Friday, March 13, 2015

Eye on Iran: Major Nations Hold Talks on Ending U.N. Sanctions on Iran






Join UANI  
 Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our videos on YouTube
   
Top Stories

Reuters: "Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said... Some eight U.N. resolutions - four of them imposing sanctions - ban Iran from uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work and bar it from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo. Iran sees their removal as crucial as U.N. measures are a legal basis for more stringent U.S. and European Union measures to be enforced... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday that an Iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding, meaning future U.S. presidents could decide not to implement it. That point was emphasized in an open letter by 47 Republican senators sent on Monday to Iran's leaders asserting any deal could be discarded once President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. But a Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials. That could complicate and possibly undercut future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement... 'There is an interesting question about whether, if the Security Council endorses the deal, that stops Congress undermining the deal,' a Western diplomat said." http://t.uani.com/1b7Gc7P

NYT: "The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged President Obama on Thursday not to seek a United Nations endorsement of the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran without first giving Congress a chance to vote on it. The warning was the latest twist in an increasingly tense standoff between the White House and congressional Republicans over the potential deal, which would impose limits on Iran's nuclear program in return for lifting economic sanctions. 'There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote,' Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama, which was made public by his office. 'Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it' without allowing Congress to vote on the agreement would be 'a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress's appropriate role,' Mr. Corker added. The Obama administration does not plan to seek congressional approval for the potential accord, which is expected to last about 15 years... Mr. Corker has drafted legislation that would require the White House to submit the Iran agreement to Congress for a vote. Mr. Corker has been trying to build enough bipartisan support for the measure that lawmakers could override a veto." http://t.uani.com/1xjZqLR

IHR: "The annual report on the death penalty in 2014 shows that since the election of President Rouhani in June 2013, Iranian authorities have executed more than 1193 people. This is an average of more than 2 executions every day... Despite the optimism and hope after the election of Mr. Hassan Rouhani as the Iranian president, there are few indications that the human rights situation in the country has improved. In fact, a comparison of the 18 months before and after the presidential elections of June 2013 shows that the use of the death penalty has in fact increased. The diagram on the right shows that the number of executions in the 18 months after the election of Hassan Rouhani as president (1 July 2013 - 31 December 2014) is 31% higher than the numbers in the 18 months before (1 January 2012 - 31 June 2013). Even worse, the number of juvenile offenders executed in 2014 is at its highest annual rate since 1990." http://t.uani.com/1CcwInz

   
Nuclear Program & Negotiations

WashPost: "European allies are joining the Obama administration in criticizing Republican congressional interjection into nuclear negotiations with Iran, saying that an open letter from Republican senators to Iranian leaders has been counterproductive and come at a particularly sensitive time in the talks. 'Suddenly, Iran can say to us: Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?' German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Thursday during a visit to Washington. 'This is no small matter we're talking about,' Steinmeier warned in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'This is not just an issue of American domestic politics.' Germany, France and Britain, along with Russia and China, are U.S. negotiating partners in the Iran talks." http://t.uani.com/19gBrbg

Sanctions Enforcement

WSJ: "German lender Commerzbank AG will pay $1.45 billion in the U.S. to settle allegations of sanctions and money-laundering violations. The settlement resolves separate investigations by U.S. and New York state regulators and law enforcement, who were looking into allegations that Commerzbank violated laws barring transactions on behalf of Iran, Sudan, Cuba and Myanmar, and had abetted a multibillion-dollar securities fraud at Japan-based Olympus Corp. Documents released Thursday as part of the settlement show years of wrongdoing at Commerzbank that continued despite warnings from managers inside the bank. Commerzbank processed thousands of transactions, over the course of several years, through U.S. financial institutions involving sanctioned parties, and engaged in practices, such as stripping out identifying information, that prevented the payments from being blocked, the documents show. The bank admitted Thursday in a deferred-prosecution agreement that its conduct continued even though senior management warned that the bank's practices for Iranian clients 'raised concerns.'" http://t.uani.com/1BAMoim

Reuters: "UniCredit is in discussions with U.S. authorities investigating the Italian bank for possible violations of sanctions on Iran, its chief said... Asked on Friday whether UniCredit could be the next lender to agree to a settlement, its CEO Federico Ghizzoni told reporters: 'I cannot answer. There is utmost confidentiality.' 'We are in continuous discussions with the authorities, let's see how it goes,' he said at a business conference. UniCredit said in 2012 its German unit HVB was being investigated in the United States as part of a global crackdown on possible violations of sanctions on Iran." http://t.uani.com/1BBQtBR
 
Iraq Crisis

WSJ: "Iran's role leading the Tikrit offensive is also playing into Islamic State's propaganda pitting its Sunni Muslim soldiers as the last line of resistance against Tehran and its Shiite forces, which the group deems heretical. U.S. military officials have also voiced concern about Iran's lead role in the assault in recent days, warning it could stoke already high sectarian tensions. 'It's brilliant for their propaganda as it confirms and plays into their narrative that the Iranians are leading a Shiite conspiracy to take over the Middle East and that the U.S. is complicit in this plot,' said Cole Bunzel, an expert on jihadist ideology at Princeton University... Although the U.S. has no role in the Tikrit offensive, American officials see the operation as a litmus test for Iran to see what its intentions are. 'We're watching carefully and assessing what effects will be of the Shiite drive,' one U.S. military official said. 'There will be implications for any future Mosul campaign.'" http://t.uani.com/1L6z3ET

Syria Conflict

Daily Star (Lebanon): "Allowing Iran and Hezbollah to gain a stronger foothold in the Golan is one of the goals of the current offensive underway in southern Syria. The offensive is named in honor of the 'martyrs of Qunaitra,' a reference to the six Hezbollah fighters, including two field commanders, and Iranian Gen. Mohammad Allahdadi, killed in January in an Israeli drone strike. Combat operations are being directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp with much of the attacking force composed of IRGC soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and Shiite auxiliary forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Social media have posted numerous photos and video clips purporting to show dead Shiite militants, including Hezbollah and Afghani fighters and at least two IRGC officers. Abu Ali, a veteran Hezbollah fighter who has served multiple tours in Syria, confirmed IRGC leadership of the southern Syria offensive and that Iranian troops were involved. 'Iran will be so close to the Israelis that it will no longer need long-range missiles to hit them,' Abu Ali said. 'The Golan is going to be a new front line.'" http://t.uani.com/1L6v3Ee

NOW Lebanon: "A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer boasted about Tehran's role in Syria and revealed that his country has been indoctrinating youths in the war-torn country to fight under the IRGC. 'The IRGC has begun to establish new religious groups in Syria called Kashab among young Alawites, Sunnis, Christians and Ismailis,' Al-Arabiya on Tuesday cited Hussein Hamdani as saying. These groups aim to carry out what Hamdani called 'ideological education' for the 'recruitment of teenagers in Syria to fight in militias under [the command] of the IRGC.' The advisor to the Revolutionary Guards commander-general did not elaborate further on the youth groups, but did boast that Iran had formed 42 brigades and 138 battalions fighting for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. Hamdani added that the 'establishment of the Basij in Syria was one of Iran's most important achievements in recent years.' 'Iranian military commanders liberated 85% of Syrian territory previously controlled by the opposition, at a time when even Assad had accepted defeat,' he told Iranian Rasa news agency, which is close to the IRGC." http://t.uani.com/18GHAfS

Human Rights

Free Beacon: "A special United Nations investigator issued a scathing report on the Iranian government's human rights record over the past year, which included the highest execution rate in over a decade and continued crackdowns on journalists and religious minorities. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN rapporteur on human rights in Iran, reported that the regime executed 753 people in 2014. The number is up from 687 in 2013. The number of executions has grown steadily since 2004. The report also highlighted the continued repression of journalists, noting numerous instances of reporters being arrested for supposed 'national security' crimes. One blogger, Soheil Arabi, has been sentenced to death for publishing 'insulting' blog posts about the government. Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian has been imprisoned since last July on still unannounced charges... Shaheed also noted that more than 90 Christians are currently imprisoned for religion-related charges." http://t.uani.com/1Cc1eMW

Opinion & Analysis

WashPost Editorial: "The Obama administration is seeking to assure U.S. allies and congressional skeptics that the nuclear accord it is contemplating with Iran will not lead to a broader detente with the Islamic republic. 'We are not seeking a grand bargain,' Secretary of State John F. Kerry declared last week during a visit to Riyadh he made with the explicit purpose of countering Saudi Arabian suspicions to the contrary. 'We will not take our eye off of Iran's other destabilizing actions in places like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.'  The political imperative behind this clarification is easily understood. In recent months, the notion that President Obama is prepared to scrap the 35-year-old U.S. policy of seeking to contain Iranian influence in the Middle East has been widely accepted by Arab and Israeli officials and U.S. commentators; opposition to such a reversal is one reason the prospective nuclear deal is generating bipartisan unease in Congress... Publicly, Mr. Obama said in an interview in December that he hoped a nuclear deal 'would serve as the basis for us trying to improve relations over time'; if Iran agreed to the accord, he added, it could become 'a very successful regional power.' ... Unfortunately, the administration's assurances are at odds with its actions. While the nuclear negotiations have continued, Mr. Obama has refused to support military action against the Assad regime in Syria, in accord with his letter's reported promise, and his administration has tacitly blessed an ongoing, Iranian-led offensive in Iraq's Sunni heartland. It took no action to stop the ouster by an Iranian-backed militia of a pro-U.S. Yemeni regime. Nor has it reacted to Iran's deployment of thousands of Shiite fighters to southern Syria, near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. That record raises the question of what the administration's response will be to further Iranian adventurism following a nuclear deal. Will it help its allies fight back, or will it restrain itself in the interest of preventing a rupture of the nuclear accord and in order to 'improve relations over time'? Mr. Obama argued last week that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons it 'would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region.' That's clearly true; the worry is that his current policies, combined with the lifting of sanctions, could have the same result." http://t.uani.com/1GMy75y

UANI Advisory Board Member Michael Singh in WSJ: "For all the controversy over the open letter to Iranian leaders, led by Sen. Tom Cotton, the text merely underscored what is already well-known: Members of Congress in both parties have deep reservations about the trajectory of U.S. diplomacy with Iran, and they are concerned about what a nuclear deal reportedly contains and what might be omitted. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out this week found that this skepticism is shared by 71% of Americans... At this stage, virtually any deal the Obama administration negotiates will face deep skepticism at home and abroad. In Congress, this could mean a refusal to lift sanctions; among allies, it may lead to efforts to match Iran's nuclear capabilities or other hedging. This is a problem for President Barack Obama, his successor, and anyone else who wants to see a sustainable diplomatic outcome that advances U.S. interests. Securing domestic and allied support will be vital to a deal's success, whatever its content. Even as it has compromised with Iran, however, the Obama administration has been uncompromising with critics. Administration officials have derided skeptics as warmongers and seem willing to gamble that, once concluded, an agreement will prove impossible to overturn or will produce a broader shift in Iranian policies that ultimately vindicates their approach. All this has increased skeptics' misgivings rather than alleviating concerns. The administration's confrontational manner may ultimately succeed with Congress, given the president's authority over foreign policy. But when it comes to allies-over which the U.S. holds no veto-such tactics are likely to backfire, especially if relations have been strained. It is unrealistic to expect Congress or allies simply to acquiesce if they think that the White House is dismissing their concerns. The good news, however, is that most members of Congress and ordinary citizens who are skeptical about a deal are not warmongers but support a negotiated agreement. The same is true of U.S. allies, with whom we share many interests in the region. Whatever President Obama's feelings about the open letter, he should engage with critics. That a deal would be costly and difficult to reverse is not a reason to avoid addressing skeptics now but precisely why it's better to do so. The national security implications demand that he seek broad support for any agreement. To gain skeptics' support, the president needs to make the substantive case for his Iran policy and be willing to take their concerns on board. He also needs to look beyond a deal and try to reassure allies that the U.S. will remain committed to our mutual interests and to the Middle East in the negotiations' aftermath; if, as reported, a deal is imminent, this effort should have begun long ago. Diplomacy is not just about negotiating with adversaries. It is also about bringing along one's allies and domestic constituencies, without whose support an agreement would be a hollow achievement. Leadership is not simply about exercising prerogatives; it is also about persuading others to follow." http://t.uani.com/1x1bcjV

Hanin Ghaddar in NOW Lebanon: "The Iranians know about resistance, or so they say. They know that any occupying force will be faced with resistance. They've supported 'resistance forces' in the region for decades. Today, they're on the other side of the equation. Iran has become an occupying force in the region, according to statements by its own officials, and therefore, it will now face resistance-in this case, an aggressive and sectarian one. But Iranians will not lose, simply because they won't be fighting on the ground. What Iran is looking forward to is the following: a deal with the US that will see sanctions lifted (or at least a significant part of the sanctions), a blind eye to its growing influence in the region, and eventually a supremacy that allows it to make major changes to the current geopolitical map of the Middle East. Any resistance to Iran in the region will not really stop it, because it simply will not be fighting with and losing Iranian lives. Iranian lives, it would seem, are too valuable to be wasted in sectarian clashes. These sacrifices are rather for Arab Shiites gathered from all over the Middle East and Asia to help Iran build its realm. Arab Sunnis will fight Arab Shiites until the whole region is destabilized. Why should Iran care? A destabilized Lebanon has always played to its advantage, and a destabilized region will pay dividends-Iran has nothing to lose. If the Iranian economy recovers after the deal, the region will drown in yet more blood and state institutions will be further undermined and weakened. Iran will have the financial means to boost its militias in the region. The reality imposed by Iran on the ground contradicts all assurances given by the US to its regional allies. Iran is an occupying force by proxy, and will not abandon its ongoing pursuit of hegemony... Iran's militias in Iraq and Syria are not about to leave any time soon. Even if ISIS is defeated in Iraq and the FSA dissolves in Syria, Iran's militias won't leave. They are here to stay. As such, every strategy to defeat ISIS is a bad strategy unless it takes the post-ISIS scenarios into consideration... Iran's strategy is to dominate by destroying state institutions and intensifying sectarian bloodshed. This domination, however, will have no capacity or will to rebuild, because it does not take into consideration the demography and historic sensitivities of the region. Hezbollah was once described as a state within the Lebanese state. Today, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have become small states within the Iranian empire. This isn't just a choice of words used to make a point: this is reality, and it will get worse when Iran's economic troubles are alleviated. A deal that gives Iran such power will result in the following: First, the perception of the US in the region is changing. The majority of Sunnis now see the US as taking sides in a sectarian fight; an Iranian ally. Obama, in this sense, is perceived as interventionist. Secondly, democracies like Lebanon, or potential democracies in the region, will slowly deteriorate because Iran will not acknowledge state institutions or tolerate freedom of speech. This has been confirmed many times in Lebanon and in Iran itself. Third, liberal and civil groups or individuals will lose legitimacy in the region and civil society will crumble amidst sectarian bloodshed. Is this what the US really wants the region to look like? If the nuclear deal is really worth so much blood, death and madness, then all the values we thought we shared with the US are now inexplicable. See, the question now is not whether there will be a deal to stop Iran's nuclear program. The problem is more fundamental: values are being shattered and people are being betrayed." http://t.uani.com/1GMBidx

Michael Young in the Daily Star (Lebanon): "Pointing to his close ties with Hezbollah and Iran, they read in his remarks the first hints of a broader Iranian vision for a new reality in Lebanon. Not surprisingly, the greatest potential victims of an Iranian-inspired overhaul of Lebanon's political system could be Christians in general and the Maronites in particular. As Iran expands its power throughout the Middle East, it is seeking to reshape the political landscape in ways designed to enhance its leverage and that of its allies. Nor is anybody successfully hindering this. On the contrary, it has become increasingly apparent that the United States has no intention of challenging Iran's sway in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Gone are the days when the American priority was containment of Iran in the region. Under Barack Obama, the U.S. appears to favor a new regional order in which Iran will be granted a choice role. That is why Tehran has been so adamant about defending Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. His downfall would have crippled Iran's efforts. Today, Iranian combatants are fighting in Syria, compensating for the losses in the Alawite community, while Iran has spent billions of dollars to prop up Assad's regime. In Lebanon, it seems highly probable that Iran will pursue a similar logic by seeking to modify the political system to the advantage of the Shiite community, led by Hezbollah. That is easier said than done, however, which is why Hezbollah is using the clashing ambitions of the Maronites themselves to help discredit the current post-Taif political arrangement... Lebanon has particular importance for Iran. Though small, it lies on the border of its principal regional rival, Israel. As Iran puts in place a broad strategy for the expansion of its power in the Arab world, Lebanon and the Golan Heights take on exceptional value. That is why the Lebanese power-sharing agreement needs to be adapted to ensure that Iranian stakes are not threatened... Lebanon is entering an Iranian era. This may very well lead to further convulsions, with Sunnis seeking to oppose such a project. As for the Maronites, they must grasp that if Sunnis and Shiites struggle over Lebanon, it is they who are the dispensable ones - those at whose expense compromises can be reached." http://t.uani.com/1GMBKbz

Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard: Finally, a debate about Iran. Last week, 47 Republican senators released a public letter addressed to the leaders of the Iranian regime. The letter made what might have seemed a self-evident point: If the Obama administration reaches a deal with Iran, Congress will not be bound by parts of the deal to which it has not assented. Then, hysteria. 'The letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican senators could well destroy critical bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy for years to come and treacherously undermine the bargaining power of the person constitutionally authorized to conduct American affairs abroad-the President of the United States,' wrote Les Gelb, president emeritus and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'On top of what House speaker John Boehner did by unilaterally inviting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, this letter seriously points to one terrible conclusion: a formidable number of congressional Republicans hate President Obama more than they love America.' The New York Daily News labeled 'traitors' the letter's signatories and its author, Senator Tom Cotton (combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bronze Star). Max Fisher at Vox.com called the letter 'unprecedented' and claimed Republicans were bringing their legislative obstructionism to 'the previously sacrosanct realm of foreign policy.' John Kerry bellowed that the 'letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.' Hillary Clinton claimed that if the senators' objective wasn't to undermine the president, it was to help the mullahs in Iran. President Obama accused senators of forming a 'coalition' with Iran's hardliners. NBC News called the letter 'stunning' and declared that it signaled an end to the days when politics stopped at the water's edge. We'll resist the temptation to attach labels to those making these claims or offer judgments on their love of country. Instead, some perspective... Let's be clear about what's happening here. The feigned outrage from the White House and its supporters is just the latest of several attempts (a) to distract from the evident shift in the Obama administration's position on Iran-from blocking Iran's development of nuclear weapons to managing it, (b) to silence opposition to the deal, and (c) to blame Congress for any diplomatic failure. (Obama said back in mid-January that Congress would 'own' any diplomatic failure.) A final point. The Cotton letter has already achieved its goal. We are, finally, engaged in a serious national debate about the threat from Iran. That is something the Obama administration has avoided for six years. No more.  Unlike, say, John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, and unlike David Bonior and Nancy Pelosi, these senators gave no succor to dictators and despots. Instead, these 47 patriotic senators merely told the enemy a hard truth about American government. A serious administration intent on stopping Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons would use the letter and the concern it conveys as leverage in negotiations. Instead, they've given us a contrived controversy and an emboldened Iran." http://t.uani.com/19gCQia

Jeffrey Lewis in FP: "There is an enormous amount of discussion about whether a deal is a good one or a bad one... The thing is, there is no 'good' deal. Any deal will be a compromise that leaves in place many dangers to Israel, as well as Iran's neighbors and the United States. The essential thing is to delay as long as possible an Iranian nuclear bomb. Almost any deal will buy more time than if talks were to collapse. If Iran and the United States agree, we can debate the details about whether Iran got too many centrifuges, too much sanctions relief, or isn't subject to intrusive enough inspections. And whatever the Iranians get to do with the plutonium production reactor at Arak will be not wholly satisfying. But there is no good reason to believe that walking away from a deal now puts the United States in position to get a better one in a few years. I am old enough to remember when, back in 2006, I argued that the United States should let Iran keep 164 centrifuges in standby mode during talks. Do you know what people said? '164 centrifuges? Are you mad? You are giving away the store to the Iranians!' Well, now Iran has more than 15,000 centrifuges (that we know about) in at least two sites. One of the most frustrating things about following the past decade of negotiations is watching the West make one concession after another - but only after the Iranians had moved so far forward that the concession had no value. The people arguing now for a 'better' deal at some later date are the same people who in 2006 said 164 centrifuges was way too many and, that if we just held out long enough, we'd haggle the Iranians down to zero. Look what that got us. This is a fantasy, a unicorn, the futile pursuit of which ends with a half-assed airstrike against Iran, a region in flames, and eventually an Iranian nuclear weapon. And let's be clear: If negotiations collapse, the United States will take the blame from Europe and the sanctions regime will unravel. And here's the best-case scenario: Any military action against Iran will set its nuclear program back, at best, a couple of years. But the anger will last generations... So let me say this as clearly as I possibly can: A Republican administration, if given a chance, would negotiate exactly the same agreement that this administration is negotiating, with all its flaws and shortcomings... A deal on Iran's nuclear program won't resolve all the issues that trouble our relationship with Tehran. Iran is still going to engage in all kinds of regional aggression that threatens our allies and our interests. It will still treat its citizens terribly. But it might not have a bomb - at least, not for the moment." http://t.uani.com/1EhumBJ
        

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