Thursday, November 14, 2013

Eye on Iran: Tough Audience on Sanctions Delay for Iran








For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
  
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