|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"Iran and the United States, along with five other world powers,
announced on Thursday a surprisingly specific and comprehensive
understanding on limiting Tehran's nuclear program for the next 15 years,
though they left several specific issues to a final agreement in June.
After two years of negotiations, capped by eight tumultuous days and
nights of talks that appeared on the brink of breakdown several times,
Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad
Zarif, announced the plan, which, if carried out, would keep Iran's
nuclear facilities open under strict production limits, and which holds
the potential of reordering America's relationship with a country that
has been an avowed adversary for 35 years... President Obama, for whom
remaking the American relationship with Iran has been a central objective
since his 2008 campaign, stepped into the Rose Garden moments later to
celebrate what he called 'a historic understanding with Iran.' He warned
Republicans in Congress that if they tried to impose new sanctions to
undermine the effort, the United States would be blamed for a diplomatic
failure. He insisted that the deal 'cuts off every pathway' for Iran to
develop a nuclear weapon and establishes the most intrusive inspection
system in history. 'If Iran cheats,' he said, 'the world will know it.'
Under the accord, Iran agreed to cut the number of operating centrifuges
it has by two-thirds, to 5,060, all of them first-generation, and to cut
its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium from around 10,000
kilograms to 300 for 15 years. An American description of the deal also
referred to inspections 'anywhere in the country' that could 'investigate
suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility.' But in
a briefing, American officials talked about setting up a mechanism to
resolve disputes that has not been explained in any detail... Those
conditions impressed two of the most skeptical experts on the
negotiations: Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran. Mr.
Samore, who was Mr. Obama's top adviser on weapons of mass destruction in
his first term as president, said in an email that the deal was a 'very
satisfactory resolution of Fordo and Arak issues for the 15-year term' of
the accord. He had more questions about operations at Natanz and said
there was 'much detail to be negotiated, but I think it's enough to be
called a political framework.' Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector
of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, 'It appears to be a
fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.' But he
cautioned that 'Iran maintains enrichment capacity which will be beyond
its near-term needs.'" http://t.uani.com/1GorgOb
NYT:
"On the day he took office, President Obama reached out to America's
enemies, offering in his first inaugural address to 'extend a hand if you
are willing to unclench your fist.' More than six years later, he has
arrived at a moment of truth in testing that proposition with one of the
nation's most intransigent adversaries... Yet the deal remains unfinished
and unsigned, and critics worry that he is giving up too much while
grasping for the illusion of peace... 'Right now, he has no foreign policy
legacy,' said Cliff Kupchan, an Iran specialist who has been tracking the
talks as chairman of the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm. 'He's got a
list of foreign policy failures. A deal with Iran and the ensuing
transformation of politics in the Middle East would provide one of the
more robust foreign policy legacies of any recent presidencies. It's kind
of all in for Obama. He has nothing else. So for him, it's all or
nothing.' ... But with so many disappointments, Iran has become something
of a holy grail of foreign policy to Mr. Obama, one that could hold the
key to a broader reordering of a region that has bedeviled American
presidents for generations. Aides say he has spent more time on Iran than
any other foreign policy issue except Afghanistan and terrorism... 'Obama
always saw the Iranian nuclear threat as a major security challenge that
would lead to war if not controlled, and further proliferation if not
prevented,' said Gary Samore, a former top arms control adviser to Mr.
Obama who is now president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear
Iran. 'If we get a nuclear deal, it won't solve the problem, because the
current government in Iran will still be committed to acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability,' he added. 'But it would give the next president a
much stronger basis to manage and delay the threat.'" http://t.uani.com/1Gord4O
WSJ:
"Top Obama administration officials entered negotiations with Iran
in September 2013 hoping to dismantle most of the country's nuclear
infrastructure-but carrying gnawing doubts such an outcome was possible.
Those concerns were quickly confirmed when U.S. and Iranian diplomats sat
down for their first formal meeting the following month at the United
Nations offices near the shores of Lake Geneva. Iranian negotiators made
clear that a dismantling of their facilities, including eliminating tens
of thousands of centrifuge machines, a plutonium-producing reactor and an
underground fuel-production site, wasn't feasible, senior U.S. officials
said. 'It's our moon shot,' Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told a
U.S. official at one point, arguing that the program's economic and
scientific benefits were that important to Iranian society and national
pride. The White House decided a less ambitious agreement would be pursued.
'As soon as we got into the real negotiations with them, we understood
that any final deal was going to involve some domestic enrichment
capability,' a senior U.S. official said, referring to the production of
nuclear fuel, which has both civilian and military uses. 'But I can
honestly tell you, we always anticipated that.' Crucially, the goal of
the talks shifted-away from dismantling structures and toward a more
complex set of limitations designed to extend the time Iran would need to
'break out' and make a dash toward a nuclear weapon. That early yield
would set the tone of the negotiations to come, with the U.S. making
steady concessions over the course of the talks." http://t.uani.com/1ar0gC3
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
The Hill:
"Iranian officials quickly declared victory, arguing the deal would
lift all international sanctions on the regime while allowing it to
continue to develop nuclear power. 'All Security Council resolutions will
be terminated, all U.S. nuclear-related secondary sanctions as well as EU
sanctions will be terminated' during the term of the agreement, Iranian
Foreign Affairs Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a press conference.
'None of those measures include closing our facilities. The proud people
of Iran would never accept that. Our facilities will continue. We will
continue enriching, we will continue research and development, our heavy
water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow
facility,' Zarif said." http://t.uani.com/1NGx1r7
Free Beacon:
"Just hours after the announcement of what the United States
characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program,
the country's leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration
for lying about the details of a tentative framework. Iranian Foreign
Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the
American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the
culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic. Zarif bragged in
an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had
tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key
component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research... Following
a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry-and
release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions-Zarif
lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies. 'The solutions are good
for all, as they stand,' he tweeted. 'There is no need to spin using
'fact sheets' so early on.' Zarif went on to push back against claims by
Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased
fashion-and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work
on the nuclear weapons front. Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the
United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.
'Iran/5+1 Statement: 'US will cease the application of ALL
nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.' Is this
gradual?' he wrote on Twitter." http://t.uani.com/1NMt1XN
NYT:
"At the important Friday Prayer session in Tehran, a bastion of
hard-liners, there were the usual chants of 'death to America,' but
efforts were also made to push the nuclear negotiations to a wider
audience. Mr. Rouhani's first adviser took the stage to give the
presermon speech and lauded the agreements made in Lausanne, Switzerland,
as good achievements. 'Those who never wanted us the right to have
enrichment now agree we have that right,' said the adviser, Mohammad
Nahavandian. 'Those who opposed us having the full fuel cycle now no
longer oppose. Instead of sanctions they now speak of cooperation. We
have not retreated. Those opposing this deal are enemies, in line with
the Zionists.'" http://t.uani.com/1G9lKAm
CNN:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced a proposed
international deal on Iran's nuclear program Friday, saying it would
leave Iran able to build nuclear bombs 'in a few years' and threaten
Israel's existence. 'Such a deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb.
Such a deal paves Iran's path to the bomb,' he said... Netanyahu said his
Cabinet met Friday and strongly opposed the plan. 'The deal would not
shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single
centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D (research and development)
on Iran's advanced centrifuges. 'On the contrary, the deal would
legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program. It would leave Iran with a
vast nuclear infrastructure.' In a 'few years,' Netanyahu said, 'the deal
would remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, enabling Iran to
have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many
nuclear bombs within a matter of months.' ... 'This deal would pose a
grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very
survival of the state of Israel,' Netanyahu said." http://t.uani.com/1Dv7bqB
Congressional
Action
WSJ:
"Congressional Republicans, worried the framework of a nuclear deal
with Iran may provide too many concessions to Tehran, said Thursday they
would press ahead with legislation giving Congress a vote on any final
agreement. Lawmakers said they were still examining the details of the
deal, but reaction generally broke along party lines. While Democrats
expressed varying degrees of support, Republicans said they were
concerned Tehran wouldn't fulfill its commitments, and that the
parameters of the deal gave Iranian officials too much latitude. House
Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said that 'my longtime concerns about the
parameters of this potential agreement remain, but my immediate concern
is the administration signaling it will provide near-term sanctions
relief.' He said lawmakers will need to review any final deal before U.S.
sanctions are lifted. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker (R., Tenn.) said that the framework agreement didn't dissuade him
from pressing ahead with legislation giving Congress a 60-day review
period for any final deal." http://t.uani.com/1F9aX3C
The Hill:
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on
Thursday said he is moving forward with legislation that would allow
Congress to weigh in on the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. 'There is
growing bipartisan support for congressional review of the nuclear deal,
and I am confident of a strong vote on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee takes it up on April 14,'
Corker said in a statement Thursday after the outline of a nuclear deal
was released. Corker warned the White House not to bypass Congress by taking
the deal straight to the United Nations. 'Rather than bypass Congress and
head straight to the U.N. Security Council as planned, the administration
first should seek the input of the American people,' he said. Corker has
scheduled a vote on his bill for when Congress returns from recess in two
weeks." http://t.uani.com/1NGFMRS
Bloomberg:
"President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have won a
three-month reprieve from the threat of additional Congressional
sanctions on Iran with the announcement Thursday of a political framework
for a nuclear agreement. Senator Mark Kirk, the Republican co-author of a
bill imposing more sanctions against Iran, told us after Obama's speech
that he did not expect a vote on the legislation he wrote with Democrat
Robert Menendez before June 30. That's the deadline the U.S., Iran and
five other great powers have set to finish negotiations for a final
nuclear agreement. Obama and Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif,
had warned that passage of those sanctions would destroy the nuclear
talks. 'I think we will give them till the end of June,' Kirk told us. He
also insisted that the framework deal was more generous to the Iranians
than Chamberlain's offer to Hitler at Munich, and that Congress would be
'an over-watching presence' in the coming months as negotiators continued
the talks." http://t.uani.com/19OFRph
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Iran is set to supply 50 percent more condensate to Chinese state
trader Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp under a renewed one-year supply contract for
the light crude, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said on
Friday. The deal for the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to ship
100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of condensate from August was made before
Thursday's framework agreement to curb Iran's nuclear programmes in
exchange for ultimately dropping sanctions. China is Iran's largest oil
client and the renewed contract could lift its overall crude imports from
the Islamic republic to above 600,000 bpd later this year, higher than the
average pre-sanction rate of about 555,000 bpd... The condensate, a
byproduct from Iran's South Pars gas project, would go to independent
petrochemicals producer Dragon Aromatics." http://t.uani.com/1IvrZMd
Regional
Destabilization
WSJ:
"An agreement on the outlines of a nuclear deal with Iran, a country
deeply involved in the Middle East's web of bloody conflicts, is unlikely
to help defuse the region's sectarian wars and could even widen fault
lines, Arab officials and people across the region say. For years,
limiting Shiite Iran's nuclear ambitions was at the top of the agenda for
the region's Sunni Arab countries. They now worry an agreement would
empower Tehran economically if sanctions relief sets in, and embolden it
politically as it emerges as a player on the world stage. The perception,
alone, that Iran would benefit or emerge empowered from a deal could fuel
a Sunni backlash and worsen sectarian strife across the region, officials
and analysts said. 'There's a nuclear Iran being dealt with by this deal,
but what's much more worrying is the sectarian Iran and expansionist
Iran,' said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a retired political-science professor in
the United Arab Emirates who is familiar with the Emirati government's
thinking. 'That's 10 times more dangerous.' ... In Iraq and Lebanon, two
countries where Iran wields major influence, Sunni officials said the
framework agreement reflected the weakness of American policy in the
Middle East, especially in confronting an ascendant Iran." http://t.uani.com/1EQRHgG
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost
Editorial: "The 'key parameters' for an agreement on
Iran's nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals
originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran's nuclear
facilities - including the Fordow center buried under a mountain - will
be closed. Not one of the country's 19,000 centrifuges will be
dismantled. Tehran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be
'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect,
Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will
be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic
will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That's a long way from
the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the
deal we'll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and
'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those
resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead,
under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with
5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15
years. Mr. Obama argued forcefully - and sometimes combatively - Thursday
that the United States and its partners had obtained 'a good deal' and
that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a
nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a 'robust
debate.' We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his
aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than
claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the 'inevitable critics' who 'sound off'
prefer 'the risk of another war in the Middle East.' The proposed accord
will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more
aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the
region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on
details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained.
For example, the guidance released by the White House is vague in saying
that U.S. and European Union sanctions 'will be suspended after'
international inspectors have 'verified that Iran has taken all of its
key nuclear related steps.' Exactly what steps would Iran have to
complete, and what would the verification consist of? ... Both Mr. Obama
and Secretary of State John F. Kerry emphasized that many details need to
be worked out in talks with Iran between now and the end of June. During
that time, the administration will have much other work to do: It must
convince Mideast allies that Iran is not being empowered to become the
region's hegemon, and it must accommodate Congress's legitimate
prerogative to review the accord. We hope Mr. Obama will make as much
effort to engage in good faith with skeptical allies and domestic critics
as he has with the Iranian regime." http://t.uani.com/1bTR9du
WSJ Editorial:
"The fundamental question posed by President Obama's Iran diplomacy
has always been whether it can prevent a nuclear-armed Middle East-in
Iran as well as Turkey and the Sunni Arab states. Mr. Obama unveiled a
'framework' accord on Thursday that he said did precisely that, but the
claims warrant great skepticism, not least because they come with so many
asterisks. The framework is only an 'understanding' among Iran and the
six powers because many of the specifics are still being negotiated. But
Mr. Obama wanted to announce some agreement near his self-imposed March
31 deadline, lest Congress ratchet up sanctions on Iran, and now
Secretary of State John Kerry will go back to negotiate the crucial fine
print. The general outline of the accord includes some useful limits on
Iran, if it chooses to abide by them... All this would be somewhat
reassuring if the U.S. were negotiating a nuclear deal with Holland or Costa
Rica-that is, a law-abiding state with no history of cheating on nuclear
agreements. But that's not Iran. Consider the Additional Protocol, a 1997
addendum to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that was meant to expand
the IAEA's ability to detect and monitor clandestine nuclear activities.
Iran signed the Additional Protocol in December 2003, about the time
Saddam Hussein was pulled from his spider hole. The signature meant
nothing: By September 2005 the IAEA reported that Iran wasn't meeting its
commitments, and Iran abandoned the pretense of compliance by February
2006. Now Iran has promised to sign the Protocol again. But as former
IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen observed in a recent paper for the
Iran Task Force, 'contrary to what is commonly observed, the AP does not
provide the IAEA with unfettered access.' Mr. Heinonen adds that the
agency 'needs 'go anywhere, anytime' access to sites, material,
equipment, persons, and documents.' The framework lacks this crucial
'anywhere, anytime' provision, even as Mr. Obama calls its inspections
the most intrusive ever. Instead it says the 'IAEA will have regular
access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities.' Does that mean inspectors
have to schedule an appointment? With how much notice? The obvious way to
evade inspections is to start a new and secret facility that isn't part
of the accord. This is exactly what Iran did with the operations at
Fordo. Another giant asterisk concerns the lifting of sanctions, which is
the main reason Iran agreed to negotiate. The framework suggests, without
being explicit, that the toughest sanctions will be lifted immediately
when a final deal is struck. Mr. Obama made much of a 'snap-back'
provision that would reimpose sanctions if Iran is caught cheating. But
that too is vague. Would Russia and China be able to veto that at the
United Nations? And what if Iran is suspected of cheating? The framework
says that 'a dispute resolution process will be specified,' which would
allow any of the deal's signatories 'to seek to resolve disagreements.'
That sounds suspiciously like a U.N. committee, perhaps of Iran's peers
or protectors. And this is before sanctions could be 'snapped back.' We
stress monitoring and enforcement because these are precisely the
loopholes that allowed North Korea to field nuclear weapons after
reaching its diplomatic deals with the U.N. and U.S. from the 1980s
onward. Iran is probably North Korea's best friend in the world and
Tehran has borrowed heavily from Pyongyang's nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. It has clearly studied its diplomatic cheat sheet as
well... The truth, contrary to the President, is that the critics of his
Iran framework do not want war. But they also don't want a phony peace to
lead to a nuclear Middle East that leads to a far more horrific war a
decade from now. That's why this agreement needs a thorough vetting and
genuine debate." http://t.uani.com/1F9001Z
Mike Doran in USA
Today: "If the 'understanding' that Iran and the
major world powers announced Thursday is turned into a final deal as
envisioned, Iran will undergo an immediate economic boom. It will develop
new commercial alliances, and its international standing will grow
considerably. The deal will strengthen Iran quickly, significantly and
irreversibly. In return for this massive boost in its standing, Iran has
offered the West only temporary and reversible concessions. Take, for
example, the hardened site at Fordow, a bunker built under a mountain
near Qom. President Obama originally called for shuttering the facility entirely,
but the proposed deal keeps it open. The major concession that Iran made
with respect to the site was to agree not to introduce uranium into its
centrifuges. Thus a fully-functional hardened facility remains available
when, on the day of its choosing, Iran decides to make a dash for nuclear
bomb. America's closest allies in the region regard it as inevitable that
such a day will come. They believe that the deal, as President Obama has
structured it, gives the supreme leader an incentive to play nice for a
short period of time, in order to pocket the early windfall profits from
the deal. Afterward, however, he can break the terms of the deal, from a
position of greater strength than ever, and the United States will have
no effective recourse. Regional powers such as Saudi Arabia thus feel
threatened. They will not wait to see whether Iran plays nice for the
long haul of the agreement. The Saudis have already signaled clearly that
they have every intention to match Iranian nuclear capabilities. In other
words, Obama's deal, far from stopping a regional arms race, has already
set one off. A strengthened Iran will also become harder to manage on the
regional level. During the last year, while Secretary of State John Kerry
was negotiating this deal, Iran became more deeply embroiled in the
conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Why would we wish to see a power that
still chants 'Death to America' in a position of greater power and
influence?" http://t.uani.com/1Ivojdv
Charles Duelfer in
Politico: "We don't yet know all the details of the
nuclear agreement that Iran, the United States and five other world
powers announced Thursday they are aiming to complete by June 30. What we
do know is that any acceptable final deal will depend on a strong weapons
inspection element. In his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama
declared Tehran had agreed to precisely that. 'If Iran cheats, the world
will know,' he said. Yet weapons inspectors can be no tougher than the
body that empowers them-in this instance the UN Security Council. And
herein lies the agreement's fundamental weakness-and perhaps its fatal
flaw. Do we really want to depend on Vladimir Putin? Because Russia will
be able to decide what to enforce in any deal-and what not to. Like so
many things in in life, one can learn a lot from Saddam Hussein.
Certainly Tehran will have learned from Saddam' s experience in trying to
evade the scrutiny of the UN Security Council, weapons inspectors,
sanctions, and individual governments. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq when
Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Washington led a response in the UN
Security Council that produced a broad coalition unified around the
objective of getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Ultimately this required
military action-the Gulf War-despite the back-channel efforts of Russia's
special Iraq liaison, Yevgeny Primakov, to broker a deal. Following the
war, the Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution that retained the
sanctions on Iraq, but linked them to additional requirements; Iraq must
verifiably disclose and account for all its WMD, and Iraq must accept a
monitoring system to assure they would not reconstitute their WMD
programs in the future. The Security Council created a new body of
weapons inspectors (dubbed UNSCOM) who reported directly to the council.
The IAEA also had a role in accounting for the extensive nuclear aspects
of Saddam's programs. This was a case of coercive disarmament as distinct
from an arms control agreement like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT). It was akin to the disarmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty
and ultimately suffered a similar fate. The authorities that the Security
Council mandated for UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors to verify Iraq's
disarmament were extraordinary and probably well beyond anything Iran will
accept. In essence, inspectors could go anywhere in Iraq, interview
anyone, fly their own aircraft and helicopters, install sensors or
cameras anywhere, take possession of documents, etc. Moreover, the
chairman or his deputy had authority to designate any location in Iraq as
a site for inspection. And that included 'no-notice' inspections. UNSCOM
and the IAEA operated helicopters from a base inside Iraq. We had
dedicated missions of the US U-2 aircraft (todays drones would be a
cheaper more effective tool to provide aerial surveillance). UNSCOM
operated a full-time monitoring center in a dedicated building in
Baghdad... And yet, with all of these authorities and tools, we were
unable to complete the tasks given by the Security Council. UNSCOM and
the IAEA after more than seven years of operations inside Iraq could not
verify that Saddam had completely disarmed. Ironically, we later learned,
Saddam had, eventually, pretty much given up his WMD program by 1997-98.
But we could not verify his claims, and by that time no one was giving
him the benefit of the doubt Moreover, as he told us in debriefings, he
retained the intent to restart the programs once conditions permitted. It
would be interesting to ask Saddam if he thought the IAEA inspectors
given the intrusive access we had in Iraq, would be sufficient to detect
and deter Iranian cheating. Does anyone believe such access will be
agreed, voluntarily, by Tehran? In practice, Saddam regularly obstructed
and delayed inspectors. He tested, from the start, the will of the
Security Council. He cooperated only when he had no other option. And the
only reason he cooperated at all, was to get out of sanctions. Saddam
pursued two tracks-one of grudging incremental revelations about WMD and
the second track was the divide the Security Council and cause sanctions
to erode. Critically, it is important to recall that as the inspection
process went on, the unity of in the Security Council decayed. This is
natural. As time goes on the objectives and priorities of fifteen nations
will evolve and diverge. Saddam recognized and accelerated this
trend." http://t.uani.com/1NMwmpW
David Ignatius in
WashPost: "The most compelling argument President
Obama made Thursday for the nuclear framework deal with Iran was also the
simplest one: The pact, once concluded, would be preferable to any
realistic alternative. It's not a perfect agreement and certainly not a
permanent solution to the threat an aggressive Iran poses for Israel and
other nations in the Middle East. But the framework delivered more than
many skeptics had feared. The problem is that the enervating bargaining
will continue for another three months (at least) before the accord is
final. What's worrisome is that this deal still isn't done: There's no
final handshake. All the late-night sessions and threats to break off the
talks weren't enough to get Iran to commit formally to the terms the
United States laid out in a meticulous, four-page list of 'parameters'
for a binding 'joint comprehensive plan.' The Iranians instead postponed
that sign-off to another day, after the final, final negotiations. One
signal of the incompleteness of what was announced Thursday was the
mismatch between the detail-rich U.S. fact sheet and the thin,
page-and-a-half statement read jointly by European Union foreign policy
chief Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif. 'We can now restart drafting the text and annexes [of the final
agreement], guided by the solutions developed in these days,' the joint
E.U.-Iranian document said. That hardly sounded like hitting the 'done'
button. The key U.S. point of leverage, if I read these documents
accurately, is that economic sanctions against Iran won't be removed
until the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog,
verifies 'implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments' after
the final deal is struck. Thus, it shouldn't seem to be in Iran's
interest to stall. A troubling aspect of the deal, in terms of leverage,
is that once initial Iranian compliance is verified, all U.S. and U.N.
economic and financial sanctions related to the nuclear issue would be
lifted, and a new U.N. resolution would be drafted to guide future
Iranian compliance. Yes, there's a so-called 'snap-back' provision that
would allow sanctions to be reimposed if Iran were found to be violating
the agreement. But that's a formula for a potential U.N. nightmare. The
United States had hoped for something more stringent: A calibrated
reduction in sanctions, in which Iran would have to earn each additional
concession. That was seen as a constraint on Iranian behavior, and it was
repeatedly stressed by Kerry to the Iranians. It's hard to be sure,
because information is still fragmentary, but the United States seems to
have softened its terms on this key issue. That's worrisome." http://t.uani.com/1NGBpGn
|
|
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