|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"A senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Sunday that
inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear
agreement with world powers. Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard's deputy
leader, said on state TV that allowing the foreign inspection of military
sites is tantamount to 'selling out.' 'We will respond with hot lead
(bullets) to those who speak of it,' Salami said. 'Iran will not become a
paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.'
... A fact sheet on the framework accord issued by the State Department
said Iran would be required to grant the U.N. nuclear agency access to
any 'suspicious sites.' Iran has questioned that and other language in
the fact sheet... The fact sheet said Iran has agreed to implement the
Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would grant
the IAEA expanded access to both declared and undeclared nuclear
facilities. But Salami said allowing foreign inspectors to visit a
military base would amount to 'occupation,' and expose 'military and
defense secrets.' 'It means humiliating a nation,' Salami said on state
TV. 'They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military
site in their dreams.'" http://t.uani.com/1yK5nId
WSJ:
"President Barack Obama suggested on Friday that Iran could receive
significant economic relief immediately after concluding a deal to curb
its nuclear program, a gesture towards one of Tehran's key demands. Mr.
Obama said such a move would depend on the final accord allowing international
sanctions to be quickly re-imposed if Tehran violated the agreement it is
now negotiating with global powers. The administration has said the U.S.
prefers sanctions would be lifted in phases as Iran meets certain
requirements. 'Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn't
abide by its agreement that we don't have to jump through a whole bunch
of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions,' the president said at a news
conference. 'It will require some creative negotiations,' Mr. Obama said,
adding, 'I'm confident it will be successful.' Such solutions could
potentially include a faster timetable for lifting sanctions and also
freeing up tens of billions of dollars in Iranian oil revenue that has
been frozen, though Mr. Obama made no reference to that money... The
Obama administration estimates Iran has between $100 billion and $140
billion of its oil revenue frozen in offshore accounts as a result of
sanctions. U.S. officials said they expect Tehran to gain access to these
funds in phases as part of a final deal. Iran could receive somewhere
between $30 billion and $50 billion upon signing the agreement, said
congressional officials briefed by the administration." http://t.uani.com/1zC1DU3
Times of Israel:
"Iran on Saturday marked Army Day with a military parade featuring
new weapons systems, as well as a truck carrying a massive banner reading
'Death to Israel.' A televised broadcast of the parade was punctuated by
repeated cries of 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel.' 'If Israel
makes a mistake,' the announcer on Iran television said during the
broadcast, as heavy trucks carrying armored personnel carriers rolled
past, 'those in Tel Aviv and Haifa will not sleep at night, not one
person.' Broadcast on national television, military brass and political
leaders, foremost President Hassan Rouhani, attended the procession south
of the capital Tehran, which showcased the country's military
technologies." http://t.uani.com/1D6KGme
Nuclear
Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military
commanders on Sunday the United States had created the 'myth' of nuclear
weapons to portray Iran as a threat, hardening his rhetoric before
nuclear negotiations resume this week. Khamenei, the highest authority in
Iran, has supported the nuclear talks but continues to express deep
mistrust of the United States. 'They created the myth of nuclear weapons
so they could say the Islamic Republic is a source of threat. No, the
source of threat is America itself, with its unrestrained, destabilizing
interventions,' Khamenei said in a televised address to a hall of several
hundred military commanders. 'The other side is methodically and
shamelessly threatening us militarily ... even if they did not make these
overt threats, we would have to be prepared,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1bkCQyD
AFP:
"Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged his armed forces Sunday to
increase their 'defensive preparedness', denouncing a US warning that
military action is an option if there is no nuclear deal. In a speech to
commanders and troops, the supreme leader said 'the other side with
insolence threaten us all the time', denying Iran was seeking an atomic
bomb and insisting its military doctrine is defensive. Khamenei's remarks
came after General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of
Staff, reiterated last week that should nuclear talks with Iran fail 'the
military option... is intact'... Khamenei did not name Dempsey, but said:
'After a period of silence by the other side, one of its officials has
once again recently talked of options on the table. 'On the one hand they
