Top Stories
The Hill:
"Vice President Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry on
Wednesday urged increasingly skittish senators to postpone new
sanctions on Iran. But President Obama's envoys found an even tougher
audience than they faced when making a similar appeal just two weeks
ago. 'What we're asking everybody to do is calm down, look hard at what
can be achieved and what the realities are,' Kerry told reporters
before heading into a meeting with members of the Senate Banking
Committee, which is weighing new sanctions on the Iranian energy
sector. 'If sanctions were to be increased, there are members of [the
international] coalition who have put [sanctions] in place who would
think we're dealing in bad faith, and they would bolt.' ... 'What we're
asking everybody to do is calm down, look hard at what can be achieved
and what the realities are,' Kerry told reporters before heading into a
meeting with members of the Senate Banking Committee, which is weighing
new sanctions on the Iranian energy sector. 'If sanctions were to be
increased, there are members of [the international] coalition who have
put [sanctions] in place who would think we're dealing in bad faith,
and they would bolt.' ... 'It was solely an emotional appeal,' Corker
said, adding that 'generally speaking' Kerry and others told lawmakers
to trust them. 'I am stunned that in a classified setting, when you are
trying to talk to the very folks that would be originating legislation
relative to sanctions, there would be such a lack of specificity,' said
Corker.. Democrats were tight-lipped after leaving a separate briefing
with Kerry and Biden. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
declined to answer questions. 'I'm undecided,' Senate Banking Committee
Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said about moving the sanctions bill...
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the co-author of sanctions legislation that
cleared the Senate unanimously two years ago, said the administration
has 'very low credibility' with lawmakers. Kirk vowed to use 'every
method I have as a senator' to move new legislation imposing tougher
sanctions on Iran, perhaps as an amendment to defense legislation
expected on the floor next week." http://t.uani.com/1gNClN8
Reuters:
"The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said on Wednesday he saw 'no
radical change' in Iran's nuclear program in the past three months,
roughly since President Hassan Rouhani replaced his combative
predecessor. Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), told Reuters the Islamic Republic was pursuing
its most sensitive nuclear activity, enrichment of uranium to a fissile
concentration of 20 percent... The IAEA is expected to issue its next
quarterly report on Iran - a document keenly scrutinized by Western
governments - on Thursday or Friday. It will be the first that only
covers developments after Rouhani took office. 'I can say that
enrichment activities are ongoing ... no radical change is reported to
me,' Amano, a veteran Japanese diplomat, said in an interview in his
office on the 28th floor of the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna. The
previous IAEA report, issued in August, showed Iran rapidly adding to
its enrichment capacity by installing 1,861 IR-1 centrifuges - machines
used to refine uranium - at its Natanz plant since May to reach a total
of 15,416." http://t.uani.com/HVwqqX
AFP:
"Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah warned in a rare public
appearance Wednesday that failure to strike a deal with ally Iran over
its nuclear programme would spell 'war in the region.' Nasrallah, who
normally appears via video link for fear of assassination by arch enemy
Israel, spoke in Hezbollah's southern Beirut stronghold to mark the
Shiite Muslim Ashura holiday... 'What is the alternative to a deal with
Iran and the countries of the world,' he asked. 'The alternative is war
in the region.' ... 'Israel does not want any accord that would avert
war in the region. It is regrettable that some Arab countries take the
Israeli side in its murderous choices. It is regrettable that (Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu is the spokesman for some Arab
countries.' ... 'We have two allies -- Iran and Syria,' he said,
adding: 'We are sure of that alliance.'" http://t.uani.com/1a7V01Z
Nuclear Negotiations
Reuters:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that
war could result from a bad deal between world powers and Iran over its
nuclear program. Netanyahu has been lobbying against any agreement at
talks due to resume in Geneva on November 20 that would fail to strip
Iran of nuclear enrichment capabilities. He has urged no let-up in
international economic sanctions... Addressing parliament, in a session
focusing on housing issues, Netanyahu said continued economic pressure
on Iran was the best alternative to two other options, which he
described as a bad deal and war. 'I would go so far as to say that a
bad deal could lead to the second, undesired option,' he said,
referring to war." http://t.uani.com/187xyBr
AFP:
"French President Francois Hollande and US President Barack Obama
on Wednesday jointly urged Iran to accept a deal presented by world
powers on its nuclear programme, Hollande's office said. In a statement
issued after a call between the two leaders, they also expressed
support for the text of an agreement put forward by world powers at
