'An agreement with Iran that allows us to test and
verify Iran's claim that it has no intention of producing nuclear weapons
is absolutely essential.' Moreover, if Iran has no intention of producing
nuclear weapons, then Tehran should cease all uranium enrichment and
immediately allow international inspections for verification. Nuclear
materials for power and research facilities are readily available and
have been offered to Iran for such purposes for years. Do we have a
fallback position? Yes. Allow Iran and the IAEA to identify an existing
Iranian-enrichment facility that can supply what is needed for purely
civilian use. Then make sure that all the other enrichment facilities and
the heavy-water reactor in Iran are destroyed under international
inspection. Once the job is done, sanctions will be lifted. It has become
a cliché, but it still holds true: Trust but verify." http://t.uani.com/I6DX6m
Jeffrey Lewis in
FP: "The purpose of an interim deal is to persuade
Iran to suspend part of its nuclear program for six months in exchange
for limited relief from international sanctions, while the parties hammer
out a more comprehensive deal. Everything looked set a few weeks ago in
Geneva, until French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius raised some
last-minute issues that sent the Iranians back to Tehran for further
consultations. The French had a number of concerns -- some substantive,
others procedural -- although early press reporting focused on the
nuclear reactor that Iran is completing near Arak. The French were not
entirely pleased with the terms of the draft agreement on the suspension
at Arak, insisting on tougher language. Within our own highly polarized
political system, this news exploded. Proponents of the negotiations
acted betrayed, as if the French had suddenly scuttled the deal. Plenty
of pundits retreated to tired geopolitical conspiracies, like the notion
that the French were scheming to sell more arms to Saudi Arabia.
Opponents of negotiations, who had spent a decade demonizing the French
over Iraq and munching on Freedom Fries, were dumbstruck. Vive la France!
But, really, it's not very surprising at all. Since President Jacques
Chirac left office in 2007, the French have become increasingly hawkish
on security issues, as evidenced by their enthusiasm for military action
in Libya, Mali, and Syria. Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from
Venus, huh? You'll pry nuclear weapons from Marianne's cold, dead hands.
More importantly, though, the French were right on the merits. A freeze
on Iran's nuclear program needs to include a freeze on construction work
at Arak. France's insistence on a real suspension won't scuttle the deal.
The parties are almost certain to work out some compromise on Arak this
week, as part of a broader freeze on Iran's nuclear program. The deal
will be better for France's intransigence. Bien sur, Foreign Minister
Fabius was wrong to grandstand in public over the terms of the
negotiation in Geneva, but politicians do embarrassing things. He was
miffed at getting the text just two days before the meeting, suspected
the Iranians had already seen it, and saw Secretary of State John Kerry's
presence as an intrusion. Fabius was acting out, but more to the point,
he was driving a hard bargain... As best I can tell, under the original
draft agreement, the Iranians committed not to bring the reactor online
during the interim agreement. They could, however, continue to install
equipment at Arak and manufacture fuel for the reactor, bringing it to
the brink of operation during negotiations. The Iranians have now
indicated that they are behind schedule, and will not have a load of fuel
for the reactor before August 2014. In other words, the draft agreement
would have allowed Iran to do everything it planned at Arak over the next
six months, then start accumulating leverage in the form of plutonium if
the terms of the deal were not acceptable. The weeks before Iran loads
fuel at Arak will be a moment of maximum danger -- the United States and
Israel will think long and hard about their last opportunity to destroy
the reactor before it is filled with radioactive fuel... This is not some
abstract problem. French researcher Bruno Tertrais has carefully
explained France's 'tough attitude' toward Iran in terms of its
experience dealing with Tehran since 2003. The French have been here
before -- and with Hassan Rouhani. In 2004, Rouhani negotiated something
called the 'Paris Agreement' with the E3, under which the Iranians agreed
to suspend their conversion and enrichment of uranium for a few months,
while talks continued. The suspension was later extended. Although the
suspension included 'all tests or production at any uranium conversion
installation,' Iran continued installing equipment at its Esfahan
conversion facility. In fact, work never stopped. The commitment to
refrain from tests or production was largely symbolic, since Iran was not
yet ready to do either -- it was still installing equipment. In 2005,
when Iran was ready to start up the Uranium Conversion Facility at
Esfahan, the talks stumbled. Iran indicated that it would continue to
forego enrichment, but that it would begin the conversion process,
producing uranium hexafluoride that could later be enriched. The Iranian
talking point was that conversion was never really part of enrichment,
anyway. The Europeans realized that the Iranians had gotten the better of
them. Frustrated with Rouhani, the Europeans stalled to see whether the
Iranian presidential election improved the negotiating environment.
