|
|
Top Stories
Reuters:
"Two suicide bombings rocked Iran's embassy compound in Lebanon on
Tuesday, killing at least 23 people including an Iranian cultural attaché
and hurling bodies and burning wreckage across a debris-strewn street. A
Lebanon-based al Qaeda-linked group, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, claimed
responsibility and threatened further attacks unless Iran withdraw forces
from Syria, where they have backed President Bashar al-Assad's
2-1/2-year-old war against rebels. Security camera footage showed a man
in an explosives belt rushing towards the outer wall of the embassy
before blowing himself up, Lebanese officials said. They said a car bomb
parked two buildings away from the compound had caused the second,
deadlier explosion. The Lebanese army, however, said both blasts were
suicide attacks. In a Twitter post, Sheikh Sirajeddine Zuraiqat, the
religious guide of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, said the group had
carried out the attack... Shi'ite Iran actively supports Assad against
mostly Sunni rebels - two of its Revolutionary Guard commanders have been
killed in Syria this year - and, along with Hezbollah fighters, it has
helped turn the tide in Assad's favor at the expense of rebels backed and
armed by Sunni powers Saudi Arabia and Qatar." http://t.uani.com/18kIgEN
AFP:
"Tehran accused Israel of carrying out deadly double blasts on
Tuesday outside the Islamic republic's embassy in Beirut that killed two
Iranians, including a diplomat, according to media reports. The bombings
were 'an inhuman crime and spiteful act done by Zionists and their
mercenaries,' foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said in remarks
carried by the official IRNA news agency... Afkham also confirmed that
Iran's cultural attache Ibrahim Ansari, a mid-ranking Shiite cleric, was
killed in the bombings. In Tehran, state television and the Mehr and Fars
news agencies said the second Iranian killed in the blasts was a security
guard who had been manning the embassy's gate." http://t.uani.com/17kG3Zn
Reuters:
"Iranian parliamentarians gathered signatures on Tuesday to demand
that the government carry on enriching uranium to levels of 20 percent, a
move that could complicate nuclear talks between Iran and world powers in
Geneva this week... 'On the eve of the Geneva talks, we plan to approve
such a proposal in parliament. Based on that the government is obliged to
protect the nuclear rights of Iran in the forthcoming negotiations,' Mehr
news agency quoted member of parliament Fatemeh Alia as saying. Another
MP, Mehdi Mousavinejad, said the measure would require the government to
maintain enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, complete the nuclear fuel
cycle and finish construction of the Arak heavy water reactor... On
Monday, French President Francois Hollande set out a tough stance against
Iran during a visit to Israel, saying he would not give way on nuclear
proliferation. His remarks came in for criticism on Tuesday from an
Iranian parliamentary official. 'We advise the president of France to
comment on the basis of facts, not assumptions, and beyond that, not to
be the executor of the Zionist regime's (Israel's) plan,' Alaeddin
Boroujerdi, the head of the assembly's national security and foreign
affairs committee told its official news agency." http://t.uani.com/I2KEqf
Reuters:
"Legislation to impose tough new sanctions on Iran is not expected
to come to a vote in the Senate before December, after the end of the
next round of negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program, U.S. lawmakers
and congressional aides said on Monday. As diplomats headed to Geneva for
a third round of talks this week, members of Congress have been debating
behind closed doors whether to go ahead with the new set of stricter
economic sanctions on Iran relating to its nuclear program. President
Barack Obama has asked Congress to hold off on more sanctions to allow
time to pursue a diplomatic deal. The Senate Banking Committee, which had
been expected to vote on a stand-alone sanctions bill by September,
delayed such action at the Obama administration's request. Frustrated by
the committee's failure to move ahead, several Republicans have said they
were considering proposing new sanctions on Iran as an amendment to a
defense authorization bill the Senate is debating this week. But
lawmakers and aides said on Monday no such action was expected until
after senators come back on Dec. 2 from next week's Thanksgiving recess.
'I don't see anything happening until we get back,' Senator Bob Corker,
the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
Banking Committee member, told reporters. Democratic Senator Tim Johnson,
the banking panel's chairman, declined comment on when the committee
might consider the stand-alone sanctions package." http://t.uani.com/17I2AMC
 Nuclear Negotiations
AFP: "US Secretary of State John Kerry
on Monday sought to play down hopes that a deal on Iran's nuclear program
could be reached before the end of the week. 'I have no specific
expectations with respect to the negotiations in Geneva except that we
will negotiate in good faith,' Kerry said, after meeting with his Turkish
counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu. 'We will try to get a first step agreement
and hope that Iran will understand the importance of coming there
prepared to create a document that can prove to the world that this is a
peaceful program.' ... Kerry, who will be represented by his deputy Wendy
Sherman, said he had to be in Washington on Thursday for a congressional
hearing. But he did not rule out arranging a last minute flight to Geneva
if a deal appeared in the offing, as he did earlier in the month. 'We'll
see what develops, as to whether or not we can get close, and get this
done,' Kerry added." http://t.uani.com/1fcvhJp
Trend:
"Spokesman of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Behrouz Kamalvandi
has dismissed any 'decline or shutdown' in Iran's nuclear activities,
ISNA news agency reported on Nov. 18. He went on to note that Iran's
nuclear facilities have not decreased activity. Activity cannot be judged
by only a few months of investigations, Kamalvandi added. On November 14,
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its quarterly
report on Iran's nuclear program. According to the report, Iran has
stopped expanding its uranium enrichment capacity since Hassan Rouhani
became president." http://t.uani.com/1irr98n
The
Witness (South Africa): "A shopping bag filled
with stolen uranium has been seized in a sting operation in Durban,
triggering alarm among local and international nuclear watchdog agencies.
The kilogram of the radioactive material confiscated is believed to be a
mere sample from a much larger batch, for which police are now hunting.
In a joint operation involving the Durban organised crime unit, crime
intelligence and the department of minerals and energy, two men were
arrested in their car opposite a shopping centre on the Bluff, following
an informant's tip-off... On Monday, a major anti-nuclear weapons lobby
group in the US - United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI) - voiced concern
at the seizure, due to its general suspicions that Iran could be behind
the smuggling of fissile materials from Africa. Spokesperson Nathan
Carleton told The Witness: 'This is highly concerning. South Africa must
be vigilant in policing such activities, as Iran does not play by the
same rules that other world powers do.'" http://t.uani.com/185E2D4
Sanctions
AFP:
"President Barack Obama will personally urge powerful US senators
Tuesday to hold off on imposing more sanctions on Iran, to allow high
stakes nuclear talks to succeed. Obama will meet leading members of key
Senate committees on the eve of the next round of talks between world
powers and Iran in Geneva aimed at clinching an interim deal to boost
diplomacy on ending a nuclear showdown. The talks come as hawks on
Capitol Hill in both parties mull slapping extra sanctions on Iran,
reasoning that painful economic punishments prompted Tehran to negotiate
and extra pain could prod it to capitulate... 'It's the president's view
that it's the right thing to do for Congress to pause so that we can test
whether or not the Iranians are serious about resolving this issue diplomatically,'
White House spokesman Jay Carney said." http://t.uani.com/1aplcoY
WSJ:
"Iran's national gas company said it is facing collapse, the latest
sign of deepening economic distress from international sanctions as
Tehran seeks urgent relief in talks with world powers. The chief
executive officer of state-owned National Iranian Gas Company, Hamid Reza
Araghi, said over the weekend that the company has declared bankruptcy,
according to the semiofficial Mehr news agency. The report said the
company had a debt of 100 trillion rials, or about $4 billion. The
company tried to backtrack on the comments Monday. Majid Boujarzadeh, a
spokesman reached by phone, denied it was bankrupt. But media reports
also quoted Iran's oil minister, Bijan Zangeneh, as saying the gas
company 'is destroyed.' ... 'Iran's economy is out of breath,' said
Fereydoun Khavand, an economist and Iran expert based in Paris. 'They've
