Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"Iran and the United States issued contrasting assessments Tuesday
on their progress toward an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program
as Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz met here with his Iranian
counterpart. In comments to the Iranian news media, Ali Akbar Salehi,
the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said that 90
percent of the technical issues had been worked out. Mr. Salehi said he
hoped to resolve a remaining 'point of difference' in a meeting Tuesday
afternoon with Mr. Moniz. A senior American official was far more
cautious in comments to reporters Tuesday morning. 'We have definitely
made progress in terms of identifying technical options for each of the
major areas,' said the official, who declined to be identified by name
under the protocol for briefing reporters. 'There is no way around it:
We still have a ways to go,' the official added. 'Even within this
space, we have some tough issues to address.' ... The clashing Iranian
and American statements may be partly a matter of tactics. By
describing the agreement as virtually at hand, the Iranians may be
trying to build public pressure on the United States and its European
partners to make concessions on remaining issues." http://t.uani.com/1EqJlGU
The Hill:
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
voiced optimism Tuesday on passage of a bill next week to give Congress
the ability to weigh in on a nuclear deal with Iran. 'I hope we're
going to have a successful markup next week, if people stay in the
positions that they've been ... I don't see any indication that that's
not the case,' he told reporters. Corker said he is planning to
schedule a vote on the bill in the committee either Wednesday or
Thursday -- days after a self-imposed March 24 deadline for
international negotiators to reach a framework agreement with Iran to
roll back its nuclear program. Democratic supporters of the bill,
including ranking member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), promised the White
House they would withhold their support until after March 24. There are
19 members on the committee - 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats. A
majority vote would pass the bill out of committee, and Republicans are
likely to be joined by at least four Democrats who have expressed
support for the bill... Republicans believe they can override a
presidential veto with 67 votes. Corker said he did not want to predict
whether the bill, co-authored with Menendez, will receive a veto-proof
majority, but said, 'We've got a lot of support.'" http://t.uani.com/1GobH7c
Politico:
"The White House is moving aggressively to limit Democratic
defections on Capitol Hill that could undermine its negotiations with
Iran, dispatching senior officials and President Barack Obama himself
to lobby senators against taking action before a nuclear deal with the
rogue regime is reached. Senior administration officials have asked
Senate Democrats to notify the White House if they are considering
signing onto a bill drafted by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.) that would give Congress the ability to accept or
reject any nuclear deal. The push, several Senate sources said, is to
prevent a veto-proof majority from building by heading off any fresh
Democratic support for the plan and persuade supporters to keep their
powder dry until the conclusion of multilateral negotiations with Iran.
The lobbying effort has come from all quarters. Obama has spoken
directly with Democratic senators on the Foreign Relations Committee,
including Ben Cardin of Maryland. Other senators who are weighing
whether to join the legislative effort, such as Joe Manchin of West
Virginia, have been briefed by the likes of Samantha Power, the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations. Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary
of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have reached out
directly to senators, according to sources on Capitol Hill... With
their caucus divided, Senate Democratic leaders are letting the White
House mount the lobbying push on its own." http://t.uani.com/1AEMUbc
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes his election win to
Israeli security fears, notably about Iran's growing regional
influence, said an official of a Gulf Arab government wary of Tehran's
progress towards a nuclear deal with world powers. 'With Iran emerging
again, it was highly expected that Netanyahu would win,' said the Gulf
Arab official, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of
the matter. 'He's a man who believes strongly in protecting his people,
and this is what Israel wants now.' ... 'Without any sense of collusion
with Israel, there is a feeling of affinity in the Gulf with Israel's
stance on curbing the influence of Iran in the area.' He said the
Iranian nuclear talks were 'really scary' for Gulf Arab states, which
are unnerved by Iran's backing for Shi'ite forces in conflicts in Iraq
and Syria and its alliances with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and
Yemen's Houthi militia." http://t.uani.com/1Go9glf
Al-Monitor:
"US and European lawmakers are circulating an unprecedented joint
letter warning their respective heads of state that a bad deal with
Iran will 'without fail' result in more sanctions, Al-Monitor has
learned. Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and Randy Weber, R-Texas, began
circulating the letter on March 17 to members of the House Armed
Services and Foreign Affairs panels. They say the letter has already
been signed by four parliamentarians from the so-called E3 nations of
France, Britain and Germany that are involved in the multiparty talks
over Iran's nuclear program. 'We believe that a nuclear Iran is an
imminent threat not only to the U.S. but also to Europe, the Middle
East and to the world at large,' the two US lawmakers write in a
message inviting colleagues to sign on. 'With this in mind, we are
partnering with members of various European Parliaments to address our
concerns to President Obama and to the heads of the European states
involved in the negotiations (France, England and Germany), and express
our fear of a bad deal.' ... The letter has already been signed by
David Burrowes of the United Kingdom, Meyer Habib of France, and
Roderich Kiesewetter and Johann Wadephul of Germany, according to
Lamborn and Weber. They are seeking signatures until March 23 and aim
to send out the letter on March 24, which is the deadline for nuclear
talks." http://t.uani.com/1FAk2qc
Gatestone:
"Laurent Fabius -- once François Mitterrand's youngest Prime
Minister; today's François Hollande's seasoned Foreign Minister -- is
'fed up with Barack Obama's nuclear laxity' regarding Iran, a Quai
senior diplomat told Le Canard Enchaîné's usually well-informed Claude
Angéli, who can be relied on to give the unvarnished French view on
matters foreign. 'Just as in 2013, France will oppose any agreement too
favorable to Iran if this turns out to be necessary. Fabius made this
very clear to John Kerry when they met on Saturday March 7th.' This,
Angéli points out, is far from the 'soothing communiqué' issued at the
end of the Kerry-Fabius meeting in which both men supposedly 'shared'
the same view of the Iran negotiations." http://t.uani.com/1xep62i
AP:
"Several opposition lawmakers in Argentina have written a letter
urging countries negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program to
consider two terrorist attacks in the South American country allegedly
orchestrated by Tehran. The letter was sent Tuesday to U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry and his counterparts in Germany, China, France,
Britain and Russia. No demands are made in the letter. However, the
lawmakers urge negotiators to note the 'ardent support of terrorism in
our country and beyond.' The letter cites the 1992 bombing of the
Israeli Embassy and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center, both
in Buenos Aires." http://t.uani.com/191lZPn
Sanctions
Relief
AFP:
"Western sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme cannot prevent it
from growing, President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday as he inaugurated
part of the giant South Pars gas field in the Gulf. 'This inauguration
means that when we say sanctions cannot stop us from growing,
developing and moving forward, Phase 12 bears witness to that,' he
said. Tuesday's ceremony comes with Iran and the major powers engaged
in crunch talks in Switzerland as the clock ticks down on reaching an
elusive deal on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme. 'We stand tall
before the world powers and in the course of the talks, sooner or
later, we will see results,' Rouhani said." http://t.uani.com/19ziGA6
Human Rights
AP: "The sister of a former U.S. Marine imprisoned in Iran said
Tuesday that her brother renounces his dual Iranian citizenship and
vows to never return to Iran if he's allowed to leave after 3½ years
behind bars. Sarah Hekmati's brother, Amir Hekmati, 31, made the
comments in a letter he recently dictated to their mother by phone.
Sarah Hekmati said she forwarded it to the office in Pakistan's Washington
embassy that represents Iran's U.S. interests and originally granted
his Iranian passport and visa before his 2011 trip to visit family. 'It
has become very clear to me that those responsible view
Iranian-Americans not as citizens or even human beings, but as
bargaining chips and tools for propaganda,' he wrote in the letter sent
to the Iranian Interest Section in Washington. 'Considering how little
value the Ministry of Intelligence places on my Iranian citizenship and
passport, I, too, place little value on them and inform you,
effectively that I formally renounce my Iranian citizenship and
passport.'" http://t.uani.com/1O5YfKH
Foreign
Affairs
Reuters:
"U.S. congressional Republicans who oppose President Barack
Obama's pursuit of a nuclear deal with Tehran and are eager to portray
Iran as untrustworthy will use a hearing in Congress on Wednesday to
air complaints about Iran's actions in Latin America. A congressional
aide said the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs subcommittee on
the Western Hemisphere would discuss what Republicans say are cases of
Iran's involvement in Argentina, Venezuela and elsewhere. Issues to be
raised include the fatal shooting of Alberto Nisman, an Argentine
prosecutor who was investigating Iran's alleged role in the 1994
bombing of a Jewish group, and allegations of covert Iranian dealings
in oil and missile technology with Argentina and Venezuela, the aide
said. In announcing the hearing, subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan
explicitly linked the themes to what he described as 'the impending
deadline for ... negotiations over Iran's illicit nuclear weapons
program.'" http://t.uani.com/1BPsAXu
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Advisory
Board Member Joseph Lieberman in WSJ: "As the
Obama administration moves closer to a diplomatic agreement with Iran
regarding its nuclear program, a bipartisan group of senators-including
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and ranking Democrat
Bob Menendez-has put forward legislation that would provide Congress
with a mechanism to review such a deal. The White House has threatened
a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a 'nonbinding' executive
agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an
inappropriate intrusion. Not so. The Constitution and history, not to
mention common sense, argue that it is entirely proper for America's
elected representatives in Congress to review a far-reaching agreement
with a foreign government of such national-security significance. The
president as commander in chief deserves deference in devising
national-security strategy, but Congress has clear constitutional
standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process.
Each of the Constitution's grants of foreign-policy authority to the
president is checked and balanced by a grant of foreign-policy
authority to Congress. For example, the two most explicit
foreign-policy powers the Constitution gives to the president-selecting
ambassadors and making international treaties-both require Senate
consent. The legislation now before the Senate, which may be taken up
as early as next week, would allow Congress to assume its rightful role
in a responsible, measured way. Rather than treating an Iran agreement
as a treaty-which would require formal ratification by two-thirds of
the Senate-the bill would adopt a less stringent standard. Each chamber
of Congress would have the opportunity to hold a vote of approval or
disapproval of a deal under expedited rules of procedure; in the
absence of a joint resolution of disapproval by both the House and
Senate, the deal would automatically take effect. This would ensure
there is a structured process for deliberation and debate. The Obama
administration instead intends to treat an Iran deal like a status of
forces agreement, known as a SOFA, which spells out rules for U.S.
soldiers deployed in a foreign country. These are typically nonbinding
executive agreements that do not involve a congressional vote.But the
analogy is flawed. Unlike SOFAs, which tend to be administrative and
technical in nature, a nuclear deal with Iran would represent a
historic and highly controversial strategic commitment-precisely the
kind of national decision in which congressional involvement is most
warranted. Congress should also review an Iran agreement because of the
unusually extensive and direct role it has already played in
formulating exactly those policies that a nuclear deal would alter and
undo. Congress in 2010 designed and passed the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which sought to punish
companies and individuals that did business with Iran's petroleum
sector. Legislation in 2012 added further restrictions." http://t.uani.com/1FBRwEk
Ilan Goldenberg
in Politico: "Has the Iran deal become too big to
fail? Last October, right-wing opponents of President Obama seized on
comments by his advisor, Ben Rhodes, who suggested that the
administration saw a nuclear agreement with Iran as comparable in
magnitude to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in Obama's first
term. The comparison is more apt than Rhodes perhaps intended-and not
just because the Iran nuclear debate has achieved levels of bitterness
and partisanship reminiscent of the Obamacare fallout. Like the
Affordable Care Act, if the negotiators are able to forge an initial
political framework agreement in the next two weeks in Switzerland, the
deal will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. In fact, both
opponents and supporters of the deal should take a lesson from the
Obamacare experience. If there is an agreement, rather than trying to
fruitlessly weaken the deal as Republicans have done since the passage
of the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress should look for a more
constructive role. Among other things, they could seek to address
perceived weaknesses in the deal-such as the 'sunset clause' under
which many limits on the Iranian program are eventually lifted-by
enacting future-sanctions legislation that will deter Iran from ever
choosing to pursue a bomb, even in the distant future. Meanwhile, the
White House should find ways to more effectively engage Congress in the
process. Together, the president and Congress can use the powers of the
legislative branch to convert an adequate nuclear agreement into a
stronger one... Obamacare and the potential Iran deal are also alike in
that, once an agreement is reached, it will be very difficult for
opponents to overturn the pact since the president will hold most of
the cards. Any agreement with Iran will not require congressional
action for years because Congress does not have to approve a deal and
will not be asked to permanently lift sanctions until much later in the
process, and initially the president will be able to waive the relevant
sanctions that are part of a sanctions relief package. Also, much of
the early lifting of sanctions will come from Europe. All indications
are that congressional removal will constitute the very last step of
sanctions relief coming after Iran has a years long demonstrated track
record of following through on its commitments... Just as was the case
with Obamacare, whether one supported the legislation or not, once an
agreement is reached trying to unwind it could cause the equivalent of
a death spiral. In the case of the Affordable Care Act this would
involve massive and unpredictable chaos in the health insurance
markets. In the case of an Iran agreement the consequences could be
even graver. The question would no longer be whether a deal is a good
deal or a bad deal, but what happens if after the president signs an
agreement it is then overturned by a veto-proof majority in Congress
with the whole world watching. In that scenario, the day after the
Senate rejects an agreement or levies new sanctions, Iran would remove
the constraints on its nuclear program, which has been essentially
frozen since the interim agreement was implemented in January 2014. Key
Iranian trading partners such as China and India, which have abided by
sanctions due both to American pressure and to recognition that it was
Iranian bad faith that had created the nuclear crisis, would likely
blame the United States. The sanctions regime would begin to unravel
and Iran would find itself unconstrained and able to go even
further." http://t.uani.com/1EvFefl
|
|
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