Surprise! The Iranians elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Upon taking office,
Ahmadinejad replaced Rouhani and moved quickly to restart the nuclear
program. Of course, he was able to do this because Rouhani had arranged
the suspension to inflict the minimum delay. The Europeans were not very
happy. Adding insult to injury, Rouhani, now out of office and under
attack in Iran, gave speeches and interviews defending his handling of
negotiations with the West. (He has also written a memoir.) Rouhani defended
himself against hardline critics by arguing that the suspension had been
a suspension only in appearance. 'We only agreed to suspend activities,'
Rouhani told one group, 'in those areas where we did not have technical
problems.' He added that the suspension actually benefited Iran's nuclear
program 'by creating a calm environment' that allowed Iran 'to complete
the work in Esfahan.' Rouhani admitted that the Europeans were sore about
the whole thing: 'The day when the Esfahan project was completed and put
into operation,' he told the conservative newspaper Keyhan, 'the
Europeans just began to complain. In a session, they told our experts
that we deceived them and did our work in Esfahan.' ... It is hard to
read Rouhani's defenses of his actions, then blame French diplomats for
taking a rather, shall we say, Cartesian view of what is, and is not, a
suspension. Many of them, like Martin Briens, deputy chief of staff for
Fabius, have been working on the Iran file for years. Chat échaudé craint
l'eau froide. A suspension in Iran's nuclear programs needs to include
activities at the Arak reactor. Allowing Iran to install equipment and
accumulate fuel for the reactor is simply not a suspension. So the French
pressed to toughen the terms, including a freeze on the production of new
fuel for Arak." http://t.uani.com/IicIVB
Michael Crowley in
TIME: "The most powerful man in Iran certainly has a
way with words. He calls America 'the devil incarnate' with plans for
'evil domination of Iran.' Negotiating with the United States, he said in
2009, would be 'naive and perverted.' He warns that the west is plotting
to 'arouse sexual desires' in Islamic Iran, because 'if they spread
unrestrained mixing of men and women... there will no longer be any need
for artillery and guns.' The words of that man, Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei, are of extreme interest to the United States. Enough so that
the National Security Agency reportedly tracks Khamenei through a secret
surveillance project dubbed Operation Dreadnaught, although one former
U.S. official tells TIME the spying reveals more details about Khamenei's
movements than his mindset. No eavesdropping was necessary on Wednesday,
however, when Khamenei was at it again-delivering a typically bellicose
public speech in Tehran just as negotiators arrived in Geneva for a new
round of talks over Iran's nuclear program. He called Israel a 'rabid
dog' government, 'doomed to failure and annihilation,' and run sub-human
leaders 'They are like animals, some of them.' He also assailed the 'arrogance'
of the U.S. and added that, in the nuclear talks, Iran 'will not step
back one iota from our rights.' The televised diatribe to an audience of
50,000 Basij militia men, who thrust their fists in their air and chanted
'Death to America,' cast a pall over the Geneva talks-and left U.S.
officials awkwardly signaling their disapproval without picking a
rhetorical fight that could upset the delicate negotiations. 'Obviously,
comments like these are not helpful,' State Department spokeswoman Jen
Psaki gingerly told reporters in Washington. 'But we still believe that
both sides are negotiating in good faith.' A French official was firmer,
calling the Supreme Leader's words 'unacceptable' and saying they would
'complicate' the talks. The generally reclusive Khamenei's appearance on
the public stage was a timely reminder that behind the gentle faces the
regime has presented to the outside world recently is a vitriolic figure
who, some observers fear, may be incapable of reaching an agreement with
America and its allies. Khamenei, who rules by supposed divine right,
would have veto power over any potential nuclear deal struck by his
foreign minister in Geneva, even if Iranian president Hassan Rouhani
supports it as well. 'He has a very deeply ingrained suspicion, and I
would say hatred for the United States,' says Gary Samore, who served as
White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction and arms control
and is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran. 'It really is
defining for Khamenei.' 'He is an isolated, paranoid figure who is
convinced the U.S. and west raise concerns over the nuclear program
only as fig leaf for hidden goal of regime change,' says another former
Obama administration official who worked closely on Iran issues." http://t.uani.com/1bFnddD
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment