|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
LAT:
"Iran's supreme leader on Saturday urged Iranians to support their
government's efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal, even while denouncing
the United States and other Western governments involved in the talks. In
a much-anticipated speech on the first day of Nowruz, the Iranian New
Year, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said all Iranians should support the
government of President Hassan Rouhani, even if they didn't vote for him
in the presidential election... Khamenei, speaking before a boisterous
crowd in the northern holy city of Mashhad, also demanded that a nuclear
deal end economic sanctions on Iran at its outset, rather than gradually,
as the United States and five other world powers have said during
negotiations. 'Sanctions must be lifted immediately,' Khamenei said... As
the supreme leader spoke, a crowd chanted, 'Death to America.' Khamenei
said the rhetoric was justified because America is behind all threats to
Iran." http://t.uani.com/19f2mU9
Reuters:
"France's foreign minister said on Saturday that his country wanted
an agreement over Iran's nuclear program that was sufficiently robust to
guarantee that Tehran could not acquire an atomic bomb... France has been
demanding more stringent restrictions on the Iranians under any deal than
the other Western delegations and at one point during the talks French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius phoned his team to ensure it made no more
concessions, officials said... 'France wants an agreement, but a robust
one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear
power, but not the atomic bomb,' Fabius told Europe 1 radio on
Saturday... There was no breakthrough this week. Disagreements arose
among the powers, with France insisting on a longer period of
restrictions on Iran's nuclear work. It also opposed the idea of
suspending some U.N. sanctions relatively quickly if a deal is struck.
'This accord must be robust. Why? Because we have to protect ourselves
from the eventuality of an Iranian atomic bomb,' Fabius added on
Saturday. 'But also if the accord is not sufficiently solid then regional
countries would say it's not serious enough, so we are also going to get
the nuclear weapon, and that would lead to an extremely dangerous nuclear
proliferation.'" http://t.uani.com/1CPc65d
Reuters:
"Iran and six world powers suspended negotiations on a nuclear
agreement and were set to meet again next week to break a deadlock over
sensitive atomic research and lifting of sanctions, Western officials
said on Friday. While the talks have made progress over the past year,
differences on sticking points are still wide enough to potentially
prevent an agreement in the end. France was demanding more stringent
restrictions on the Iranians under any deal than the other Western
delegations, officials said... Disagreements arose among the powers, with
Franceinsisting on a longer period of restrictions on Iran's nuclear
work. It also opposed the idea of suspending some U.N. sanctions relatively
quickly if a deal is struck. Iran, which denies allegations from the
Western powers and their allies that it harbors nuclear weapons
ambitions, wants all U.N. sanctions to be lifted immediately, including
those targeting its nuclear program. 'They insist they have to go
immediately. No way. It is out the question,' said a senior European
negotiator... The biggest sticking point, Western officials said, remains
Iran's demands to have no limits on research and development of advanced
centrifuges, machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear reactors or,
if very highly enriched, in weapons." http://t.uani.com/1GJqWb6
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Guardian:
"The official reason for the adjournment is the need for members of
Iranian delegation to attend the funeral on Sunday of President Hassan
Rouhani's mother, who died on Friday aged 90. But the talks had already
stalled because of differences over sanctions, and the emergence of
splits within the group of six major powers on how tough a position to
take. The sharpest split is between the US, which had proposed a scheme
for a phased lifting of UN sanctions in return for concrete Iranian
actions to limit its nuclear programme, and France, which wants to offer
only a symbolic easing of the punitive measures imposed over the past
decade. Diplomats say the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius,
telephoned the French delegation in Lausanne to ensure it did not make
further concessions, and to insist that the bulk of UN sanctions could
only be lifted if Iran gave a full explanation of evidence suggesting it
may have done development work on nuclear warhead design in the past...
'They [Iran] don't like it. They say it's a deal-breaker. They don't want
it at all,' said a European diplomat involved in the talks. But the
diplomat added there was 'no way' France would relax its position." http://t.uani.com/1xcA9Zk
Guardian:
"Diplomats at Lausanne confirmed that provisional agreement had been
reached on a central issue that had defied compromise for years, Iran's
enrichment capacity. The mantra at the negotiations is that 'nothing is
agreed until everything is agreed' but the figures pencilled in so far
would allow Iran to run 6,000 of its current centrifuges for the lifetime
of the deal, which would be ten to fifteen years. That would be a
dramatic reduction compared to the current infrastructure of 10,000
operating centrifuges, and another 9,000 installed but non-operational.
The Iranian stockpile of low enriched uranium would also be radically
reduced from thousands of kilograms to hundreds. The heavy-water reactor
under construction at Arak would also be reconfigured so that it would be
produce much less plutonium (the other possible path to a bomb). The
areas where no agreement has not been reached so far are the extent of
research and development Iran would be allowed over the life of a deal,
particularly development work on new model centrifuges, and the lifting
of UN sanctions... Sanctions is by far the hardest problem... On the
table in Lausanne, Iran was being offered a step-by-step lifting of UN
sanctions, in return for 'irreversible' steps it takes in dismantling
nuclear infrastructure. At present, Tehran is rejecting that offer."
http://t.uani.com/1N0zXjT
AFP:
"Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz flew to France on
Sunday to try to sway the next round of talks on a deal over Iran's
nuclear programme, his spokesman said. Steinitz was 'on a mission from Prime
Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu) for a short visit to Europe in an attempt
to influence the details of the emerging agreement on the Iran nuclear
issue,' a statement from Eyal Basson said. France has expressed
scepticism over the speed of a potential deal in which Iran would place
its nuclear programme under severe restrictions in exchange for a
stage-by-stage lifting of international sanctions. Basson told AFP that
he had travelled to Paris 'on a lightning visit', but would not say who
he would meet there. Israel's Haaretz newspaper said Steinitz was
expected to meet French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and members of
the French negotiating team in the Iran talks. It said that he was
accompanied by National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen and intelligence and
foreign ministry officials." http://t.uani.com/1N66R0F
Reuters:
"Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said on Monday
it was probable that world powers and Iran would agree a 'bad deal' over
Iran's nuclear program, but he would still lobby to toughen any accord
before talks resume this week. 'We think it's going to be a bad,
insufficient deal,' Steinitz told Reuters in an interview before meeting
French officials in Paris. 'It seems quite probable it will happen
unfortunately'... 'Although we are against a deal in general, until it is
completed we will point to specific loopholes and difficulties,' he said.
He said two fundamental issues that need to be toughened up were the
number of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to
increase the concentration of the fissile isotope - and any potential
capacity Iran is given to pursue research and development. 'In this
(accord) you are getting a robust and complicated deal that enables Iran
to preserve capabilities and allow it to remain a threshold nuclear
state,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1EClIve
Reuters:
"Major Western powers are united in their approach on nuclear talks
with Iran and will reject any agreement that does not meet their 'red
lines', British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Saturday after
meeting his counterparts from France, Germany and the United States. In a
joint statement after talks in London, the ministers said: 'We agreed
that substantial progress had been made (with Iran) in key areas although
there are still important issues on which no agreement has yet been
possible. Now is the time for Iran, in particular, to take difficult
decisions.' Hammond told reporters the Western ministers were all in
agreement that 'we will not do a bad deal that does not meet our red
lines.'" http://t.uani.com/1G2z3l0
Reuters:
"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Saturday recent progress
in the nuclear negotiations between Tehran and world powers could lead to
a final agreement and all remaining issues could be overcome, state media
reported... 'In this round of talks, shared points of view emerged in
some of the areas where there had been a difference of opinion, which can
be a foundation for a final agreement,' Rouhani was quoted as saying by
state news agency IRNA. 'I believe it is possible to reach an agreement
and there is nothing that cannot be resolved,' he said after visiting a
rehabilitation center for wounded military veterans." http://t.uani.com/1N4uUwK
NYT:
" In late 2012, just as President Obama and his aides began secretly
sketching out a diplomatic opening to Iran, American intelligence
agencies were busy with a parallel initiative: The latest spy-vs.-spy
move in the decade-long effort to sabotage Tehran's nuclear
infrastructure. Investigators uncovered an Iranian businessman's scheme
to buy specialty aluminum tubing, a type the United States bans for
export to Iran because it can be used in centrifuges that enrich uranium,
the exact machines at the center of negotiations entering a crucial phase
in Switzerland this week. Rather than halt the shipment, court documents
reveal, American agents switched the aluminum tubes for ones of an
inferior grade. If installed in Iran's giant underground production
centers, they would have shredded apart, destroying the centrifuges as
they revved up to supersonic speed. But if negotiators succeed in
reaching a deal with Iran, does the huge, covert sabotage effort by the
United States, Israel and some European allies come to an end? 'Probably
not,' said one senior official with knowledge of the program. In fact, a
number of officials make the case that surveillance of Iran will
intensify and covert action may become more important than ever to ensure
that Iran does not import the critical materials that would enable it to
accelerate the development of advanced centrifuges or pursue a covert
path to a bomb." http://t.uani.com/1HpFTPI
Algemeiner:
"If Iran is permitted to keep 6,000 nuclear centrifuges, it will not
be able to create enough fuel for a peaceful nuclear program, but it will
be able to build a nuclear weapon, David Ibsen, Executive Director of the
watchdog group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) told The Algemeiner on
Thursday. Iran has long claimed that its nuclear program is for peaceful
purposes. The 'consensus is 6,000 centrifuges is short of the capacity
necessary to generate fuel to power nuclear power plants,' Ibsen said in
a written statement. Ibsen was responding to an exclusive AP story
reporting that the US and Iran had reached a draft nuclear accord that
permits Iran to continue its nuclear enrichment program... 'We have gone
from demanding a halt to all enrichment activities in UN Security Council
resolutions to a position of accepting Iran's permanent industrial-scale
nuclear infrastructure,' Ibsen said in a written statement. 'This is a
major concession based on a hope that the Iranian regime's extremist
behavior and commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons will change - they
will not.'" http://t.uani.com/1xcxQW9
Congressional
Sanctions
The Hill:
Members of Congress focused on maintaining their power to weigh in an a
potential multilateral deal over Iran's nuclear program must be careful
to not to be thrown off course, a key Republican warned Sunday. 'What we
cannot do is let drama take us off our course,' Senate Foreign Relations
Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on CBS's 'Face the Nation,' noting
lawmakers should want to weigh in on any deal that lifts congressionally
mandated sanctions. Corker is advocating a bipartisan bill allowing
Congress to weigh in on any deal the Obama administration reaches with
Iran. He predicted Friday it will reach a veto-proof 67 vote majority,
and his committee is expected to mark up the measure early next
month." http://t.uani.com/1G4XSN3
Iraq Crisis
AFP:
"The head of a powerful Shiite militia on Sunday criticised
'weaklings' in the Iraqi army who want US-led air strikes to support the
massive operation to retake Tikrit from jihadists. The remarks by Hadi
al-Ameri point to a possible divide between the Iraqi army and allied
paramilitaries known as 'Popular Mobilisation' units, which are dominated
by Shiite militia forces, over the now-stalled Tikrit drive. 'Some of the
weaklings in the army... say we need the Americans, while we say we do
not need the Americans,' Ameri told journalists at Camp Ashraf, north of
Baghdad, when asked about US-led air support for Tikrit... 'Qassem
Suleimani is here whenever we need him,' said Ameri, referring to Iran's
top officer responsible for foreign operations. 'He was giving very good
advice. The battle ended now, and he returned to his operations
headquarters,' he said, apparently referring to the current halt in the
fight for Tikrit." http://t.uani.com/1CfwR81
Yemen Crisis
Al Arabiya:
"An Iranian ship unloaded more than 180 tons of weapons and military
equipment at a Houthi-controlled port in western Yemen, Al Arabiya News
Channel reported on Friday, quoting security sources. The ship had docked
at al-Saleef port northwest of the al-Hodeida province on Thursday, the
sources said. The Houthi militias reportedly closed the port and denied
entrance to employees there. Al-Saleef port is considered the second most
vital in Yemen. The news follows last week's economic partnership
agreements between Iran and the Houthis, including a deal that promises a
year's worth of oil supply from Iran." http://t.uani.com/19K649v
AFP:
"Yemen's embattled President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi pledged Saturday
to fight Iranian influence in his violence-wracked country after US
troops at a key Yemeni airbase were pulled out... Accusing the Huthis of
importing Tehran's ideology, Hadi lashed out at the Iran-backed militia
Saturday... In his first televised speech since he fled to Aden from
house arrest in Huthi-held Sanaa, Hadi said he would ensure that 'the Yemeni
republic flag will fly on the Marran mountain in (the Huthi militia's
northern stronghold) Saada, instead of the Iranian flag'. 'The Iranian
Twelver (Shiism) pattern that has been agreed upon between the Huthis and
those who support them will not be accepted by Yemenis, whether Zaidi
(Shiites) or Shafite (Sunnis),' he said. The Huthis belong to the Zaidi
offshoot of Shiite Islam. They are believed to have converted to Twelver
Shiism, which is followed by Iran, but insist that Tehran does not meddle
in Yemeni affairs." http://t.uani.com/1xcyBys
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Advisory
Board Member Olli Heinonen, Michael Hayden & Ray Takeyh in WashPost:
"As negotiations between Iran and the great powers press forward,
Secretary of State John F. Kerry seems to have settled on this defense of
any agreement: The terms will leave Iran at least a year away from
obtaining a nuclear bomb, thus giving the world plenty of time to react
to infractions. The argument is meant to reassure, particularly when a
sizable enrichment capacity and a sunset clause appear to have already
been conceded. A careful assessment, however, reveals that a one-year
breakout time may not be sufficient to detect and reverse Iranian
violations. Once the United States had an indication that Iran was
violating an agreement, a bureaucratic process would be necessary to
validate the information. It could be months before the director of
national intelligence would be confident enough to present a case for
action to the president. Several U.S. intelligence agencies, the Energy
Department and national nuclear laboratories would need a chance to sniff
the data to be convinced that a technical breach had occurred. Only after
this methodical review was finished could the director go to the White
House with conclusions and recommendations. Given that the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be the on-site inspection organization
responsible for the verification of an agreement, the United States'
scoop would have to be forwarded to that body. Of course, both the speed
and the extent of U.S. sharing would be affected by the need to protect
sensitive human or technical sources of information. Only then would IAEA
representatives begin talking with their Iranian counterparts about
gaining access to disputed sites or activities. History suggests the
Iranians would engage in protracted negotiations and much arcane
questioning of the evidence. Iran could eventually offer some access
while holding back key data and personnel. It would be only after tortured
discussions that the IAEA could proclaim itself dissatisfied with Iran's
reaction. This process also could take months. Should the indication of
infractions originate with the IAEA, the United States would likewise
want to validate the findings itself, which would also be time-consuming.
Once the IAEA arrived at a verdict of noncompliance, it would forward its
grievances to the U.N. Security Council for adjudication. The United
States would have to convince the other member states invested in the
agreement - including veto-wielding Russia and China - that the accord
was being violated and that forceful action was needed. Time would be
spent quarrelling over divergent views, with several outcomes possible,
including a Security Council presidential statement or a resolution whose
content would need to be agreed upon. And only then could new economic
sanctions be imposed on Iran. So, add at least a few more months. Could
sanctions really make a meaningful impact on Iran in whatever time, if
any, remained in a one-year scenario? Any sanctions would take time to
stress Iran's economy, particularly in the aftermath of an agreement that
paved the way for the return of trade and investment... And the reality
is that any cheating by Iran would always be incremental and never
egregious. Throughout the duration of an agreement, there would be
occasional reports of Iran enriching to unacceptably high levels and
revelations of unreported nuclear installations and experimentation in
weapon designs. Iran's habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small
infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking
a crisis. In the end, a year simply may not be enough time to build an
international consensus on measures to redress Iranian violations. In the
midst of all the typical Washington political cacophony about the
progress of the negotiations, what is lost is that an accord between the
United States and Iran would be the most consequential arms-control
agreement of the post-Cold War period. It would determine the level of
stability in the Middle East and impact global nuclear nonproliferation
norms. With stakes so high, we need a national debate about the nature
and parameters of any agreement. The right venue for that debate is the
halls of Congress. No agreement can be considered viable or enduring
without such legislative approbation." http://t.uani.com/1xrlJFa
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "Like almost all dictators, Iran's
supreme leader has a legitimacy problem. Most Iranians today are too
fearful to take to the streets and demand a government that represents
them. (They tried in 2009 and 1999, and paid in blood.) But deep down,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must suspect that millions of his own people
quietly loathe him. So Khamenei demands the legitimacy he lacks at home
from the outside. It's a classic ploy. Soviet diplomats used to tell
Western reporters about how political prisoners were sentenced by
independent courts. Saddam Hussein would hold faux-elections. Toothless
oppositions were allowed in Mubarak and Sadat's Egypt. In Iran, there is
even a special Jewish representative in parliament. There are
consequences when open societies speak too loudly about the deficit of
freedom in closed ones. When a U.S. president speaks plainly about a
dictator, it undermines his regime's legitimacy at home. With that in
mind, imagine how delighted Khamenei must have been with U.S. President
Barack Obama's message last week on Persian New Year, or Nowruz. Obama
urged the Iranian people to press their leaders to accept a nuclear deal
he said would help end Iran's international isolation. 'Now it's up to
all of us, Iranians and Americans, to seize this moment and the
possibilities that can bloom in this new season,' Obama said. He
concluded by saying: 'My message to you, the people of Iran, is that
together we have to speak up for the future that we seek.' It's as if
Iran is just like France or Brazil. In those countries, leaders have to
care about popular opinion because they have to run for election. But in
Iran, only Khamenei decides whether or not to take Obama's offer. Iran's
people have nothing to do with it. Obama surely understands this. He has
written Khamenei directly about repairing the U.S.-Iran relationship. He
is also well aware of how in the past Khamenei has crushed those who have
sought to open Iranian society. After a week of silence, Obama condemned
the crackdown following Iran's 2009 presidential vote, when supporters of
a reformist 'green movement' took to the streets to protest what they
considered Khamenei's theft of that election. Indeed, Obama acknowledged
these harsh facts in his 2011 Nowruz message: 'Hundreds of prisoners of
conscience are in jail. The innocent have gone missing. Journalists have
been silenced. Women tortured. Children sentenced to death.' In 2013,
Iranians elected Hassan Rouhani, who campaigned as a reformer on a pledge
to free political prisoners. Yet the leaders of the green movement remain
under house arrest. After all, Rouhani helped orchestrate the crackdowns
against student protests in 1999, and was one of a few candidates
selected by an unelected council of clerics. I asked Ahmed Batebi, an
Iranian dissident who gained fame in 1999 when he appeared on the cover
of the Economist waiving a bloody shirt during a protest at Tehran University,
about Obama's message. 'You have to consider Iran's government
structure,' he said. 'The Iranian people have no say at all in nuclear
decisions.' Batebi was arrested and sentenced to death after the
Economist episode. The sentence was reduced to 15 years following
international outcry. In 2008, he escaped Iran through Iraq and received
political asylum in the U.S. Contrary to Obama's claim that a nuclear
pact would lead to a freer Iran, Batebi believes a deal will saddle
Iranians with dictatorship indefinitely. He compared it to the nuclear
accord reached in 2003 between President George W. Bush and Libyan
dictator Muammar Qaddafi. 'Obama forgot the human rights in the nuclear
discussion, he is looking for a deal and it doesn't matter if this deal is
good or bad for the Iranian people,' Batebi said. 'I believe he is
looking for a Libya situation, they had a deal, and after that the United
States did not talk about human rights. I believe we will have a similar
situation in Iran.' From an arms-control perspective, the Iran agreement
taking shape is actually much weaker than the one forged with Qaddafi.
Libya was required to dismantle its entire nuclear program, whereas
Khamenei will likely be able to keep much of his nuclear infrastructure
in place, in exchange for more intrusive inspections. But the two
agreements are similar in not requiring the strongman to govern with the
consent of his people." http://t.uani.com/1BHQzUR
Sohrab Ahmari in
WSJ: "Negotiators from Iran and the P5+1 powers led
by the U.S. are racing against a March 31 deadline to conclude a nuclear
deal in Lausanne, Switzerland. Secretary of State John Kerry told
reporters on Saturday that negotiators had made 'genuine progress' but
that 'important gaps remain.' Yet what happens if the Iranian leadership
that the U.S. and others are dealing with now is not in place to
implement any agreement? Two recent developments suggest that the Islamic
Republic may be heading toward one of its cyclical spasms of intense
factional competition. The outcome could derail any deal, or leave the
West committed to an agreement that is even less verifiable or useful
than it might be today. There is scant evidence that the Obama
administration is taking this into account. The first warning was in
September, with the news that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, age 75, had
undergone treatment for prostate cancer. State-run media released rare
photos of the most powerful man in Iran receiving visitors at a hospital.
His illness will have put ambitious men in motion. The second development
was the election earlier this month of Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, a
hard-line mullah, to head the Assembly of Experts, the clerical body that
selects and nominally oversees the supreme leader. Mr. Yazdi triumphed
over Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a founder of the Islamic
Republic and Mr. Khamenei's chief rival going back to the regime's
earliest days. Mr. Rafsanjani led parliament throughout the 1980s and was
Iran's president for much of the 1990s. He is a patron of Iran's current
president, the supposedly moderate Hasan Rouhani. Mr. Rafsanjani's
ideology is often described as 'pragmatic conservatism,' though during
his presidency the regime carried out a campaign of bombings and
assassinations against dissidents and Jewish targets abroad. It's
well-known in Iran that Mr. Rafsanjani, now 80, still seeks the supreme
leadership-and that his recent effort to climb back up the ladder was
blocked by Mr. Khamenei. 'Mr. Khamenei, who is one to hold grudges,
didn't want Rafsanjani to get the leadership of the assembly,' a former
Iranian MP told me. 'The whole effort was to prevent Rafsanjani.' A
succession struggle, if one develops, could result in dangerous
instability and the empowerment of people who make the old rivals look
moderate." http://t.uani.com/1B6WOCE
|
|
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