Eye on Iran: Warily, U.S. Learns to Live with More Muscular Iran Role in Iraq

Join UANI           Top Stories Reuters: "The United States and Iran, which dueled viciously over Iraq during the years of U.S. occupation, suddenly seem to be working in tandem as they confront what both see as a common, even mortal enemy: Islamic State. Air strikes by Iran inside Iraq in recent days are only the latest manifestation of an increasingly muscular role by Tehran in Baghdad's war against Sunni militants. During the administration of George W. Bush, such actions would be denounced as meddling. Not now. 'I think it's self-evident that if Iran is taking on ISIL in some particular place and it's confined to taking on ISIL and it has an impact, it's going to be - the net effect is positive,' Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday, using an alternate acronym for Islamic State. The change in tone is noteworthy in a relationship that has been acrimonious, and at times lethal, since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution... U.S. officials said privately that Iran's dispatch of jets over eastern Diyala province was not setting off alarms within the U.S. government. Shi'ite Iran has steadily exerted its influence in Iraq, home to a Shi'ite-led government." http://t.uani.com/1tQMkDR Politico: "Carter's record on nuclear nonproliferation also suggests he could take a harder line on Iran policy than Obama favors... If nominated and confirmed, Carter could be more consequential when it comes to Obama's plans for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. With a new deadline for Obama's nuclear talks with Iran coming up this summer, Carter would be a critical voice as Obama weighs a military option if he can't strike a deal with Tehran. Carter's record suggests that he could urge a hawkish response. A leading member of a clique of defense intellectuals long concerned with the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack, Carter has counseled strong - even risky - action to prevent the spread of nuclear materials and know-how. In 1994, he was among Clinton administration officials who favored striking a North Korean nuclear reactor to prevent Pyongyang from developing nuclear weapons. Years later, Carter acknowledged to PBS that such a strike risked a war involving 'horrific' loss of life - but added that a nuclear North Korea would be 'such a disaster for our security' that it was worth taking 'substantial risks' to prevent that outcome. North Korea backed down in the moment - but eventually developed nuclear weapons, something Carter later called 'a stunning defeat for the United States.' In June 2006, Carter also argued for a dramatic surgical strike against a North Korean ballistic missile platform just before a planned test launch. 'We won't know whether North Korea's ambitions can be blunted by anything short of the use of force unless and until the U.S. takes the danger seriously and gets in the game,' according to an article he co-authored for Time. Carter has supported diplomacy with Iran and written about methods of containing a nuclear-armed Tehran. But he also authored a 2008 think tank report exploring a possible strike on Iran's atomic infrastructure." http://t.uani.com/1wEmJEd Press TV (Iran): "An Iranian commander says missiles of the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah are capable of extirpating Israel. 'Although the United States' first mission is to ensure the security of the Zionist regime [of Israel], today Hezbollah's missiles can raze Israel to the ground,' said Brigadier General Esmail Qa'ani, the second-in-command of Quds Force, a branch of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Today, missiles fired by Hezbollah at the Zionist regime have such a range that they can reach even Gaza which is located beyond Israel, said the general, describing Israel as one of the most insecure spots in the world. 'A large number of missiles threatening Israel's security today are manufactured in this very Palestinian territory which, in many cases, has difficulty providing [even] necessary foodstuff,' said the top commander." http://t.uani.com/125s8ab     Congressional Sanctions Debate Bloomberg: "Senator Bob Corker, who's in line to become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee next month, signaled he may move slowly on legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear activities. The Tennessee Republican said members of his party should act cautiously on such matters as they assume the powers of the majority in the Senate. 'You realize that you're in essence, to use a term, firing with real bullets,' he said in an interview yesterday with Al Hunt for the 'Charlie Rose' program on PBS, which is rebroadcast on Bloomberg Television. 'I mean you have the potential of passing real legislation, and I think there's going to be a genuine search to figure out the best way that Congress can play a role' in pressuring Iran for a negotiated deal to give up its potential capability to make nuclear weapons, he said... 'The art of this will be figuring out the appropriate way for Congress to weigh in,' he said. 