bluff, and on the other hand they say the Islamic Republic of Iran should
halt its defensive advancements, which is a stupid remark. 'Iran will never
accept such stupid remarks and the nation has proved that if it is
attacked, it will defend itself quite powerfully. It will stand united
and like a strong fist against illogical aggressors.' ... 'All bodies
from the ministry of defence to the army and the Sepah (Revolutionary
Guards) should increase their military and defensive preparedness. This
should be regarded as an official directive,' he said... 'Today the
biggest threats for the region and the world are America and the Zionist
regime who... interfere in any place they deem it necessary and launch
massacres.'" http://t.uani.com/1IxgCnB
Free Beacon:
"President Obama said that he was 'not surprised' Russia sold an
advanced missile system to Iran in the midst of his negotiations with the
Ayatollah to prevent Iran's nuclear facilities from making a bomb. He
went even further to say that he expected the deal to happen a lot sooner
than it did. 'I'm frankly surprised that it held this long given that
they were not prohibited by sanctions from selling these defensive
weapons,' President Obama said on Friday. The sanguine comments from
President Obama are surprising considering the negative effects his
administration said it would cause. 'He's sort of thanking Russia,' CNN's
Jim Sciutto said. Standing beside Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi,
Obama downplayed the development, which has been viewed as a threat to
the coalition seeking a deal with Iran. Previously, however, the
administration made it clear they strongly objected the sale of the
missile system to the Ayatollah. The Free Beacon's Adam Kredo pointed out
that the sale crossed another red line for President Obama. 'One senior
Obama administration official speaking in 2010 described the S-300 sale
as a 'red line' for the United States that 'couldn't be crossed,'
according to Foreign Policy,' Kredo said." http://t.uani.com/1OyhE4d
WashPost:
"The ink on the multinational framework agreement to limit Iran's
nuclear program was barely dry before Russia announced last week that it
would send Tehran sophisticated air-defense missiles, withheld in
deference to the West when sanctions against Iran were stiffened in 2010.
For the United States, Russia's decision to send Iran S-300 missile
systems was the latest signal yet that the growing acrimony between Moscow
and Washington was not easing - even with a nuclear deal on the line. For
Israel, the deal represented a threat, as S-300 missiles could
effectively neutralize a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear development
facilities to prevent Tehran from developing a bomb. But for Russia, the
S-300 sale was a preemptive strike of a different kind to ensure that
Russia would not lose its best opportunity to enter the Iranian market
before the potential lifting of international sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1D6XaKA
Politico:
"The White House will hold a summit with Gulf allies May 13-14,
including a session at Camp David. The gathering will be an opportunity
for President Barack Obama to try to assuage Arab concerns about U.S.
efforts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, and to reassure
the allies they are not being abandoned amid spreading conflict in the
Middle East. Arab countries - Saudi Arabia in particular - are worried
about Iran's growing influence in the region and some could press for new
security agreements with Washington in response." http://t.uani.com/1cQ5E2q
WSJ:
"President Barack Obama's sales pitch to garner support from the
Arab states for his Iran diplomacy pushes forward this week when he
lunches Monday with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh
Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan... Mr. Obama is aggressively lobbying the
Arab states to back the agreement, which U.S. officials believe could be
the president's signature foreign policy success." http://t.uani.com/1DDrmzp
Times
of Israel: "Israeli analysts expressed shock and amazement Friday
night at US President Barack Obama's stated openness to Iran's demand for
the immediate lifting of all economic sanctions, and his defense of
Russia's agreement to supply a sophisticated air defense system to
Iran... 'Jaws dropped' around the studio, said the Channel 10 News
diplomatic commentator Ben Caspit, as news broke of Obama's declared
empathy for Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to supply Tehran
with the S-300 missile defense system. 'Obama is something else,' Caspit
added. 'He's decided to take America out of the wars...' The station's
news anchor, Alon Ben David, chipped in, 'He's amazed that the Russians
honored an agreement with him [for this long]? That's what is astonishing.'
Responded Caspit, 'This is the new America. We had better get used to
it.'" http://t.uani.com/1HnOggP
Congressional
Action
The Hill:
"President Obama said Friday he would sign a bill allowing Congress
to review any Iran nuclear deal because it would not 'derail'
negotiations. The president called the deal brokered by Sens. Bob Corker
(R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) a 'reasonable compromise' that would not
impede negotiators from reaching a final deal by the end of June...
'Assuming what lands on my desk is what Sens. Corker and Cardin agreed
to, I will sign it,' Obama said during a press conference with Italian
Prime Minister Matteo Renzi." http://t.uani.com/1O7NVEr
Politico:
"The White House is road testing a two-track technique for dealing
with a Republican Congress: Work through Democrats to find bipartisan
compromises where they can be found, and whack the Republicans on
everything else. That dual approach was on display last week, as
President Barack Obama reached breakthroughs on two of his top priorities
- Iran and trade - while wagging his finger at Republicans for refusing
to schedule a vote on a new attorney general... With the Iran bill, which
would give Congress oversight power over a deal, the White House mainly
talked to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, to try to trim back Chairman Bob Corker's
legislation - although Obama did call Corker to discuss his concerns...
That doesn't mean Obama's getting better reviews from Republicans,
though. Not even from Corker, a Tennessee Republican who says the White
House never had any constructive conversations with him about how to
rewrite the Iran bill into something Obama could sign. 'It's been a total
stiff-arm,' Corker told POLITICO on Friday. The White House did talk
extensively to Cardin in the final days before the committee took up the
bill, Corker acknowledged - but 'the only reason they started talking to
Ben at the end was because they were getting ready to be run over by a
freight train.'" http://t.uani.com/1E1xyCW
Sanctions
Relief
NYT:
"Wearing business suits set off with sneakers, the American
executives trailed a young guide along the narrow sidewalks of the
capital of Iran, once branded by the United States as part of the 'Axis
of Evil.' Their destination was one of Tehran's most luxurious
restaurants, where Iranian officials and business consultants greeted the
visitors with open arms and the Pharrell Williams song 'Happy' blasted
from the sound system... Just as the Obama administration and Congress
were wrangling over details of a nuclear agreement with Iran last week,
the group of 24 executives were touring the country on a fact-finding
mission. Of course, the organizers rushed to explain, this was by no
means a business delegation... The visit to Iran by the American group,
which included venture capitalists and business executives from a range
of industries, including real estate, health care and insurance, was
organized by individual members of the Young Presidents' Organization.
Last week's trip was the group's third to the Islamic republic... At the
restaurant on Thursday, Cyrus Razzaghi, a prominent Iranian business
consultant, and other speakers extolled the potential of the Iranian
economy for adventurous American investors. 'In the end these are not
normal tourists of course, they are wealthy, powerful and influential
Americans,' Mr. Razzaghi said. 'Besides from giving them a taste of
Iranian culture, I felt they would also be interested in Iran's huge
market.'" http://t.uani.com/1cQ7bFQ
Reuters:
"Iranian banks agreed on Saturday to cut deposit and lending rates,
the head of Iran's largest commercial bank said, after a sharp fall of
inflation gave policymakers more room to pursue faster economic growth.
'The directors of state and private banks today agreed...to reduce the
one-year deposit rate to 20 percent,' the semi-official Mehr news agency
quoted Abdolnaser Hemmati, managing director of state-run Bank Melli, as
saying. Lending rates were also cut by between 2 and 3 percentage points
in response to the drop of inflation, statements by Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani and the views of the economy minister and central bank
governor, he said... With tighter monetary and fiscal policy, Rouhani's
administration has brought annual inflation down to 15.6 percent from
over 40 percent two years ago. Saturday's rate decision suggests
authorities now believe the fight against inflation is largely won."
http://t.uani.com/1zBYdAE
Sanctions
Enforcement
AP:
"Four companies and five individuals have been accused of illegally
exporting to Iran high-tech electronics that could be used for military
weapons. The 24-count federal indictment was unsealed Friday in Houston.
The counts include conspiring to commit money laundering, money
laundering and failure to file foreign bank and financial accountings.
Prosecutors say the companies and defendants are charged with violating
U.S. law by sending certain microelectronics, power supplies and other
items to Iran. The exports violate U.S. sanctions as part of
anti-terrorism efforts. The indictment names Houston-based Smart Power
Systems Inc., plus companies operating in Taiwan, Turkey and Iran. Some
defendants are from Houston and Los Angeles, with arrests carried out in
Texas and California." http://t.uani.com/1H7UnXV
Yemen Crisis
The Hill:
"U.S. military officials are concerned that Iran's support for
Houthi rebels in Yemen could spark a confrontation with Saudi Arabia and
plunge the region into sectarian war. Iran is sending an armada of seven
to nine ships - some with weapons - toward Yemen in a potential attempt
to resupply the Shia Houthi rebels, according to two U.S. defense
officials. Officials fear the move could lead to a showdown with the U.S.
or other members of a Saudi-led coalition, which is enforcing a naval
blockade of Yemen and is conducting its fourth week of airstrikes against
the Houthis. Iran sent a destroyer and another vessel to waters near
Yemen last week but said it was part of a routine counter-piracy mission.
That's unusual about the new deployment, which set out this week, is that
the Iranians are not trying to conceal it, officials said. Instead, they
appear to be trying to 'communicate it' to the U.S. and its allies in the
Gulf." http://t.uani.com/1aKKi4Z
AP:
"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani harshly criticized Saudi Arabia
Saturday, warning that the Saudi royal family in Riyadh will harvest the
hatred it is sowing in Yemen through its airstrike campaign... Addressing
an army parade in Tehran, in a speech broadcast live on state TV
Saturday, Rouhani said killing civilians in Yemen will bring neither
power nor pride for Saudi Arabia. 'What does bombing the innocent ...
Yemeni people mean? What goals are you pursuing? Will killing children
bring power to you? You planted the seeds of hatred in this region and
you will see the response sooner or later,' Rouhani said. 'Don't bomb
children, elderly men and women in Yemen. Attacking the oppressed will
bring disgrace ... for the aggressors.' Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei has already called the Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen
'genocide' and a 'major crime.'" http://t.uani.com/1GcpMbz
Human Rights
AFP:
"A short film showing several stray dogs being brutally killed in
Iran that went viral has prompted protests with celebrities joining
animal lovers in condemning the cruelty. The two-minute video featured
the dogs dying after apparently being injected with burning acid in an
industrial area of Shiraz, 900 kilometres (530 miles) south of Tehran.
The Fars news agency quoted the animal welfare activist who filmed the
undated footage as alleging that those responsible had been paid '$4 for
the body of each dog.'" http://t.uani.com/1aKG0dL
Foreign Affairs
Fars (Iran):
"The US has created the terrorist groups in the region to reduce
security threats to Israel and impair the face of Islam, Iranian Ground
Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan said on Friday.
'The ISIL, Boko Haram and al-Nusrah have been created in line with the US
strategy of religion against religion, which seeks to impair the divine
face of Islam,' Pourdastan said, addressing a large and fervent
congregation of people on Tehran University Campus before the Friday
prayers sermons. 'The American and European people's high tendency
towards Islam and (the necessity for) protection of the Zionist regime's
security have caused the US to create the terrorist groups,' he added. In
relevant remarks on Tuesday, Supreme Leader's top adviser for
international affairs Ali Akbar Velayati underlined that extremist
groups, including the ISIL, were born and nurtured by the US. 'Today, we
see extremist groups like ISIL which are the protégés of the Americans
and do not see any difference between various Muslim sects and group and
massacre everyone. They claim to be supporters of Islam but their
behavior and actions are against their words,' Velayati said in a meeting
with Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP) Abu Ahmad Fouad in Tehran." http://t.uani.com/1F6PzAs
AFP:
"Australia and Iran will share intelligence to track foreign
fighters working with the Islamic State group in Iraq, Foreign Minister
Julie Bishop said Monday, as lawmakers urged caution. In the first trip
to Iran by an Australian minister in more than a decade, Bishop said it
would be an informal arrangement. Her comments came after a meeting with
Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, President Hassan Rouhani and
Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign affairs adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei. 'We have a common purpose with Iran in defeating Daesh and
helping the Iraqi government,' she told the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, using an Arabic acronym to refer to the militant IS
organisation. 'During my discussions with the national leadership here,
it was agreed that we could share intelligence, particularly on the
foreign terrorist fighters from Australia who are taking part in this
conflict in Iraq.' ... Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, a former
intelligence analyst, warned Canberra it was 'flirting with evil'. 'The
regime in Iran can't be trusted and Australia is flirting with evil by
establishing any sort of security relationship with it,' he said, adding
that Tehran had a track record of disseminating disinformation to further
its own agenda." http://t.uani.com/1OycOUB
Opinion &
Analysis
David Rothkopf in
FP: "It is one thing to relieve sanctions on Iran in
exchange for the country giving up its nuclear weapons program. That was
the purpose of imposing the sanctions in the first place. But Barack
Obama's administration and the other parties to the interim nuclear deal
with Iran now seem to be saying they are willing to release to Iran
between a third and a half a trillion dollars over the next 15 years in
order for Iran not to give up the program, but to freeze it. In other
words, we are not restoring Iran's assets and income sources in exchange
for permanently and irreversibly accepting international standards; we
are just renting the country's restraint, offering it access to hundreds
of billions of dollars to make any future nuclear program development the
problem of the next U.S. president - or the one after that. How much Iran
actually will make off sanctions relief is unclear. But based on the
calculation that its overseas assets (which will likely be unfrozen) will
total north of $120 billion, and the equally reasonable estimate that
Iran may gain in excess of $20 billion a year in oil revenues, you end up
with a 15-year deal that would result in a relative gain of $420 billion.
To put this in perspective, Iran's GDP in 2013 was roughly $370 billion.
Or, to put it another way - relevant in the context of the kind of
influence the cash might buy Iran in the region - its Syrian client state
had a GDP of about $65 billion in 2011 before the crisis there heated up
and devastated the country. Its would-be client Yemen has a GDP of about
$36 billion. So the amounts in question would give Iran the means to not
only shore up its own weak economy, but also to extend its influence, buy
weapons, and underwrite terrorist groups to an even greater extent than
it has been doing throughout the period the country has felt the squeeze
of sanctions. (Iran is estimated to have given tens of billions of
dollars to Syria during the period in question, despite the financial
pressures on its own people and economy.) Few would debate that Iran
would be entitled to the restoration of funds and normal economic status
should it end its nuclear program. Were Iran to do that, then clearly the
sanctions program would be seen as a success. But the question the world
is now confronted with is: Should Iran then also be entitled to economic
normalization and the boon it would entail simply by putting its program
on hold for a specified period of time? Such a deal - in that light -
sets a new standard. The underlying message effectively says that the
United States and other major powers will only impose sanctions on
countries that get very, very close to having nuclear weapons - say less
than a year away. But so long as those countries' nuclear weapons
programs remain in the state at which we are willing to freeze Iran's,
then those countries are still free to go about their business and run
their economies in ways that enable them to better fund those programs in
the future. The problem is compounded by the fact that Iran's nuclear
program is not viewed by its neighbors as the main threat the country
poses. A systematic, 35-year campaign of regional meddling,
destabilization, and extension of Iranian influence is seen as a much
bigger issue. And restoring cash flows and assets to Iran, as well as
giving the country greater international standing, clearly exacerbates
that threat. It gives Tehran the wherewithal to continue to underwrite
terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, prop up dictators like Syria's
Bashar al-Assad, and buy ever greater influence in places like Iraq and
Yemen... Relieving Iranian sanctions is an appropriate response for
effectively ending the Iranian nuclear threat. Fully lifting sanctions is
certainly not the right response for simply putting a program on hold.
Not only does it send the wrong message to Iran and other countries
considering the development of such programs, but it also enhances Iran's
influence and, by restoring economic and political ties worldwide, will
almost certainly make it harder to restore sanctions should that be
necessary in the future. (As I noted in my last column, we should drop
the use of the term 'snap-back.' It is a fiction.) Further, the goal of
the negotiations was originally to eliminate the threat of regional
proliferation. Certainly sanctions relief would be warranted if the end
result of the negotiations did that. But this deal does not. Leaving Iran
one year away from a weapon sends a message to every potential adversary
without such a weapon that this is precisely where they must be. In other
words, this deal is not an antidote to proliferation; it is a road map
and an impetus to the spread of near proliferation. Consequently, this
deal could actually enhance the risk of proliferation. And if the nuclear
threat is not the greatest one Iran poses, then it is extremely risky to
prize the preservation and celebration of the nuclear deal so highly that
we do not take appropriate steps to blunt the greater regional threats
posed by Tehran's leaders - who seize every opportunity to remind us that
neither their ideology nor their regional ambitions are showing any signs
of changing... In other words, the months between now and when a final
deal is reached will be vital in determining whether the proposed deal
really makes the region safer or whether it will be seen in the future as
a successful $300 billion shakedown by Iran that enabled it to expand its
influence and bring further insecurity to a region that is already
arguably the most dangerous in the world." http://t.uani.com/1H86EeY
William Kristol in
The Weekly Standard: "This week, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported out legislation-sponsored by Bob Corker of
Tennessee and Ben Cardin of Maryland-that would ensure Congress has a
role in approving or disapproving a deal. Unfortunately, the fact that
only 34 senators or 146 members of the House can prevent disapproval of the
deal makes the legislation of limited utility. And the fact that the
legislation allows action only after the deal is signed, and then for a
short period of time, makes it of questionable effectiveness. But there
are many other avenues of opposition, obstruction, and delay that
Congress can take. All should be explored. Congress can seek to pass
bills and amendments retaining U.S. sanctions and removing the
president's waiver authority if certain conditions aren't met in the
nuclear deal, and if certain conditions aren't met in terms of Iranian
behavior with respect to terror and other issues. Congress could insist
on no waiver of sanctions until the International Atomic Energy Agency
certifies full Iranian cooperation in resolving questions about past efforts
to develop nuclear weapons. Congress could require all manner of reports
from the administration or from outside groups on, e.g., the implications
of the S-300 sale to Iran, on Iranian terror-sponsorship, or many other
aspects of Iranian behavior-and Congress could block waiver or removal of
sanctions until it has had time to consider those reports. Imaginative
patriots will think of other ways and means for Congress to intervene.
President Obama will resist such efforts and threaten to veto them. Perhaps
Senate Democrats will block them from even getting to his desk. But one
doesn't know how Senate and House Democrats will actually vote on such
measures, or how much public pressure could be brought to bear, until
members of Congress try seriously to advance them. What we do know is
that the Corker-Cardin legislation is unlikely to be enough. In fact, it
can be a trap, if it encourages Congress to otherwise back off until a
deal is signed-and then sets up a process arranged to make it difficult
to disapprove a bad deal once signed. The key is to work to stop the deal
from being signed. This requires putting pressure on the weak points of
the framework agreement and introducing into the legislative equation
other unacceptable aspects of Iranian behavior. Some will say this isn't
the way everyday business is done in Congress. And what party wants to
look as if it is opposing and obstructing and delaying? But these aren't
everyday times. The prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons isn't an
everyday moment for America or the world. Congress is designed to be,
most of the time, an everyday institution engaging in everyday business
in an everyday way. But it has to summon the spirit to address the
challenge of the Obama presidency and the threat of a nuclear Iran with
urgency. In such circumstances, a great political party has to have the
courage to oppose, to obstruct, to delay . . . and defeat the deal."
