|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Reuters:
"Major powers and Iran were closer to a preliminary accord on
reining in Tehran's nuclear program as marathon talks ran into Wednesday,
but they hit an impasse over key details such as the lifting of U.N.
sanctions and Iran's future atomic research. The negotiators ended talks
in the Swiss city of Lausanne in the early morning hours with an air of chaos,
disunity and cacophony as delegations scrambled to get contradictory
viewpoints across... France's foreign minister, often seen as making the
most stringent demands of Iran, returned to Paris because things had not
advanced enough for 'immediate deal'... 'We hope to wrap up the talks by
Wednesday night ... We insist on lifting of financial, oil and banking
sanctions immediately ... for other sanctions we need to find a
framework,' senior Iranian negotiator Abbas Araqchi told state
television. 'We insist on keeping research and development with advanced
centrifuges,' he said... The United States threatened on Tuesday to walk
away if the current talks yield no political framework accord." http://t.uani.com/1ImwR6t
JPost:
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continued on Wednesday to rail
against the Iranian nuclear deal being negotiated in Lausanne, saying it
was outrageous that the world negotiates with Tehran as one of its
military leaders says Israel's destruction is 'non-negotiable.'
'Yesterday an Iranian general brazenly declared and I quote: 'Israel's
destruction is non-negotiable', but evidently giving Iran's murderous
regime a clear path to the bomb is negotiable,' he said. 'This is
unconscionable.' Israel Radio on Tuesday quoted Mohammad Reza Naqdi,
commander of the Iranian revolutionary Guard's Basij (volunteer) militia,
as saying on the anniversary of the Islamic Republic Day in Tehran that
'wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation.' ... Iran, the
prime minister said, 'must stop its aggression in the region, stop its
terrorism throughout the world and stop its threats to annihilate Israel.
That should be non-negotiable and that's the deal that the world powers
must insist upon.'" http://t.uani.com/19EKDG2
NYT:
"Secretary of State John Kerry renewed his push on Wednesday to
secure a preliminary accord that would limit Iran's nuclear program, a
day after negotiators extended the March 31 deadline. With the diplomacy
at a pivotal point, President Obama convened a teleconference on Tuesday
night with Mr. Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz and other top
members of the administration to review the status of the negotiations.
As the talks resumed here on Wednesday, an initial accord was potentially
within reach but there was still much to work out. Nobody was ruling out
the possibility that the negotiations - which also involve Britain,
China, France, Germany and Russia - might be extended into the week...
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, said on Wednesday that he
expected Iran and other negotiators to issue 'a press statement' later in
the day that would 'announce progress in the negotiations.' 'It will
announce that we have managed to find solutions for key issues,' he told
Iranian television. 'Then we will start to write down the
solutions.'" http://t.uani.com/1FhoZ5X
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AFP:
"Russia and Iran's foreign ministers claimed a breakthrough early
Wednesday in talks on a framework deal curtailing Tehran's nuclear
programme, but the US said not all issues had been agreed yet, as
discussions were suspended for the night. 'One can say with relative
certainty that we at the minister level have reached an agreement in
principle on all key aspects of the final settlement of this issue,'
Russian media quoted Sergei Lavrov as saying at talks in Switzerland...
The 'agreement in principle... will be put on paper in the coming hours
or perhaps within one day,' Lavrov said, quoted by Ria Novosti after a
lengthy day of talks in Lausanne." http://t.uani.com/1C7SWRg
Reuters:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday it was
not too late for world powers locked in nuclear negotiations with Iran to
demand a 'better deal'. He made the comments before meeting in Jerusalem
with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, a
leading Republican and strong critic of the White House's policy on Iran.
'Now is the time for the international community to insist on a better
deal,' Netanyahu said in a televised statement delivered in English. 'A
better deal would significantly roll back Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
A better deal would link the eventual lifting of the restrictions on
Iran's nuclear program to a change in Iran's behavior,' he said, citing
threats to annihilate Israel and accusing Tehran of fomenting regional
conflict." http://t.uani.com/19Jy6Rm
Times of Israel:
"A former head of the IDF's military intelligence branch said
Tuesday morning that the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran would be a
'bad deal,' if it is indeed finalized around the terms that have been
made public... 'Without the export of the 7-8 tons of low-enriched
uranium, the Americans do not have the goal they set' of keeping Iran a
year away from enough fuel for a nuclear weapon, said Yadlin, the Zionist
Union's pick for defense minister during the recent elections, who
currently runs the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv...
The former fighter pilot, one of eight who raided the Osirak reactor in
Iraq in 1981, said there were 'many alternatives between a bad deal and
military action,' such as new harsher sanctions and covert action." http://t.uani.com/1Dtz9Bv
NYT:
"As the nuclear negotiations dragged into overtime here on Tuesday,
some uniquely American and Iranian political sensitivities were
permeating the marathon negotiating sessions, leading many to wonder
whether two countries that have barely spoken for 35 years are just not
ready to overcome old suspicions. In the hallway chatter overheard in the
century-old Beau-Rivage Palace Hotel here, where Secretary of State John
Kerry and his counterparts from five other countries are struggling to
close a preliminary political deal with Iran, the Americans talk, in a
wonderfully American way, about numbers and limits. Yet, when Iranian
officials step out of the elegant, chandeliered rooms, where the
post-World War I order was negotiated 90 years ago, to brief the news
media - primarily their own - most questions about numbers and limits are
waved away. Those officials talk almost entirely about preserving respect
for their rights and Iran's sense of sovereignty." http://t.uani.com/1C7KLV0
Breitbart:
"The White House released a list of its high-ranking officials who
took part in a video conference with President Obama late Tuesday. Among
them appears Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who apparently has formerly worked for
the National Iranian-American Council. The White House brief, which was
disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National
Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former
employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National
Iranian-American Council)... NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts
to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of
terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted
having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's
brother." http://t.uani.com/1NJ7QWN
Military
Matters
CNN:
"An Iranian military observation aircraft flew within 50 yards of an
armed U.S. Navy helicopter over the Persian Gulf this month, sparking
concern that top Iranian commanders might not be in full control of local
forces, CNN has learned. The incident, which has not been publicly
disclosed, troubled U.S. military officials because the unsafe maneuver
could have triggered a serious incident. It also surprised U.S.
commanders because in recent months Iranian forces have conducted
exercises and operations in the region in a professional manner, one U.S.
military official told CNN... The Navy MH-60R armed helicopter was flying
from the deck of the USS Carl Vinson on a routine patrol in international
airspace, the official said. An unarmed Iranian observation Y-12 aircraft
approached. The Iranian aircraft made two passes at the helicopter,
coming within 50 yards, before the helicopter moved off, according to the
official." http://t.uani.com/1Cx1rc4
Congressional
Action
Reuters:
"U.S. Republicans will push ahead with legislation reflecting their
deep mistrust of a nuclear deal with Iran whatever the outcome of talks
between Tehran and major powers in Switzerland, setting up further
confrontation with President Barack Obama. Just what action they will
take - and how much support they get from Democrats - depends on the
details agreed by negotiators from United States, Britain, France,
Germany, Russia and China in Lausanne who are edging toward a preliminary
deal due by the end of Tuesday. If that deadline is missed, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said lawmakers would vote on a bill
to impose new sanctions on Iran if it does not come to a final agreement
by the scheduled date of June 30. The aim would be to increase pressure
on Iran to compromise in the last months of the talks. Even if
negotiators come up with an interim deal now, McConnell says he will
introduce a different bill that would require Obama to submit a final
agreement for Congress' approval and block for two months his right to
waive sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1yzTm2y
Terrorism
WashPost:
"A federal judge on Tuesday found the governments of Iran and Sudan
liable in the al-Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, awarding $75
million in damages to the family of one of 17 sailors killed in the
October 2000 terrorist attack. Other federal judges - in Norfolk two
weeks ago and in Washington in 2012 - have ordered Sudan to pay $48
million and $315 million, respectively, to victims of the Oct. 12, 2000,
attack or their survivors. But Tuesday's ruling is the first to find Iran
partly responsible for the incident, in which an explosive-laden boat
struck the guided-missile destroyer in the Yemeni port of Aden. U.S.
District Judge Rudolph Contreras, ruling in Washington, entered a default
judgment in favor of four brothers and the mother of Kevin Shawn Rux, an
electronic warfare technician first class who was killed in the
attack." http://t.uani.com/1EDqcXH
AP:
"The families of three American soldiers killed during a brazen
attack in Iraq are suing the Iranian government for allegedly
orchestrating the raid. Filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in
Washington, the lawsuit said Lt. Jacob Fritz, Specialist Johnathan Chism
and Private First Class Shawn Falter were taken prisoner and then
murdered in January 2007 by Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents and the Khazali
network, an Iraqi militant group also funded and trained by Iran. The
lawsuit said Iran directed the assault on the provincial headquarters in
Karbala as retaliation for the arrest of Iranian agents operating in Iraq
by U.S. forces." http://t.uani.com/1OZ3vjG
Regional
Destabilization
NYT:
"As America talks to Iran, Saudi Arabia is lashing out against it.
The kingdom, Iran's chief regional rival, is leading airstrikes against
an Iranian-backed faction in Yemen; backing a blitz in Idlib, Syria, by jihadists
fighting the Iranian-backed Assad regime; and warning Washington not to
allow the Iranian-backed militia to capture too much of Iraq during the
fight to roll back the Islamic State, according to Arab diplomats
familiar with the talks. Through Egypt, a major beneficiary of Saudi aid,
the kingdom is backing plans for a combined Arab military force to combat
Iranian influence around the region. With another major aid recipient,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is also expected to step up its efforts to develop
a nuclear bomb, potentially setting off an arms race in the region...
'Taking matters into our own hands is the name of the game today,' said
Jamal Khashoggi, a veteran Saudi journalist and former adviser to the
government. 'A deal will open up the Saudi appetite and the Turkish
appetite for more nuclear programs. But for the time being Saudi Arabia
is moving ahead with its operations to pull the carpet out from
underneath the Iranians in our region.' ... Unless Iran pulls back, 'you
will see more direct Arab responses and you will see a higher level of
geopolitical tension in the whole region,' argued Nabil Fahmy, a veteran
Egyptian diplomat and former foreign minister." http://t.uani.com/1xyLgvT
Opinion &
Analysis
Dennis Ross in
Politico: "Even if much remains to be thrashed out,
with the deadline extended to Wednesday, the tentative framework
understanding that the P5+1 is now finalizing with Iran represents
progress toward constraining the Iranian nuclear program. The claim of
the Obama administration that any eventual agreement will block all
pathways toward an Iranian nuclear weapon, however, is surely an
overstatement. At best, a deal will create impediments for the life of
the agreement but offer little afterward. At that point, the
administration and its successors would need to make clear that should
Iran seek to break out to the production of weapons-grade enriched
uranium-or the preparation of nuclear weapons-it would trigger the use of
force by us. But in that case, we would be acting to deter the Iranians
from translating their sizable nuclear infrastructure into a nuclear
weapon, not to dismantle the program. It is noteworthy that the agreement
that the administration will now try to finalize with the Iranians by
June 30 does not reflect the objective we had hoped to achieve for much
of President Barack Obama's first term. At that point, when I was in the
administration, our aim was to transform the character of the Iranian
nuclear program so that the peaceful intent of its capabilities would be
demonstrated unmistakably to the international community. Necessarily,
that meant that Iran could not have a large nuclear infrastructure. If
permitted enrichment, it would have to be highly circumscribed and
limited to small numbers for the purposes of research or production of
medical isotopes. If Iran wanted additional nuclear reactors to generate
electricity, it would receive its fuel from international fuel banks and
its spent fuel would be sent out of the country-much like is done with
the Bushehr reactor today. Similarly, there would be no stockpile of
enriched uranium in the country that the Iranians might surreptitiously
seek to purify to weapons grade. And, the questions about the possible
military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program-a euphemism for Iran's
efforts to create a nuclear weapon-would have been satisfactorily
answered. At some point, the Obama administration changed its objective
from one of transforming the Iranian nuclear program to one of ensuring
that Iran could not have a breakout time of less than one year. The
former was guided by our determination to press Iran to change its intent
about pursuing or at least preserving the option of having a nuclear
weapon. The latter clearly reflects a very different judgment: that we were
not able to alter the Iranian intentions, so instead we needed to focus
on constraining their capabilities. By definition, when we speak about a
one-year breakout time, we are accepting that Iran will have the means
and infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons and we are trying to
develop impediments to its doing so-even as we also create indicators
that alert us to any such Iranian effort... But if the measure of the
negotiations is now about breakout time, then the administration needs to
show convincingly that the verification regime will be far-reaching and
capable of detecting whatever the Iranians are doing and whenever they do
it. In fact, a one-year breakout time depends not just on the number and
type of centrifuges, their output and the stockpile of enriched
uranium-all of which can be calculated-but also on the administration's
ability to discover the moment at which the Iranians begin to sneak out,
creep out or break out from the limitations placed on them... Skepticism
about an agreement based on constraining Iranian capabilities, and not on
demonstrating a shift in Iranian intentions, is understandable. Rather
than questioning the motivations of the skeptics, the administration
would be wise to demonstrate that it has compelling answers to their
concerns about the possible vulnerabilities of the deal." http://t.uani.com/1xyBb2b
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "Now is the time to praise Javad Zarif.
Whatever you might think of Iran's foreign minister, he knows how to
bargain. With a final announcement due any moment from negotiations over
Iran's nuclear program in Lausanne, Switzerland, Iran appears to be doing
quite well for itself. After all, before the real negotiations began,
Iran won vague recognition -- from the U.S. and five other great powers --
that it has a right to enrich uranium. Between 2008 and 2012, the United
Nations Security Council passed five resolutions sanctioning Tehran for
violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by operating centrifuges
at facilities it had not bothered to tell the International Atomic Energy
Agency about. Now, if press leaks turn out to be correct, Iran is on the
brink of securing an agreement to allow it to keep thousands of those
centrifuges, and also to operate its laboratory at Fordow, a facility
burrowed deep into a mountain for the production of what Zarif assures us
are medical isotopes. When U.S. spies smoked out that facility in 2009,
Obama demanded that Iran come clean about all of its past nuclear
activities. Last week, the IAEA reported that Iran continues to stonewall
the agency on the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program
before 2003. Zarif's ability to negotiate concessions despite Iran's
shaky past would be impressive enough for any foreign minister. But
consider that he was able to do so even as his bosses in Tehran waged a
successful proxy war against Western allies throughout the Middle East.
In Yemen, a pro-American government fell this month to Iranian backed
Houthi fighters, and prompted Saudi Arabia to launch an air war to beat
them back. In Syria, Iranian support has been vital to the survival of
Bashar al-Assad, the dictator Obama used to say had to go. How does Zarif
do it? Part of the answer is personal charm. He has for more than a
decade cultivated Washington policy elites the way an aspiring
presidential candidate works over local party activists in Iowa and New
Hampshire. Just as local county commissioners are lucky to just get some
face time with national political figures, Zarif, who was ambassador to
the United Nations from 2002 to 2007, became the one Iranian official who
bothered responding to e-mails from journalists, analysts and members of
Congress happy to have the access." http://t.uani.com/1G4Z58f
Carroll Doherty in
FP: "As American negotiators meeting in Lausanne,
Switzerland, rush to complete a framework agreement limiting Iran's
nuclear weapons program before the U.S. informal deadline of March 31,
the U.S. team is facing additional challenges back home. The American
public is simply not paying much attention to the issue, and when it is,
omens aren't good: Six-in-ten Americans still don't trust Iranian leaders
to bargain in good faith. Moreover, the public sided with Republicans and
some Democrats in Congress in saying they think Congress should have the final
authority for approving any nuclear agreement between the United States
and Iran. Negotiators have until June 30 to finalize the technical
details of any nuclear agreement. But findings from a new Pew Research
Center survey, conducted March 25-29, among 1,500 Americans, suggest that
the White House will need to convince the public that Tehran can be
trusted to have bargained in good faith and that there is no need for
Congress to weigh in on the deal. Despite the approach of the March 31
negotiating deadline and a concomitant increase in news coverage, just 27
percent of Americans have heard a lot about the negotiations between
Washington and Tehran on Iran's nuclear program; 49 percent have heard a
little about them. But nearly a quarter of American adults (24 percent)
have heard nothing at all about the talks. Roughly half (49 percent) of
Americans surveyed approve of the U.S. negotiating directly with Iran
over the issue of its nukes, while 40 percent disapprove. There is a
clear partisan divide over talking to the Iranians. A strong majority of
Democrats (62 percent) back the negotiations, compared with 49 percent of
independents and just 36 percent of Republicans... But support for
talking with the Iranians does not mean that the public trusts them to
bargain in good faith. Fully 63 percent of those who are aware of the
negotiations say they do not believe that the Iranian leaders are serious
about addressing international concerns about the country's nuclear
enrichment program. Only 27 percent believe Tehran is serious. That
skepticism is largely unchanged from December 2013, the last time Pew
Research asked the question. In the new poll, majorities across most
demographic groups say that Iranian leaders are 'not serious' about
addressing international nuclear concerns... President Barack Obama has
long claimed that the executive branch can begin to implement any deal
with Iran without the need for congressional action. The administration's
views on this may be changing, according to the Wall Street Journal. But
the public is clear in its view. A majority (62 percent) voice the view
that Congress should have the final authority for approval of any nuclear
agreement. Just 29 percent believe that the president should have the
final say-so... If there is a deal, the White House has a major selling
job ahead." http://t.uani.com/1FhiJuV
Bobby Ghosh in
Quartz: "For months now, those in favor of a nuclear
deal with the regime in Tehran have been arguing that the alternative is,
inexorably, war between the US-along with its Western allies-against
Iran, to prevent it from getting nukes. This allows them to label those
who oppose a deal as hawks and war-mongers. Name-calling is often a sign
of a weak argument, and this one's pretty feeble. The conclusion that war
is inevitable rests on two broad assumptions, one problematic and the
other just plain wrong. The first is that Iran must indeed be
trying to make nuclear weapons. After all, that's the only sensible
reason the US and its allies would embark on another military adventure
in the Middle East. But the regime claims it is not seeking nukes. Is the
pro-deal camp, then, saying the regime is lying? If so, it's hard to
understand why they think Tehran should be trusted at the negotiating
table. Especially since, as I have argued, relief from economic sanctions
is likely to make Iran a greater threat to world peace. The other
assumption is that the US could go to war even if Iran is not seeking
nukes. Call it the Bush-did-it-to-Iraq argument: Since one American president
took his country to war on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that
did not exist, then so could another. This is, at the very least, an
uncharitable view of Barack Obama. We can certainly have a discussion
about whether or not the American president deserved his 2009 Nobel Peace
Prize. (The chairman of the committee that made the choice was recently
forced out.) But Obama is no George W. Bush. He may not be above ordering
air strikes in places where there's little likelihood of anybody shooting
back-which, by the way, rules out Iran-but there's nothing in his track
record to suggest that he will commit the US to a full-fledged war. Nor
are American allies, burned by Bush's Iraqi misadventure, likely to go
along for one in Iran. Remember how British prime minister David Cameron
failed to persuade his own parliament to bomb Syria for using chemical
weapons on civilians? So, no: War with Iran is not ineluctable if a
nuclear deal is not hammered out in Lausanne. Here's a best-case
scenario: Continued sanctions-and fresh ones, for failing to come to
terms-could further weaken the regime and make it more persuadable.
Here's a worst-case scenario: China and Russia could decide to end
sanctions, leaving the Western powers powerless. Sensible people can have
a sensible debate about this, but please let's drop the false dialectic
of deal-or-war. And the name-calling." http://t.uani.com/1C7ZRtA
David Ignatius in
WashPost: Whatever the endgame produces, it's useful to
focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important
as whether there's a sustainable deal. First, there is the fact of
U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct
talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian
hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison
'Death to America' is probably gone forever. This process of engagement
is a significant achievement of the Obama administration, even if the
nuclear accord unravels. Iran is now a diplomatic and political factor in
regional and world politics, for better or worse. The right U.S. strategy
was to prevent this rising Iran from getting nuclear weapons, not to
pretend that it didn't exist." http://t.uani.com/1xyyTQv
|
|
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