recent talks in Geneva. 'The two heads of state expressed their shared
determination to obtain from Iran every guarantee that it will finally
give up its military nuclear programme,' the statement said. Hollande
and Obama 'confirmed their full support for the text agreed' by the
P5+1 group of world powers at this weekend's talks, which they said
forms 'the basis for a serious, solid and credible agreement'. 'Now it
is up to Iran to give a positive answer,' the statement said." http://t.uani.com/1j6Vczy
AP:
"Russia's foreign minister says Iran had accepted a U.S.-draft
proposal on a nuclear deal, but last-minute amendments blocked an
accord last week in Geneva. Sergey Lavrov's account fits with comments
from Iran and world powers. But it offers additional insights into how
Washington apparently led the negotiations seeking to ease Western
concerns that Iran could one day produce nuclear weapons - a charge
Iran denies. Lavrov did not mention which country offered the 11th hour
amendments. Others, however, say France raised concerns over issues
such as a planned heavy water rector that produces more byproduct
plutonium." http://t.uani.com/1bqCiiT
Sanctions
LA Jewish
Journal: "Amid the international negotiations over
Iran's nuclear program, some national groups, as well as Los
Angeles-based Jewish community organizations and other Iran human
rights activists, have launched a new campaign calling for Los Angeles
city officials to bar from the Port of Los Angeles ships that have
docked in Iranian ports. During recent months, the campaign's primary
focus has been on L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, who since his election has
remained mum on the issue, though it is within his authority to ask the
port to enact such sanctions. 'It is greatly disappointing that Mayor
Garcetti has not even taken a position, let alone provided support or a
leading voice on this critical issue,' said David Peyman, an L.A.-based
senior adviser to United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), the New
York-based nonprofit advocating for tougher economic sanctions on the
Iranian regime. During the mayoral election campaign earlier this year,
UANI and six local Jewish organizations, including the Los Angeles
offices of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL), called on then-candidate Garcetti and his opponent, Wendy
Greuel, to support the ban on ships that had previously docked in
Iranian ports, following federally mandated Iran sanctions legislation
signed into law last year by President Barack Obama... Some city
officials are not staying silent on this issue, however. Los Angeles
City Councilmember Paul Koretz, who represents the city's 5th District,
which is home to the largest segment of Iranians in Los Angeles, has
introduced a number of City Council resolutions regarding Iran's human
rights abuses and nuclear ambitions. 'The City of Los Angeles is
fortunate enough to have and run the Port of Los Angeles, one of the
largest economic hubs in the world,' Koretz said in an interview.
'Consequently, we will make sure the port is strongly committed to
following the sanctions on Iran, thereby doing our part to make a safer
and more peaceful world.'" http://t.uani.com/1j6YLpj
The Hill:
"House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said
he's gunning for a bipartisan House resolution that would require
certain conditions be met for the administration to lift sanctions on
Iran... 'Our next step will probably be a resolution in the House,
which will express the necessity of going into these negotiations with
a stronger bargaining position,' Royce said. 'And that bargaining
position would include additional sanctions.' Royce offered insights
into what those conditions could be during a hearing on Iran earlier in
the morning. 'There is growing concern in Congress that the outlines of
this agreement do not meet the standards needed to protect the U.S. and
our allies,' he said. 'Of great concern, the proposal failed to
adequately address Iran's heavy water reactor, would allow Iran to
continue to enrich uranium and even continue building
centrifuges.'" http://t.uani.com/HOweJq
WSJ:
"The State Department sharply criticized an Israeli assessment
that international powers are offering to roll back as much as 40% of
the sanctions against Iran as part of ongoing nuclear talks, in another
display of deepening tension between the U.S. and its key Mideast ally.
The U.S. and other powers are considering giving Iran what they
describe as modest relief from punitive international sanctions in
exchange for steps by Tehran to halt its nuclear program. But Israel's
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said those steps directly or
indirectly would ease the punitive sanctions by about $40 billion a
year or around 40% of the overall impact. State Department spokeswoman
Jennifer Psaki, asked about the Israeli assessment, dismissed it
Wednesday as 'inaccurate, exaggerated and not based in reality.' Ms.
Psaki would not give a U.S. estimate for the impact of the sanctions
relief being considered, but said it would be considerably less than
the figure cited by Mr. Steinitz." http://t.uani.com/HSJg9a
Syria
Conflict
Reuters:
"Shi'ite militants from Hezbollah will keep fighting in Syria's
civil war alongside President Bashar al-Assad's forces as long as
necessary, the group's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Thursday.
Hezbollah has helped turn the tide in Assad's favor this year, leading
the recapture of the town of Qusair and fighting alongside his forces
south of Damascus and in the northern city of Aleppo. 'As long as the
reasons (to fight in Syria) remain, our presence there will remain,' Nasrallah
said in a speech in front of tens of thousands of Lebanese Shi'ites
marking the religious ceremony of Ashoura in southern Beirut. 'Our
fighters are present on Syrian soil...to confront all the dangers it
faces from the international, regional and takfiri attack on this
country and region,' Nasrallah said, referring to the foreign Islamist
rebels fighting in Syria." http://t.uani.com/1cXPHG1
Terrorism
FT:
"Lawyers acting for terrorism victims in a US court case that
accuses the Bank of China of helping Iranian-backed militant groups to
fund their operations say they have identified a new witness who will
bolster their case, which has been hindered by the Israeli government's
reluctance to embarrass Beijing. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli
attorney representing 22 families of terror victims said that the
claimants' lawyers planned to subpoena Stuart Levey, a former US
Treasury official they believe warned the Bank of China in 2007 about
accounts linked to Islamic Jihad and Hamas." http://t.uani.com/17U2pU9
Reuters:
"An Argentine prosecutor has asked a judge to declare as
unconstitutional an agreement between Argentina and Iran to jointly
investigate the deadly 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community
center that local courts blamed on Tehran. Alberto Nisman, who oversaw
an investigation of the AMIA center explosion that killed 85 people,
presented the appeal to a federal judge on Wednesday, according to a
document seen by Reuters. Israel and world Jewish groups denounced the
agreement under which Argentina and Iran formed a 'truth commission' in
January, saying it was a diplomatic win for Tehran, while offering no
benefit to Argentina." http://t.uani.com/1gNwQOu
Human Rights
RFE/RL:
"Iranian opposition leaders Mir Hossein Musavi, his wife Zahra
Rahnavard, and reformist cleric Mehdi Karrubi have been under house
arrest for more than 1,000 days. To mark the unhappy occasion,
Karrubi's wife, Fatemeh Karrubi, has turned to YouTube to express her
concern over her 75-year-old husband's health. In a video released on
November 12 and addressed to the Iranian people, Karrubi tells viewers
that Iranian authorities have held her husband without bringing any
official indictment against him. 'My regret is that, in an Islamic
state, a detention has been going on for three years without charges
being brought or judicial verdict announced,' she says." http://t.uani.com/HSJHAh
FT:
"Hassan Rouhani, Iran's centrist president, may have regime
backing in his efforts to reach an agreement with major powers over his
country's nuclear programme, but he is struggling to implement domestic
reform as hardliners block his attempts to expand civil liberties. Mr
Rouhani is not a reformist but largely owes his surprise victory in the
June presidential election to pro-reform groups who mobilised voters in
the hopes that his promises of moderation could bring more social and
political freedom and improved economic conditions after eight years of
suppression under president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. But while the
president and his government have the strong support of Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, the supreme leader and ultimate decision maker, in foreign
policy and nuclear negotiations, they remain unprotected in the tense
power struggle with hardliners on domestic issues." http://t.uani.com/1cXWsaM
Guardian:
"At the start of the academic year in September, Iran's ministry
of science, research and technology allowed about 40 students and a few
teachers, previously barred from university on account of their
political convictions or activities, to return to their respective
establishments. It also replaced several university presidents
perceived as particularly conservative with more moderate figures...
According to statistics collated by student organisations since
Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, 250 students were sent down. The
personal records of a further 770 were marked with stars, their number
indicating the severity of the sanctions inflicted on them, ranging
from a warning to outright expulsion. Jafar Tofighi, appointed by
President Hassan Rouhani in August as interim head of the science
ministry, immediately promised to resolve the problem of 'starred'
students. The ministry subsequently set up a committee to receive
complaints lodged by students and faculty members. In the middle of
September, Tofighi announced that 400 to 500 complaints had already
been received, adding that 40 students excluded in 2011-12 could enrol
again. In another move emblematic of the new government's determination
to allay the political tension in universities, Tofighi sacked
Sadreddin Shariati, the ultra-conservative head of Allameh Tabatabai
University, the top centre for human sciences in Tehran... Despite this
encouraging news, some argue that the decisions do not go far enough.
In September 175 students, former students and teachers asked the
science ministry to review the cases of starred students sanctioned in
2006-10, currently not covered by the ministry's decisions. 'It's still
possible things may change, but I'm not optimistic,' says Ali, previously
enrolled on a master's in journalism at Allameh Tabatabai University
and expelled in 2010." http://t.uani.com/1ialfby
Daily Telegraph:
"Iran's notorious morality police have been barred from arresting
women deemed to be immodestly dressed, as President Hassan Rouhani
moved to fulfil an election promise to ease up on the country's strict
Islamic dress code. Mr Rouhani, who has displayed a more moderate bent
than his hardline predecessor since taking office in June, has moved to
rein in the Gashte Ershad (Guidance Patrol), that has been a trademark
of the Islamic Republic since its inception in 1979. He has ordered the
Iranian police to hand over the 'modesty project' to the Ministry of
Interior, a move interpreted as a relaxation of the restrictive Islamic
mores that have long governed personal behaviour, particularly that of
women. Brigadier Ismail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, the head of the Iranian
police, said the issue of how women and men dressed was no longer a
matter of law enforcement." http://t.uani.com/1eN67AV
Foreign
Affairs
Reuters:
"The United Arab Emirates said on Wednesday it hoped Iran would
address issues straining ties with Gulf Arab countries as well as its
nuclear row with the West following the election of President Hassan
Rouhani. The UAE and Iran, rivals for regional influence, both lay
claim to the islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb at the
mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the
world's seaborne oil exports flow. 'We have a hanging issue with Iran -
Iran still occupies after 42 years three of our islands,' UAE Foreign
Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed told a news conference in Abu Dhabi.
The islands have been held by Iran since 1971, shortly before the seven
Gulf emirates gained full independence from Britain and formed the UAE,
now allied with Washington." http://t.uani.com/1cXPR0b
Opinion
& Analysis
UANI Executive Director David Ibsen
& Communications Director Nathan Carleton in RCW:
"The Iranian regime and its defenders are well-known for having good
(if selective) memories, particularly when it comes to stockpiling a
list of particulars for use against their opponents. For years,
criticisms of Iran's nuclear program and its sponsorship of terrorism
have been deflected, and Iran's activities rationalized as responses to
the traumatic events of the past, suffered at the hands of parties like
the CIA or the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Critics of the regime's
behavior, rhetoric and policies are also frequently subjected to
baseless attacks on their motivations and character. For example,
opponents of Iran's nuclear program are accustomed to being labeled
warmongers, Zionists, 'neocons,' racists or a combination of all. So it
was not surprising when the regime and its allies responded to the
recent breakdown in P5+1 Geneva talks with outlandish and inappropriate
accusations against reported holdout France and its Foreign Minister
Laurent Fabius, including allegations of racism and xenophobia. The
attacks were as misguided as they were impolite. In reality, France's
intervention in the discussions and its involvement in the drafting of
the final text were no surprise to longtime followers of the
multilateral discussions on Iran's nuclear program. French diplomats
are well-known to be vigilant experts in the field of nuclear
proliferation, who bring an especially technical and scientific
approach to diplomacy. It's surreal that France's motives would be so
quickly questioned, given Iran's decades-long track record of
misbehavior. Fabius himself is uniquely positioned to evaluate the
Iranian threat, as his tenure in government happened to coincide with a
period of robust and expansive Iranian and Iranian proxy terrorist
activities targeting French nationals and interests. Fabius served in
various positions in the French government during the 1980s and 1990s,
including as prime minster. During this period Iran and its proxies
were responsible for a series of deadly and illegal acts, including the
kidnapping of at least 15 Frenchmen in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992,
hijackings of Air France planes in 1983 and 1987, multiple
assassinations and assassination attempts in France against Iranian
exiles and opposition members and of course the French barracks bombing
in 1983 that killed 58 French paratroopers. It was France's single
worst military loss since the end of the Algerian War. Clearly,
experience -- not racism -- is the likely reason for Paris' distrust of
the Iranian regime's interlocutors in Geneva. The real question is why
similar skepticism is not being voiced by the numerous other nations
that carry similar scars of Iranian terrorism, kidnapping and
destabilization -- including, especially, the U.S... After 34 years of
hostility, the international community should demand much more from
Iran than 100 days of rhetoric before acquiescing to a deal that does
not fully mitigate the Iranian nuclear threat. More specifically,
the P5+1 should at the very least require that Iran comply with demands
to suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities -- a demand
which the same P5 has enshrined in its own Security Council
resolutions... Experience is life's best teacher. Apparently it takes
more than 100 days for Fabius and the French to get over the painful
experiences of Iranian terrorism, kidnapping and murder. Bravo. The
French, thankfully, have long memories too, and they just may have
saved the international community from making a colossal mistake."
http://t.uani.com/HSHPrp
Yuval Steinitz
in FT: "As negotiations on Iran's nuclear
programme make faltering progress towards an interim agreement - minor
gestures from Tehran in return for a partial relaxation of sanctions -
it is essential to have a concrete idea of the goal of the overall
diplomatic process. At first glance, reaching a comprehensive agreement
might seem exceedingly complicated. Yet if we narrow our focus to the
official, public statements of both sides, there is a simple, logical
solution. According to the public statements of Iranian leaders in the
past decade, what Tehran really wants is 'civilian nuclear energy'.
What the rest of the world wants, meanwhile, is the confidence that
Iran will not possess the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
Conveniently, these two demands can be reconciled by the following
formula: nuclear electricity, yes; uranium enrichment, no. Iran could
be permitted to operate a civilian nuclear reactor for the production
of electricity and medical purposes, but it should agree to buy its
nuclear fuel rods elsewhere. This would create a win-win situation. Why
should Iran reject such an apparently satisfactory solution - one that
could bring a quick end to the sanctions regime and immediate relief to
its economy? Tehran argues that 'uranium enrichment' has become part of
its 'national identity' and it would wound Iranian pride if it were
forced to buy fuel rods abroad. Tehran also claims all signatories to
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty possess an inherent right to
enrich, which cannot be disputed. Both arguments are an insult to human
intelligence. Acquiescence would result in an unreliable deal. In fact,
there are 25 countries around the world that operate purely civilian
nuclear programmes, and about 80 per cent of them import nuclear fuel
rods. Has this wounded the national pride of Sweden, Spain, Mexico or
South Africa? Iran's 'legitimate right' to enrich is similarly
preposterous. For starters, there is no such automatic privilege;
rather, permission to enrich is conditional on International Atomic
Energy Agency approval which, in turn, depends on meeting stringent
requirements over a meaningful period. Second, the UN Security Council
has already passed a series of binding resolutions contravening any
Iranian right to enrich uranium. Finally, and most important, even if
we were to assume all countries, including Iran, are entitled to
enrich, it would be eminently legitimate for the international
community to demand that Tehran concede such a right. It would be
perfectly reasonable to expect that the Iran of 2013, like Libya in
2003, would concede this 'legitimate right' in return for rescuing its
economy and placating the entire world... There is only one logical
solution that is profoundly simple: yes to nuclear energy; no to
uranium enrichment. Any alternative deal would be evidently illogical,
and thus incalculably dangerous." http://t.uani.com/17w11qh
Chuck Freilich
in The National Interest: "If this is, indeed, an
accurate depiction of what was proposed, the deal did not in fact live
up to the declared objective of freezing the Iranian program and
justifies much of the criticism that the P5+1, primarily the U.S. as
the leading player, were overly eager to achieve an agreement. It is
important to recognize, however, that the proposal at Geneva was
supposed to have been no more than an interim deal and proponents
argue, given the alternatives, that it was a worthwhile attempt to at
least delay the Iranian program somewhat, en route to a final
agreement. This then leads to two primary questions, the role of
sanctions during the interim phase, and the nature of the final
agreement to be sought. The Obama administration avers that the
sanctions relief under the proposed deal is highly limited and
reversible and would not weaken the basic sanctions regime, the drastic
limitations imposed on Iran's ability to export oil and access to the
international financial system, which have had a devastating effect on
its economy. In the short term, this is undoubtedly true. Critics
counter, however, that the sanctions regime has provided the
international community with unprecedented leverage over Iran, time is
on its side, and all it has to do is hold out for a while longer and
Iran will be forced to come to terms. They further argue that sanctions
relief, pending a final agreement, will lead to their erosion and
ultimate collapse, as foreign governments and companies begin talking
to Iran about future deals and Iran concludes that all it has to do is
tough it out for a while longer before the sanctions are suspended
completely. The critics' greatest fear is that a final agreement will
not actually be reached and that the interim agreement will thus leave
Iran with its basic nuclear-breakout capability intact, but without the
pressures of an effective sanctions regime. There is broad agreement
today that it was the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating
table-Iran itself has indicated as much. It is important to note,
however, that Iran has been the subject of unilateral American
sanctions for close to two decades, with limited effect on its economy
and virtually none on its nuclear policy, whereas the drastic
international sanctions imposed on Iran just sixteen months ago have
had a dramatic impact, leading to a collapse of Iran's oil exports and
foreign-currency revenues. The demand that the sanctions regime be
maintained and even further heightened is thus certainly not without
merit and while it is possible that increased pressure at this stage
would drive Iran from the negotiating table, others counter with an
equally plausible contention, that the opposite is far more likely, the
sanctions have finally become a direct threat to the regime and it will
have no choice but to concede, if the international community just
stands firm. A diplomatic deal is clearly preferable for all sides,
none more than Israel, which will be left with only two options should
the negotiations fail; living with a nuclear Iran through a policy of
deterrence, or a military strike, neither of which is a particularly
attractive alternative. It is far from clear that Israel would be
willing to accept the first option, even as part of a broader American
strategy of deterrence and containment, and a military strike will
likely achieve no more than a two to three year postponement of the
Iranian program; Iran already has the technology and the various installations
could be rebuilt within this period of time... A favorable final
agreement that not only the P5+1, but Israel and the Sunni Arab states
could live with, would have to ensure that Iran remains at least two to
three years from a breakout capability, hopefully a sufficient amount
of time for the international community to respond to a renewed Iranian
nuclear program. To this end, a final agreement would not just have to
cap enrichment at the 20 percent level, as proposed at Geneva, but end
all enrichment at that level and at least drastically reduce it at the
3.5 percent level, and transfer the existing stockpiles to foreign or
at least international control; mothball the Arak plutonium reactor, or
convert it to a light-water reactor or some other less dangerous use;
highly intrusive inspections, require Iranian ratification of the
Additional Protocol and probably more; and a stringent Security Council
resolution setting out clear and immediate consequences in the event
that Iran violates the agreement." http://t.uani.com/1ePS79M
David Keyes in
The Daily Beast: "Last month, Iran's foreign
minister took to Facebook not once, but twice, to denounce me as a
warmongering liar. Think of the absurdity. Iran is a nation of
nearly 80 million people. Its economy is plummeting. Hundreds of
political prisoners remain behind bars. Its nuclear program has
led to crushing international sanctions and isolation. Yet
somehow, the foreign minister found time to post two online rants in a
single week targeting the head of a small, New York-based human rights
organization. What did I do to get under Javad Zarif's skin? During his
recent New York charm offensive, I asked the foreign minister if he
thought it was ironic that he enjoyed posting on Facebook when his
government bans it in Iran. 'Ha! Ha!' he laughed. 'That's
life.' I asked when Majid Tavakoli, a student leader and
political prisoner, would be free. 'I don't know him,' Zarif responded.
After exposing this publicly, thousands of Iranians took to social
media to demand to know why their foreign minister was ignorant of one
of the most famous imprisoned dissidents. Days later, after four years
in jail, Tavakoli was freed on furlough. It turns out that even Iran-a
rogue, theocratic, state-sponsor of terror-is susceptible to bad PR and
global pressure. The Soviet Union, though vastly more powerful in its
day than Iran today, reacted similarly when confronted with the same
dilemma. In 1997, human rights lawyer and former Canadian Justice
Minister, Irwin Cotler, asked Mikhail Gorbachev why he let Soviet
dissident, Natan Sharansky, out of prison. Gorbachev said that
wherever he went in the world, he was confronted by people shouting
Sharansky's name. 'It wasn't worth the international price we paid,'
Gorbachev said. So it was with Tavakoli and Zarif. Was Tavakoli's
release a sign of moderation? Not exactly. For one, he only had a
few days to hug his mother and spend time with his family. The pressure
waned and last week he was quietly returned to prison. Second, hundreds
of more dissidents remain in jail: Shiva Ahari, Hossein Maleki, and
Bahare Hedayat to name just a few. Iran's Nobel Peace Prize winner,
Shirin Ebadi, tells me, 'We'll only find out if [President] Rouhani
genuinely wants change if he releases political prisoners. The
government announced that they had released political prisoners on
amnesty but that is not true. Those who were released had either
come to a natural end of their sentence or had very little of it left.'
She continued, 'The only one of these prisoners whose sentence was
commuted by three years and was freed was Nasrin Sotoudeh and the
reason for that is that she won the Sakharov prize last year and there
was international pressure on the regime. The remainder are still
behind bars: lawyers, Baha'is, writers and journalists.' The Nobel
Prize winner concluded, 'We can only say that changes are happening if
all these prisoners are released.' One can feel the cracks in Iran's
armor. When the foreign minister of a regional superpower takes to Facebook
to bully a human rights activist across the world, the insecurity is
palpable. Zarif complained that the way I asked my question to
him was 'impolite.' Funny, I think jailing journalists and bloggers is
'impolite.'" http://t.uani.com/1aTTti3
Golnaz
Esfandiari in RFE/RL: "'No one is executed in Iran
for political motives; our judiciary is independent,' said Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a November 6 interview with
the French daily, 'Le Monde.' Most of the executions carried out in
Iran occur as a consequence of drug-trafficking convictions. But
human-rights groups say the death penalty continues to be used as a
tool to stifle political dissent, especially among ethnic minorities.
Zarif made his comment two weeks after 16 prisoners were hanged in
Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province in an apparent retaliation for the
October 26 killing of 14 border guards along the border with Pakistan.
Iranian officials said the men were 'bandits linked to groups hostile
to the state.' Officials said they had been convicted and sentenced
previously. About 10 more prisoners were executed in November for a
variety of offenses. Among those put to death was Kurdish activist
Sherko Moarefi, who had been sentenced on charges that included
Moharebeh (waging war against God) and membership in the leftist group
Komala, which has been branded a terrorist organization by Iran. A
translation of Zarif's interview with 'Le Monde,' particularly his
comment regarding executions, was discussed among Iranians on social
media and condemned by some who accused him of lying to portray Iran
positively ahead of nuclear talks with Western powers. The talks in
Geneva ended on November 9 without an agreement, though another round
of talks is expected in 10 days. Many Iranians are hoping for a nuclear
agreement between Iran and world powers that could lead to an easing of
Western sanctions, which have made their life increasingly difficult.
Yet, some are also wondering whether a nuclear deal with Iran would
mean an end to Western concerns over the human-rights situation in the
Islamic republic. The fact that Zarif's statement about executions went
largely unnoticed and the relatively muted Western reaction to the
recent execution wave in Iran have contributed to the perception that
once a nuclear deal is signed, human-rights abuses will go ignored. On
the other hand, a nuclear deal could also lead to a relative opening up
of the domestic atmosphere and an improvement in the rights
situation." http://t.uani.com/1fBJqgK
Thomas Saether
in The National Interest: "Iran's past covert
enrichment activities-especially the revelation of Natanz in 2002 and
Fordow in 2009-have raised concerns about whether other covert
enrichment facilities exist in Iran today. In August 2010, then (and current)
Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi claimed that the construction of
an additional enrichment facility had started. However, operating a
covert enrichment program is not an easy task. Several important
decisions must be made which could have severe consequences for the
program's survivability. For an external actor, there are three main
tasks that would need to be undertaken in order to destroy a nuclear
facility: detecting the facility, characterizing the facility and
neutralizing it. Each of these tasks can be obstructed by different
means. Detecting and characterizing a nuclear facility can be done in
several ways: with satellite surveillance; utilizing technologies that
can detect radiation, heat concentrations, sound or vibrations
associated with operating nuclear facilities; or by human intelligence
(agents or informants). One method that is used by inspectors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is environmental sampling,
that is, collecting samples of soil, air, water, vegetation or smears
at the site of inspection and measure the isotopic composition between
the uranium isotope U-235 (fissile material) and the isotope U-238
(non-fissionable material). In its natural form, the composition would
be about 0.7:99.3. If enrichment has taken place the composition would
have a relatively higher concentration of U-235. In general, the less
enrichment that goes on (both in scale and time), the lesser the
chances of detection. Therefore, the size of the facility is crucial in
a covert enrichment operation, and the smaller the better. In order to
miniaturize the covert facility, one should aim for installing as few
centrifuges as possible. In order to reduce the number of enriching
centrifuges to a minimum, one should seek to increase the centrifuge
quality, that is, improve their effectiveness when it comes to
separating the isotope U-235 from U-238. The Iranian centrifuge type
called IR-2m is considered to be about three to five times more
effective than the IR-1. Iran could limit the number of centrifuges
necessary-and thus the size of the facility-by only installing the
IR-2m in a covert facility. The IAEA can only collect environmental
samples at facilities declared by the country in question or at
undeclared sites when the country is a signatory to the Additional
Protocol of the Nonproliferation Treaty. As long as this is not the
case, IAEA inspectors do not pose a serious risk to a country operating
hidden facilities. However, external intelligence agencies could
conduct similar missions. For example, prior to the alleged Israeli
operation against a Syrian reactor in 2007, a special unit of the
Israeli military was reportedly transported to the site of the reactor
for the purpose of collecting environmental samples. On-site sampling
can be done only when specific information about a potential nuclear
site exists. In most cases, however, one would need to look for a
needle in the haystack (without actually knowing whether the needle
exists). The most effective way to do this by environmental sampling is
to use instruments that can measure the isotopic composition in air
samples. Such instruments can have different detection range. In
general, instruments with smaller ranges would have greater
probabilities to detect enrichment activities. The problem with smaller
ranges, however, is that for a large country such as Iran, a great many
such instruments would be needed to measure every potential area. It is
therefore a tradeoff between range and probability of detection.
Moreover, topographical and metrological factors also affect such
instruments' detection probability. Iran's topographical conditions,
with hills and valleys, make effective air sampling difficult. Iran can
therefore deduce that such methods are not likely to be undertaken by Western
intelligence agencies unless specific information about a site is
obtained. A country seeking to hide nuclear facilities would therefore
concentrate on obstructing two other potential dangers: satellite
imagery and human intelligence." http://t.uani.com/172DWJx
Ali Ansari in Al
Jazeera: "Hassan Rouhani's surprise victory in the
June 14 elections, unleashed a wave of expectation and hope. Widely
considered a political outlier whose chief function was to lend
credibility to an electoral process that was struggling to recover from
the calamity of 2009, Rouhani's deft handling of the Iranian media, his
fluency in the debates and above all, his ability to tap into the
simmering discontent of the wider electorate all ensured that he became
the man to beat when Iranians went to the ballot box. Drawing powerful
and arguably game-changing support from two of the three grand old men
of Iranian politics - Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami
- Rouhani was able to galvanise and unite a broad coalition of
centrists and reformists behind a policy platform of prudence and
change. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, faced with the
prospect of an elite revolt born of deep anxiety about former President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political and economic legacy, was encouraged to
let the process follow through with minimal interference, though even
he appears to have been surprised at the strength of the public's
feeling. Rouhani thus won the election on the back of widespread
discontent, not only in the country at large, but among a broad
alliance of the disaffected elite, many of whom had no interest in any
significant political change. Rouhani may have campaigned as a
reformist but he finds that he is increasingly having to govern as a
conservative. This is proving to be a particularly difficult political
balancing act, and unsurprisingly, in some quarters, the lustre is
beginning to wear off... Almost all parties accept that the economy is
in increasingly dire straits, and as new ministers and officials begin
to pour through the books - if they exist at all - the real depth of
the economic crisis is only now becoming apparent. Even accounting for
a degree of exaggeration, as all succeeding governments have a tendency
to do, it is quite clear that economic mismanagement fuelled by
dramatic increases in oil revenue over the past eight years, and
compounded by the most severe sanctions that Iran has experienced in
recent times, have significantly damaged the economy. There is, to be
sure, no shortage of liquidity in the Iranian economy, but much of the
money has been spent on patronage and corruption, with a lamentable
lack of infrastructural investment. The government finds itself short
of cash, with many essential goods reportedly in short supply.
According to some ministers, it may be several years before they are
able to turn things around. Indeed, some have gone so far as to argue
that the situation in some sectors, including the oil industry is much
worse than in the immediate aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war... But
beyond this economic focus, the trend has been for him to be highly
cautious, leaving many supporters frustrated with the apparent lack of
any immediate desire for political reform. There can be little doubt
that there are limits to what Rouhani could have achieved in his first
100 days, but his promises had created dramatic expectations, and his
swift attempts to dampen these down in the immediate aftermath of the
election have not gone down well... The problem Rouhani may have
however, is that there are significant sections of the conservative and
hard-line elite that see sanctions relief as the end, and not the means
to a wider reform of the economy - still less of politics - and that
many Iranians have not yet fully appreciated quite what a tangled web
the current sanctions regime represents. Those ministers who have noted
that sanctions relief may take some time, have largely been
marginalised from the front stage of political discourse; such language
does not play well to a public in urgent need of good news." http://t.uani.com/1bvhs5n
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment