|
|
Top Stories
AFP:
"Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Wednesday rejected
as 'worthless' a US claim that Tehran has no need for some of its nuclear
facilities, media reported. 'Iran's nuclear technology is non-negotiable
and comments about Iran's nuclear facilities are worthless and there is
no need to negotiate or hold talks about them,' said Zarif, reacting to
the remarks of the US top diplomat in the nuclear talks, ISNA news agency
reported. 'Those who know our peaceful objectives are also aware that we
will not negotiate about our (nuclear) facilities,' Zarif added. Wendy
Sherman, who is spearheading diplomacy with Tehran on its nuclear
programme, said Iran did not need some of its nuclear facilities. 'We
know that Iran does not need to have an underground, fortified enrichment
facility like Fordo ... (or) a heavy-water reactor at Arak to have a
peaceful nuclear programme,' Sherman told a Senate committee on
Tuesday... 'Ms Sherman should stick to the reality and stop speaking of
impossible things even if it is only for domestic consumption - since
reaching a solution can be hindered by such words,' said Zarif." http://t.uani.com/1eXBHXX
FT:
"Tensions between Iran's hardliners and the centrist government of
Hassan Rouhani erupted publicly on Wednesday when the state broadcaster
blocked the president's live address to the nation for an hour but
backtracked after the president took the row to Twitter. While many
Iranians were waiting for the speech, state-run television aired songs
from the 1979 revolution to mark the 35th anniversary of the upheaval
without explaining the delay. Mr Rouhani resorted to social media,
tweeting: 'Head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting [IRIB},
[Ezzatollah] Zarghami, prevented live discussion w/ people on IRIB1 which
was scheduled for an hour ago.' Shortly afterwards, the network broadcast
his speech with no explanation of what had happened beyond an apology
from Mr Rouhani for the delay... In another apparent attempt to
intimidate one of the president's supporters, Sadegh Zibakalam, a
well-known politics professor at Tehran University who had expressed
doubts about the nuclear programme, was summoned to appear before the
country's hardline judiciary on Wednesday. He was accused of 'weakening'
and 'propagating against' the Islamic regime for questioning whether its
nuclear programme was necessary... After five hours of interrogation on
Wednesday, Prof Zibakalam was released on bail. No date has been given
for his trial. 'I asked a question of those who say the nuclear deal is
disgraceful: what has been the direct and indirect cost of the nuclear
programme over the past 10 years to the country's growth and economic
development?' said Prof Zibakalam. 'I see no benefit.'" http://t.uani.com/1nWI4SQ
Bloomberg:
"An Iranian official said for the first time that Iran may modify a
heavy-water reactor near Arak, signaling a willingness to compromise on
one of the most contentious issues in efforts to curtail its nuclear
program. 'We can do some design change -- in other words, make some change
in the design in order to produce less plutonium in this reactor and in
this way allay the worries and mitigate the concerns,' Ali Akbar Salehi,
head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told Iran's official
English-language Press TV in an interview yesterday... 'It is a welcome
development if Iran is willing to convert the reactor from a heavy water
reactor to a light water reactor' that 'would pose less of a
proliferation threat,' David Albright, a former United Nations weapons
inspector and the founder of the Institute for Science and International
Security in Washington, said in an interview." http://t.uani.com/1nWHeWd
Sanctions
Relief
AFP:
"A visit to Iran by a 116-strong delegation of French business
figures is 'a bet' on the future and not 'business as usual', France's
finance minister said Wednesday, brushing off US criticism of the trip.
'It's not about doing business as usual,; Pierre Moscovici told
journalists at an entrepreneurs' gathering in Paris, referring to an
expression used by US Secretary of State John Kerry when he phoned his
French counterpart to complain about the visit... Kerry told French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius that the trip -- even though organised
through the private sector -- was 'not helpful' in sending the message
that 'it is not business as usual' with Iran. 'It seems to me that the
signal given by this visit is exactly the opposite, which is to say:
fulfil your obligations and, if one day that happens, things will go
well,' Moscovici said. 'One must definitely not take this as a sign of
laxness or consent but as a bet on a future that rests on firmness and
negotiation. If one day Iran changed its attitude then there would be, we
know, significant commercial and economic opportunities for all
countries.'" http://t.uani.com/1b50JsK
Reuters:
"Planemaker Airbus said on Thursday it had not been part of a visit
by a French business delegation to Iran this week, the most senior French
trade mission to the country in years. 'Nobody from Airbus Group
participated in the trip,' Rainer Ohler, head of communications for the
Airbus parent group, said. A source close to the delegation had said the
company had been represented in the team assembled by the main French
employers' association MEDEF, comprising more than 100 executives from
France's biggest firms." http://t.uani.com/LTls7f
Guardian:
"The government will this week be served with a claim of up to £1bn
in damages from an Iranian bank that has been banned from trading with
the UK for nearly five years - despite a court ruling that ordered the
lifting of sanctions. Lawyers for Bank Mellat, which had been accused
under the Terrorism Act 2000 of funding Iran's nuclear programme, are
bringing the action in the commercial court in London. The challenge will
test enforcement of the commercial embargo against the newly elected
president, Hassan Rouhani, as tension between the west and Iran is easing
and direct talks have opened up the possibility of restoring normal
diplomatic relations. The claim, brought by Zaiwalla and Co in London on
behalf of Bank Mellat, will ask for compensation to restore the bank to
the financial position it would have enjoyed had the business restrictions
not been imposed in 2009. Lawyers claim the money lost is estimated to be
as much as £1bn." http://t.uani.com/1nWGfW5
Syria Conflict
Reuters:
"The Iraqi government needs to do more to prevent Iran from flying
weapons and fighters through its airspace en route to Syria, a U.S.
official told lawmakers on Wednesday. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
has been accused by the United States of allowing Iran to fly planes
through Iraqi airspace and send support to bolster Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington blames for a nearly three-year-old civil
war that has killed more than 130,000 people. 'The issue of overflights
is something where the Iraqis have not done enough,' the State
Department's Brett McGurk said at a House Foreign Affairs Committee
hearing. 'We continue to press this issue. Inspections go up, inspections
go down. It's very frustrating,' he added." http://t.uani.com/MuUwdO
Human Rights
ICHRI:
"Iran's Minister of Health and Medical Education said yesterday that
a committee has been formed to review the the health effects of satellite
jamming signals on the Iranian people's health, following a request from
President Rouhani. In an exclusive interview with IRNA on February 4 in
Tehran, Dr. Seyed Hassan Ghazizadeh Hashemi said, 'This team is comprised
of experts from the Ministries of Communications and Health, the Nuclear
Energy Organization, and other related organizations, and they are
conducting their review in full freedom. If there are any problems in
this area, they will announce that.' 'We have been insisting for the past
three months that further reviews must be carried out, to clarify if
there are any problems. Initial reports indicate that the existing
signals do not cause physical problems for people, but this committee's
research must be completed,' said the Health Minister. 'The committee
will conduct measurements in different areas of the city, or wherever
there are jammed signals,' he added, but did not explain what methodology
or technology will be used for the measurements." http://t.uani.com/1eu0ury
Domestic
Politics
WashPost:
"In a rare expression of regret by an Iranian official, President
Hassan Rouhani has said that he is sorry for any troubles with the
distribution of a food ration to the poor, following reports that three
people have died waiting for the goods in subzero weather. Local media
have reported that the three died in recent days while standing in line
in freezing temperatures. Authorities were quoted as saying that they had
pre-existing heart problems... Rouhani told state TV late Wednesday that
he 'as the president expresses regret if people have faced trouble in
receiving the commodity basket.' It's unusual for an official in Iran to
take responsibility for problems in a governmental plan. The ration for
the poor includes eggs, cooking oil, chicken, rice and cheese. The
program was instituted under Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
originally just for government workers. Rouhani's administration decided
to extend it from 3 million people to 17 million, out of a total
population of 76 million. The plan is largely intended to counteract
inflation, fed by the sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear
program." http://t.uani.com/1nWHzIC
Bloomberg:
"Iran may reduce fuel oil exports by 50 percent next month as
maintenance work at the Persian Gulf state's Abadan refinery cuts output,
according to an official at National Iranian Oil Co. The country may ship
about 200,000 metric tons of fuel oil in March, compared with as much as
400,000 this month and 350,000 tons in January, said the official, who
asked not to be identified because of internal company rules. The
state-run company, known as NIOC, plans to shut half of its 390,000
barrel-a-day Abadan refinery for 20 to 30 days next month, said the official.
The maintenance plan isn't final and may change, according to the
official." http://t.uani.com/1fVIPam
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Advisory
Board Member Gary Milhollin & Valerie Lincy in Bloomberg:
"The continuing nuclear talks with Iran have just entered their most
challenging phase. During the next six months, the U.S. and its
negotiating partners will try, in the words of President Barack Obama, to
persuade Iran to agree on a 'peaceful nuclear program,' including a
'modest enrichment capability,' that leaves it short of the ability to
produce nuclear weapons. This task will be far harder to achieve than is
generally understood. A civilian program to enrich uranium for
nuclear power must, by its nature, be many times larger than a bomb program.
That is the opposite of what most people think. In fact, a small-scale
enrichment program for nuclear power doesn't really exist. To understand
why, let's look at some numbers. Everyone is worried about Iran's
centrifuges, the fast-spinning cylinders that enrich uranium. The
cylinders can be used to make fuel for either power reactors or bombs.
For comparison, it takes 25 times more enrichment power to fuel a
standard-size, 1,000-megawatt reactor such as the one the Russians built
in Bushehr, Iran, than it does to fuel a single bomb. Put another way, if
Iran had the enrichment power to fuel the Bushehr reactor for a year and
instead decided to make bombs, it could produce the fuel for a nuclear
warhead every 15 days -- 25 a year. No deal with the U.S. would allow
Iran to have such power. Moreover, such capability would be a vast
scale-up of Iran's current program. Iran now produces about 1.9 metric
tons of enriched uranium a year. It takes approximately 20 metric tons to
fuel a 1,000-megawatt reactor. To fuel a smaller, 360-megawatt reactor
(which Iran says it will build), Iran would have to produce three times
as much enriched uranium as it does now. Either option would allow Iran
to fuel several nuclear weapons a year, if it chose to do so. If Iran
can't be permitted to make the fuel for a power reactor, what good are
its centrifuges? Their only possible use would be to fuel a nonpower
reactor, such as the small research reactor in Tehran. However, Iran has
already enriched more uranium than the Tehran reactor needs for the
foreseeable future. Iran's centrifuges don't fit into a peaceful nuclear
power program. There are far too few to fuel a power reactor but quite
enough for nuclear weapon production. This unfortunate fact hangs over
the negotiations. So far, Iran's centrifuges have enriched a stockpile of
uranium that is two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade. By enriching its
stockpile further, the Iranians could fuel about six nuclear
weapons. How will these numbers affect the talks? Is it possible
for Iran to have a 'modest enrichment capability' that can't fuel a
weapon? One solution would be for Iran to keep running its
centrifuges and get rid of its stockpile of enriched uranium. In this
scenario, Iran's centrifuges could be fed by natural uranium only. Starting
at that level would require more power and time to produce weapons-grade
fuel. If using natural uranium, the centrifuges Iran currently operates
would need more than six months to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. That
would give other countries time to intervene if Iran tried to make a dash
for the bomb. The enriched uranium Iran has already produced could be
sent to Russia, where it could be fashioned into fuel rods not readily
convertible to weaponry. And Iran would have to leave approximately 9,000
of its centrifuges -- about half -- installed but nonoperational. Another
option would be for Iran to keep its enriched uranium but further scale
back the operation of its centrifuges. This would be necessary because,
theoretically, the roughly 9,000 operating centrifuges Iran currently
has, if fed enriched uranium, would need only about two months to enrich
enough uranium for a bomb. Because Iran has never enriched uranium to
weapons-grade, the real timeline would be longer, but it is difficult to
know how much. To theoretically extend the enrichment time to six months,
Iran could operate no more than 3,000 centrifuges, leaving some 15,000
dormant. For either option to work, Iran would have to allow inspectors
unfettered access to its nuclear program, to guard against cheating. It
also would have to dismantle or modify the large, plutonium-producing
research reactor it is building in Arak, relinquish and stop expanding
its small stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, and agree to not
operate additional centrifuges. Will the Iranians agree? So far, the odds
seem long. Iran has trumpeted its plans to expand, not contract, its
supply of centrifuges. Nevertheless, the U.S. must insist upon one of
these options. Otherwise, Iran will be left with centrifuges that
contribute nothing to civilian nuclear energy but provide a clear path to
the bomb." http://t.uani.com/1dsEveC
Peter Foster in
The Daily Telegraph: "One of the most unfortunate
pieces of White House spinning over the Iran nuclear negotiations is that
those who supported new sanctions legislation - including several
Democrat senators - were effectively 'voting for war'. They weren't. What
they were voting for was an alternative way of dealing with Iran. A more
results-driven and fact-based approach, that clashes with several of the
premises that underpin the current Kerry-Obama approach to the
negotiations. The new Senate sanctions bill (now successfully stalled, it
seems) didn't call for new sanctions straight away. What it did was seek
to put a hard floor under the negotiations process: if no deal was
reached within 12 months - the six months of the 'interim deal' plus six
months grace - then the sanctions would kick in. There was good reason
for this approach. Sceptics - or perhaps better, pragmatists - didn't
want Tehran to keep endlessly rebooting the negotiations. Their fear was
that Iran would simply wait while their economy picked up as sanctions
started to unravel under the weight of market expectations and then cut a
deal from a position of strength. Mr Obama always vigorously refuted this
analysis as scaremongering, saying sanctions were 'limited' and
'reversible', and that Iran's feet would held to the fire to ensure they
did actually cut a meaningful deal. Already, however, there are signs
that the pragmatist's analysis has turned out to be correct. First it
emerged last month that Russia was engaged in negotiating a $1.5
billion-a-month backdoor trade/barter deal. Then, this week, a group 116
of France's top businessmen, including representatives from companies
like Renault, Total and Airbus, visited Tehran on a trade mission
offering further evidence that market expectation is picking up: when
German CEO's see their French counterparts racing to Tehran to get first
dibs on any deals, you can bet they won't be far behind. In both of these
cases the White House and State Department has officially cried foul,
describing the French delegations and Russian deals as 'unhelpful' and of
'serious concern'. Perhaps they really are concerned, fearing that their
negotiating leverage is visibly ebbing away, since it's hard to drive a
bargain with Tehran to give up its nuclear programme when Iran is getting
what they want (economic relief) anyway. But there is another theory -
that this is precisely what the White House wants. Look at this quotation
from Wendy Sherman, the US's top Iran negotiator, giving evidence to a
senate committee this week in response to the French trade gambit: 'We
hope people don't go to Tehran. That is our preference. But those who go
raise hopes that the Rouhani administration's going to have to deliver
on. And the only way they can deliver on those hopes is a comprehensive
agreement that we will agree to, and that means a verifiable assurance
that they are not developing, creating, will have - obtaining a nuclear
weapon. And so although we don't want people to go, because we think it
does send the wrong message, if they do go, it puts pressure, perversely,
on the Rouhani administration. Because as far as we have seen to date, there
are not deals getting done, but rather people getting first in line in
the hope that someday there will be a deal.' It does make you wonder if
the White House is perfectly happy with what is happening. The strategy
would seem to be to try and buy Tehran off with the promise of
trade/money even before the deal is done. Is this really wise? We should
be careful of dangling too juicy a carrot, too close to the horse's
mouth, or we might find that the horse just gobbles the carrot, and then
- belly full - cannot be coaxed in the right direction? At that point, to
stretch the horse analogy, you have to resort to wielding a big stick.
But in the Obama administration's case, the debacle over Syria has
already taken that option off the table. The public won't wear it, and it
probably wouldn't work anyway. It is - genuinely, no cop out here - too
early to say if the White House strategy will work, but make no mistake,
it is highly risky. In a good negotiation, you start by advertising your
top line and then negotiation downwards to a compromise. The P5+1 have
started these negotiations by constantly advertising their bottom line,
to the point that people like Jack Straw are sent to Tehran to warn
sceptics on the his own side about the risk of Tehran walking away if we
drive too hard a bargain." http://t.uani.com/1eXIcK9
|
|
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