'Obviously, I don't think anybody in Congress wants to feel, quote, responsible for this deal falling apart.'" http://t.uani.com/1yTJ7I6 Domestic Politics AFP: "Iran's parliament has adopted a law to tax religious foundations and military-linked companies, a first for the Islamic republic that could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues, media reported Thursday... Media outlets said the new legislation refers in particular to the Astan Qods Razavi Foundation, which manages the shrine of Imam Reza, the eighth Shiite imam, in the northeastern city of Mashhad, which draws millions of pilgrims each year. It also mentions EIKO, which the United States says is a network of 40 companies run by the office of the supreme leader in control of billions of dollars in investments." http://t.uani.com/125nFnD Opinion & Analysis Eric Edelman, Dennis Ross & Ray Takeyh in WashPost: "After a decade of patient negotiations with Iran over its contested nuclear program, the prospects of the United States and other world powers securing a final deal are not good. The wheels of diplomacy will grind on and an extension of the talks should be granted. But it is time to acknowledge that the policy of engagement has been predicated on a series of assumptions that, although logical, have proven largely incorrect. As Washington assesses its next moves, it would be wise to reconsider the judgments that have underwritten its approach to one of its most elusive adversaries. Two administrations - those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama - have relied on financial stress to temper Iran's nuclear ambitions. At its core, this policy has argued that steady economic pressure would change the calculus of the Islamic Republic, eventually leading it to concede the most disturbing aspects of its nuclear program. This was American pragmatism at its most obvious, as economics is thought to transcend ideology and history in conditioning national priorities. To be sure, the policy has not been without its successes, as it solidified a sanctions regime that compelled Iran to change its negotiating style. Still, what was missed was that the Islamic Republic is a revolutionary state that rarely makes judicious economic decisions. In fact, the notion of integration into the global economy is frightening to Iran's highly ideological rulers, who require an external nemesis to justify their absolutist rule. Washington's diplomatic strategies seemed to be equally uninformed by the changing dynamics of Iranian politics. The fraudulent 2009 presidential election was a watershed event in Iran's history, as it transformed the Islamic Republic from a government of factions into just another Middle Eastern dictatorship. The forces of reform were purged from the body politic, leaving behind only like-minded mullahs. While many in the West still view Iran as a country of quarrelling factions and competing personalities, the Iranians themselves talk of nezam - the system. This is not to suggest that there are no disagreements among key actors, but the system has forged a consensus on core issues such as repressing dissent and preserving the essential trajectory of the nuclear program. The U.S. misdiagnosis of Iran was at its most glaring when Hassan Rouhani, a clerical apparatchik, assumed the presidency in 2013. Rouhani's election was considered a rebuke to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his ideological presumptions, and many in Washington convinced themselves that by investing in Rouhani they could usher in an age of moderation in Iran. Suddenly, an empowered Rouhani would make important nuclear concessions and even collaborate with the United States to steady an unhinged region. Missing in all this was how the nezam had come together in 2009, consolidated its power and destroyed the democratic left. The Obama administration sought to manipulate Iran's factions at the precise moment when factionalism was no longer the defining aspect of Iranian politics. Iran will not easily alter its approach. If there is any hope of changing the Iranian calculus, its leaders must see that the price - as they measure it - is high. Any coercive strategy still has to be predicated on further segregating Iran from global markets and financial institutions; at a time of falling oil prices, Iran's economy should prove particularly vulnerable to such stress. But this cannot be the end of it. Iran must face pressure across many fronts, and the Obama administration should focus on mending fences at home while rehabilitating our battered alliances in the Middle East. It is important for Tehran to see that there are no divisions for it to exploit between the White House and Congress. The president would be wise to consult with Congress on the parameters of an acceptable deal and to secure a resolution authorizing him to use force in the event that Iran violates its obligations or seeks a breakout capacity. A new strategy of pressure should also focus on isolating Iran in its neighborhood and undermining its clients... The purpose of this new, robust and coercive strategy is to signal our readiness to compete, to show that we don't need a deal more than Iran does and to raise the price to Tehran of its objectionable policies. It is time to press the Iranians to make the tough choices that they have been unwilling to make." http://t.uani.com/1tQVqjU Amos Yadlin & Avner Golov in FP: "The negotiations by the United States and five other world powers with Iran over its nuclear program have been extended for up to an additional seven months, and the mantra remains: Avoid a bad deal... But what is a bad deal? And what can the United States do to avoid one? And does the extension help? An agreement that leaves Iran's breakout capacity where it stands today - several months from a bomb - is a bad deal. It would keep Iran far too close to having nuclear weapons, making it extremely difficult to stop Tehran if it decided to weaponize. Under no circumstance should such a deal be signed. Rather, an agreement with Iran must make certain that, if Tehran chooses to break (or sneak) out to a nuclear weapon, it would need several years to get there, thereby giving the West enough time to deal with the dangerous move. Thus, the challenge facing the United States and other world powers as they continue their negotiations with Tehran is to dismantle crucial elements of the Iranian nuclear program that could be used for military purposes. First and foremost, Washington must insist on a drastic reduction in the number of centrifuges to a maximum quantity of 3,000 to 4,000 centrifuges, along with a stockpile of enriched uranium lower than the minimum required for a single nuclear bomb. These constraints should last for two decades. Second, unprecedented monitoring of all aspects of the Iranian nuclear program is required. This scrutiny must be based on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol and Iran's positive response to opening files on military nuclear activities. International inspection should not be a voluntarily mechanism, but a binding one. Third, Tehran must agree to the conversion of the Fordow enrichment facility and the heavy-water reactor in Arak so that they cannot be used for military purposes. Lastly, the sanction-relief mechanism should be gradual and in accordance with Iranian progress in rolling back the nuclear program. An agreement that does not meet these four criteria might stimulate other Middle Eastern countries to acquire nuclear capabilities. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan would be first in line, and many Persian Gulf states have decided to start developing civilian nuclear capabilities, a crucial first step for building a military nuclear program... The nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran should aim to prevent the radical Shiites in Tehran, the radical Sunnis of IS, and other extremist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons. But forcing Tehran's hand to do something it clearly does not want is not easy. To reach such an agreement, the United States must maintain and rebalance its two levers of pressure on Tehran, and the seven-month extension gives Washington time to do just that. The first lever - economic sanctions - succeeded in persuading Iran in 2013 to engage in meaningful negotiations. However, it is highly doubtful that this tool will convince the Iranian leadership to agree to significant concessions. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has yet to signal a willingness to accept the four required conditions mentioned earlier. The Iranian government has promoted reforms and developed mechanisms that have already alleviated a measure of the international sanctions' effect on the Iranian economy. The Washington Institute's Patrick Clawson has argued that even when the price of oil is low, Iran's income is sufficient to maintain its foreign currency reserves at the level it needs... Therefore, Washington must restore the credibility of its second lever for pressuring Iran - the threat of a military strike. President Obama's airpower war against the Islamic State can be a great help. The pinpoint strikes in Iraq and Syria can be much more effective against stationary targets than in a counterterrorism campaign. Washington should adapt this model and make clear to Tehran that if the supreme leader is not prepared to make concessions on key elements of the nuclear program that could be used for military purposes, it will be forced to consider a surgical aerial strike against nuclear facilities. This lever, if resolute, could induce Iran's leaders to agree to a nuclear program that includes very limited and supervised self-enrichment, so that its program cannot serve as cover for a military nuclear one. Only if the United States establishes a credible military threat and maintains the sanctions regime can it reach a good deal with Iran. But if Washington does not, it could find itself in a position in which a military strike is the only way to combat the Iranian nuclear threat and the further challenges to global security it poses." http://t.uani.com/1CMMvto      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.