always had mismanagement, but they were able to ward it off with oil
revenues. Now their pockets are emptying out fast.'" http://t.uani.com/1bXY8wa
Human Rights
NYT:
"The family of Amir Hekmati, a former American Marine who has been
incarcerated in Iran for more than two years even though his espionage
conviction was overturned, has been contacted by the United Nations for
details on his case, Mr. Hekmati's sister said Monday. The sister, Sarah
Hekmati, said that representatives from the United Nations human rights
agency had reached out to her in recent weeks. The Iranian government has
not explained why it has continued to hold Mr. Hekmati, an American of
Iranian descent who was taken into custody while on a visit to see his
maternal grandmother and other relatives in 2011. Mr. Hekmati, 30,
disappeared for three months, and then was charged with espionage, tried
and sentenced to death. The verdict was overturned and a new trial was
ordered in March 2012. But that retrial has never happened, and the
charges against him - if any remain - have never been stated by the
Iranian judicial authorities. Mr. Hekmati and his family have repeatedly
said he is innocent of any wrongdoing and do not understand why he was
ever arrested." http://t.uani.com/1h0q0p2
Opinion
& Analysis
WashPost Editorial: "For the
war-weary United States, a deal that halts Iran's progress toward a
nuclear weapon in exchange for partial sanctions relief, which the Obama
administration hopes to conclude this week, would greatly reduce the
possibility that the United States would be forced to take military
action against Iran in the coming months. That risk has been growing
because of Tehran's installation of a new generation of centrifuges for
uranium enrichment and because of the approaching completion of a reactor
that could produce plutonium. If a long-term accord can be struck during
a planned negotiating period of six months, the dangers of a new Middle
East war and an Iranian bomb could be alleviated. Israel, of course, also
wishes to avoid war. But Israeli leaders have more to fear than do
Americans from a bargain that leaves the bulk of the Iranian nuclear
infrastructure in place, even temporarily. If no final settlement were
reached, and the larger sanctions regime began to crumble - as the
Israelis fear it would - Iran could be left with a nuclear breakout
capacity as well as a revived economy. From Israel's point of view,
keeping sanctions in place until Iran agrees to a definitive compromise -
or its regime buckles - looks like a safer bet. But even a permanent
settlement would be unattractive to Israel if it meant that the United
States would step back from the regional conflict spawned by Iran's
decades-old effort to gain hegemony over the Middle East. Like Saudi
Arabia and other Sunni Arab governments, Israel does not wish to be left
alone to face Iranian aggression in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon or its
terrorist activities across the region... Rather than argue in public,
U.S. and Israeli officials should be working to forge a consensus on the
terms of an acceptable final settlement with Iran. There, differences may
not be as great: While Mr. Netanyahu campaigns for a permanent end to
Iranian enrichment, a large reduction in Iran's nuclear capacity,
combined with more intrusive inspections, would leave Israel far more
secure than at present. At the same time, the Obama administration ought to
be assuring Israel and Arab allies that it will continue to reject Iran's
regional ambitions, respond to its aggressive acts and support the
aspirations of Iranians for a democratic regime that respects human
rights. With such understandings in place, the U.S.-Israeli argument
would be manageable." http://t.uani.com/1bAM9CR
Simon Henderson & Olli Heinonen in WINEP:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran's
nuclear program, released November 14, has generated a profusion of
optimistic news reports and editorials. According to the IAEA, Tehran has
not increased the number of centrifuges installed at declared
installations or put more advanced centrifuges into operation, and its
stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride remains below a
crucial red line. Meanwhile, work has been proceeding slowly at the Arak
reactor, which will be capable of producing plutonium, an alternative
nuclear explosive. And three days before releasing the report, the IAEA
announced that Iran had agreed to give the agency access to information
on some previously blocked aspects of its nuclear program. Much less
emphasized in the report, and the coverage of it, are the IAEA's
persistent suspicions of Iran's true motives, as detailed under the
heading 'Possible Military Dimensions.' As page 10 of the thirteen-page
report noted, 'Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned
about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related
organizations, including activities related to the development of a
payload for a missile.' The agency also received information indicating
that Iran has carried out activities 'relevant to the development of a
nuclear explosive device.' The report deemed this intelligence to be
'credible,' noting that the IAEA has obtained more information since
November 2011 that 'further corroborates' its analysis. In addition, the
report states that Iran 'has dismissed the Agency's concerns' and
'considers them to be based on unfounded allegations.' Accordingly,
Tehran is still not answering the IAEA's detailed questions or providing
access to the Parchin site just outside the capital, where it may have
had an installation capable of testing conventional explosives for
possible use in an implosion-type atomic bomb. Theoretically, one could
argue that Tehran's obstinacy is in line with its narrative that the
Iranian nuclear program is, and always has been, for peaceful purposes
only. The government's view of nuclear energy is explained at length in a
new, apparently official, website, which reiterates Iran's intention to
master all aspects of the nuclear cycle and maintain a very extensive
civil nuclear power-generating program. Yet even apart from the strong
evidence of 'possible military dimensions,' this approach to energy
development seems odd for a country with the world's fourth-largest oil
reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves, but fairly limited
uranium resources. In the longer term, the apparent aim of current
diplomacy is to make sure that Iran's nuclear activities are kept under a
stringent safeguards regime. Yet any such system requires clarity about
what Iran has done and may still be doing clandestinely, not only to
allow for eventual implementation of a deal, but also to mitigate the
concerns of U.S. regional allies who are apprehensive about making
concessions to Iran... Therefore, a new interim agreement cannot be
implemented unless Tehran declares all of its current and past enrichment
locations, all of the centrifuges it has manufactured and installed, and
all of its nuclear material holdings, including yellowcake. It must also
provide information about the manufacture of remaining components for the
Arak heavy-water reactor. As talks continue in Geneva this week,
negotiators should focus on these and other disclosure issues in order to
maximize international confidence in the diplomatic track and avoid
making premature concessions to Tehran that could prove difficult to
rescind. Looking at the bigger picture, the credibility of the global
nonproliferation system is at stake, as is the UN Security Council's
authority to enforce its resolutions." http://t.uani.com/I2NsUl
David Sanger &
Jodi Rudoren in NYT: "To the Israeli government, the
preliminary deal with Iran that the Obama administration is trying to
seal this week is a giveaway to a government that has spent two decades
building a vast nuclear program. It enshrines the status quo - at a time
when the Iranians are within reach of the technical capability to build a
bomb - and rewards some unproven leaders with cash and sanctions relief.
President Obama and his top aides see the same draft deal in sharply
different terms. To them, it is a first effort to freeze the Iranian
program, to buy some time to negotiate a more ambitious deal, and to stop
two separate methods of developing a bomb, one involving uranium, the
other plutonium. In return, the Iranians get modest relief from
sanctions, but not what they desperately desire, the ability to again
sell oil around the world. That would come only later as part of a final
agreement that would require the Iranians to dismantle much of their
nuclear infrastructure. Those two divergent views have deeply politicized
the question of whether the accord that the United States and its
European allies are considering should be termed a good deal or a bad
one. It is a fundamental disagreement that has left in tatters whatever
halfhearted efforts Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel have made over the past five years to argue that they are on the
same page when it comes to Iran... Yet the disagreement is about far more
than negotiating tactics. In interviews, both American and Israeli
officials conceded that the terms of the preliminary accord reflect a
difference in fundamental goals. Mr. Obama speaks often of his
determination to prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon; Mr.
Netanyahu sets a far higher bar of preventing Iran from gaining, or keeping,
the capability to ever build one... The White House, alarmed by Mr.
Netanyahu's outspoken opposition and by an effort in Congress to enact a
new round of sanctions on Iran that Israel supports, is trying to shore
up its own arguments. Mr. Obama is bringing the leaders and ranking
members of the Senate foreign relations, intelligence, armed services and
banking committees to the White House on Tuesday to make the case that if
Iran is going to be coaxed into a deal, the country's new leaders must go
home with some modest appetizer of sanctions relief - as an indication
that the United States is ready to deal... The details of the proposed
agreement have been closely held by the administration - and, the
Israelis claim, from Jerusalem - but what is known about the deal gives
both sides plenty of talking points. While the Americans say it
"freezes" the Iranian program and rolls it back, the fact is
that only some elements are frozen, and the rollbacks in the initial
agreement are relatively minor. For example, Iran would continue adding
to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, meaning uranium enriched to
reactor grade, or less than 5 percent purity. But the United States
maintains that under details of the agreement it cannot yet disclose, the
overall size of Iran's stockpile would not increase. The reason appears
to be that Iran would agree to convert some of its medium-enriched
uranium - fuel enriched to 20 percent purity, or near bomb grade - into
an oxide form that is on the way to becoming reactor fuel. But that
process can be easily reversed, notes Olli Heinonen, the former chief
inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr. Netanyahu's camp
and some Israeli analysts say the Israeli leader's unstinting opposition
is both substantive and political. He truly believes that a deal lifting
sanctions without fully halting enrichment and dismantling centrifuges is
a terrible mistake. But he has also staked his premiership on fighting
the Iranian nuclear threat, and the change in approach by his closest
allies leaves him a bit rudderless... There are also different accounts
of what would happen to a heavy-water nuclear reactor now under
construction near the town of Arak. The facility is critical to Iran's
plans because, if operating, it could provide it with a steady supply of
plutonium, the fuel North Korea and now Pakistan have used for their
arsenals. France stepped into the negotiations 10 days ago complaining
that the draft accord would allow Iran to get too close to being able to
insert fuel into that reactor - at which point it could not be bombed by
Israel without risking a radioactive, environmental disaster. The
proposed agreement has since been modified, American officials say, to
make sure that Iran is months to a year from being able to put fuel in
the reactor. To the United States, that is plenty of warning time but the
Israelis want the plant taken apart, and the parts shipped out of the
country." http://t.uani.com/I16cD9
Emily Landau in
Haaretz: "For years, those who have negotiated on
behalf of the international community with Iran on the nuclear issue have
suffered a debilitating weakness at the table due to their dependence on
a negotiated settlement in order to achieve their goal of stopping Iran.
All the while, Iran itself was never similarly tied to a negotiated deal,
and could move unilaterally to its goal. For a long time this enabled
Iran to use negotiations tactically in order to play for time, while
simultaneously pushing forward its nuclear program. For the first time,
this situation is changing. The latest talks underscore that the impact
of biting sanctions has made Iran also dependent on a negotiated
settlement. It cannot get desperately needed sanctions relief without
cooperating with the international community, a fact which should
strengthen the hand of the P5+1 negotiators. In the last round there were
some indications that these states were indeed assuming the lead. For
example, discussion focused on a P5+1 proposal, rather than Zarif's
PowerPoint presentation from mid-October. And once France's reservations
were incorporated into the P5+1 draft, they were quickly approved by all
six parties, leaving no internal divisions for Iran to exploit. So why is
the Obama administration adamantly opposing further pressure on Iran?
Kerry insists that if new sanctions are passed by Congress they would be
viewed as bad faith by the Iranians, destroy the prospect of getting an
agreement, and could even lead to military confrontation, presumably by
pushing Iran to make a dash to the bomb. These concerns are an
exaggeration. Similar fears were raised before the biting 2012 sanctions
were put in place, but they did not push Iran to exit the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; rather, the pressure brought Iran
back to the table, in line with its rational cost-benefit approach on the
nuclear front. Indeed, the most likely result of further pressure would
be Iran's realization that it is not only dependent on the P5+1 for the
relief it seeks, but that the pressure card will continue to be played.
This would actually enhance the ability of the P5+1 to get the deal they
want. Moreover, in the highly unlikely event that Iran were to react by
rushing to the bomb, the regime would expose itself as having lied and
cheated all along. Iran knows that this could trigger military action, in
line with declared U.S. policy. Clearly the United States greatly fears
being put in a position where it would have no choice but to strike Iran
militarily, but giving voice to this fear unfortunately risks weakening
its hand, just at the time when it has finally become stronger. The
United States is also concerned, as Kerry noted, that additional
sanctions could wind up setting the United States back in dialogue that
is has taken 30 years to achieve. But American concerns about squandering
the long-term prospect of a changed bilateral U.S.-Iranian relationship
should not interfere with the immediate focus on the nuclear file. Iran
is currently looking for a deal that will allow it to regain economic viability,
while not giving up its ability to move toward a military nuclear
capability. The original clause on Arak - that would have prevented Iran
from commissioning the facility for six months, but would have allowed
for continued construction work - is Iran's tactic in a nutshell. To make
'concessions' that are not concessions at all, because Iran was not on
track to commission the facility in the next six months, but certainly
wanted to be able to continue construction work so that it would be ready
to do so later in 2014. And in return, to get sanctions lifted. The only
chance the P5+1 have to get the nuclear deal they want is by keeping Iran
dependent on a negotiated deal for the sanctions relief they desperately
need. It's the last chance for a good deal, and the P5+1 should not
surrender any of the leverage they have worked so hard to gain, before
getting the results they seek. These states are today collectively much
stronger than they might realize; it would be a grave mistake to succumb
to unrealistic fears when steadfast determination is the order of the
day." http://t.uani.com/1hUAyY2
Douglas Feith in
WSJ: "President Obama wants Iran to suspend parts of
its nuclear program in return for easing international economic
sanctions. Critics contend that if the West strikes a deal along these
lines, Iran could cheat far more easily than the rest of the world could
reinstate tough sanctions. But Mr. Obama insists that relaxing sanctions
is reversible: If the Iranians are 'not following through,' he recently
told NBC News, 'We can crank that dial back up.' Peace and arms-control
agreements have a long history that warns against such assurances.
Democratic countries have time and again failed to get what they
bargained for with their undemocratic antagonists-and then found
themselves unable or unwilling to enforce the bargain. After World War I,
the Versailles and Locarno Treaties subjected Germany to arms-control
measures, including demilitarization of the Rhineland. When Germany's
Nazi regime boldly remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, neither Britain,
France nor any other treaty party took enforcement action. This and other
20th-century incidents led U.S. strategist Fred Iklé to write a prescient
1961 'Foreign Affairs' article titled 'After Detection-What?' He argued:
'In entering into an arms-control agreement, we must know not only that
we are technically capable of detecting a violation but also that we or
the rest of the world will be politically, legally and militarily in a
position to react effectively if a violation is discovered.' Iklé foresaw
that the Soviets would violate their agreements, and that U.S. presidents
would find it difficult or impossible to remedy the violations... What
typically happens with such agreements is the following: On the democratic
side, political leaders hype the agreement to their voters as a proud
diplomatic achievement. The nondemocratic side-typically an aggressive,
dishonest party-cheats. The democratic leaders have no desire to
detect the violation because they don't want to admit that they oversold
the agreement or, for other reasons, they don't want to disrupt relations
with the other side. If they can't ignore the violation, they will claim
the evidence is inconclusive. But if it is conclusive, they will belittle
the significance of the offense. Officials on the democratic side
sometimes even act as de facto defense attorneys for the cheaters... An
agreement that actually dismantled the Iranian nuclear program would be a
formidable accomplishment. But if Mr. Obama can justify his deal with
Iran only by promising to 'crank up' the relaxed sanctions if and when
the Iranian regime cheats, no one should buy it. History teaches that we
should expect the cheating, but not effective enforcement." http://t.uani.com/1fRVb2T
Reporters Without
Borders: "Reporters Without Borders is very
disappointed by President Hassan Rouhani's record on freedom of
information during his first 100 days in office and again urges him to
keep his promises to end abuse of authority, impunity and censorship. A
moderate conservative backed by Iran's reformists, Rouhani was declared
the first round's outright winner on 15 June and took office on 3 August.
Iranians used the election to vote en masse against Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei's policies, which are blamed for the arbitrary arrest of more
than 300 journalists and netizens and their torture by the intelligence
services. Rouhani repeatedly said during his campaign that 'all the
political prisoners should be released.' He also said on several occasions
that he wanted a change 'in favour of free speech and media freedom.'
These promises encouraged progressively-minded Iranians, especially young
people and women, to give him their vote and make him the Islamic
Republic's seventh president. Nonetheless, despite the release of some
prisoners of conscience, Iran continues to be one of the world's biggest
prisons for journalists and netizens, with around 50 currently detained.
At least 10 more journalists and bloggers have been arrested since his
election victory, 10 others have been sentenced to a combined total of 72
years in prison and three newspapers have been closed or forced to
suspend publishing under pressure from the authorities." http://t.uani.com/1h0qX0F
|
|
Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear
Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive
media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with
discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please
email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com
United Against Nuclear
Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a
commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a
regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an
issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own
interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of
nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment