Join UANI
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