http://t.uani.com/1batLsg
WSJ Editorial:
"Give Ayatollah Ali Khamenei credit for knowing his opposition. Two
weeks ago the Supreme Leader declared that Western sanctions had to be
lifted immediately as a condition of a nuclear deal. And sure enough, on
Friday President Obama said Iran would get significant sanctions relief
immediately upon signing a deal. The Ayatollah knows that Mr. Obama wants
an agreement with Iran so much that there's almost no concession the
President won't make. So why not keep asking for more? Keep in mind that
the talks began with the U.S. and its European partners demanding that Iran
dismantle its nuclear program. But to persuade the Ayatollah to accept
the recent 'framework' accord, Mr. Obama has already conceded that Iran
can keep enriching uranium, that it can maintain 5,060 centrifuges to do
the enriching, that its enriched-uranium stockpiles can stay inside Iran,
that the once-concealed facilities at Fordow and Arak can stay open
(albeit in altered form), and that Iran can continue doing research on
advanced centrifuges. All of these concessions are contrary to previous
U.S. positions, and we're no doubt missing a few. But none of that was
enough for the Ayatollah, who quickly asserted two new deal-breaking
objections: immediate sanctions relief, and no inspections under any
circumstances of Iran's military sites. The White House has insisted that
sanctions relief would be phased out based on Iranian compliance with the
accord. Iranian negotiators quickly denied they had agreed to any such
thing. At first White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed this as mere
face-saving domestic politicking inside Iran. But then the Ayatollah
weighed in with his demand for immediate sanctions relief, adding to
reinforce the goodwill that the Obama Administration was 'lying' and had
'devilish' intentions. On Friday Mr. Obama nonetheless turned the other
cheek and suggested a compromise on sanctions relief is likely. White
House sources whispered to reporters that the immediate windfall to Iran
could be between $30 billion and $50 billion from access to frozen
offshore Iranian accounts. Mr. Obama even suggested at a press conference
that sanctions relief wasn't really that large an issue as long as the
U.S. could reimpose sanctions if Iran cheats. 'Our main concern here is
making sure that if Iran doesn't abide by its agreement that we don't
have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate
sanctions,' the President said. He added that this 'will require some
creative negotiations.' It sure will. How 'snap-back' sanctions would
work is far from clear... The word 'snap-back' in any such arrangement is
spin to sell a deal, not a realistic description of the process. Mr.
Obama nonetheless said on Friday that 'I'm confident' the negotiations on
sanctions 'will be successful.' Look for more U.S. concessions on
sanctions as the June deadline approaches... These latest events
reinforce a conclusion that the Iranian talks are heading toward a deal
that confers Western blessing on Iran as a nuclear-threshold state.
Tehran will retain the facilities and means to develop a bomb at the
moment of its choosing. The main question now is how many more
concessions the Ayatollah will squeeze from a U.S. President he believes
is desperate for a deal." http://t.uani.com/1EjUZJz
Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in NYT: "We made
important progress in Switzerland earlier this month. With the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, we
agreed on parameters to remove any doubt about the exclusively peaceful
nature of Iran's nuclear program and to lift international sanctions
against Iran. But to seal the anticipated nuclear deal, more political
will is required. The Iranian people have shown their resolve by choosing
to engage with dignity. It is time for the United States and its Western
allies to make the choice between cooperation and confrontation, between
negotiations and grandstanding, and between agreement and coercion. With
courageous leadership and the audacity to make the right decisions, we
can and should put this manufactured crisis to rest and move on to much
more important work. The wider Persian Gulf region is in turmoil. It is
not a question of governments rising and falling: the social, cultural
and religious fabrics of entire countries are being torn to shreds.
Endowed with a resilient population that has stood firm in the face of
coercion while simultaneously showing the magnanimity to open new
horizons of constructive engagement based on mutual respect, Iran has
weathered the storms of instability caused by this mayhem. But we cannot
be indifferent to the unfathomable destruction around us, because chaos
does not recognize borders." http://t.uani.com/1OyksON
Rep. Charlie Dent
(R-PA) in Roll Call: "A robust national discussion
on the recently presented framework regarding the Iranian nuclear program
is critical and congressional review is essential. First, we need to be
clear: There is no nuclear agreement with Iran. We are told a framework
exists - although neither side apparently agrees on its details. Consider
Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei's April 9 declaration that all
sanctions be removed the day an agreement is signed. This demand directly
and irreconcilably contradicts President Barack Obama's interpretation of
the framework. This is not a mere technical disagreement, but a
fundamental one that must give us pause. In 2013, I co-authored a
bipartisan letter with Rep. David E. Price, D-N.C., that encouraged Obama
to test the then newly elected Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, to
determine if his more welcoming, moderate rhetoric (contrasted to his
zealot predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) was sincere and could be
translated into concrete concessions over its nuclear program through
constructive engagement with the regime. My thinking at that time was
straight forward and predicated on the reality of the Obama
administration's self-imposed constraints... Since the announcement of
the nuclear framework on April 2, there has been no abatement by the
Iranian regime of the anti-Western, anti-American rhetoric, or of
genocidal 'wipe Israel off the map' threats. What few are discussing, but
may matter most with this potential agreement is the reaction of
America's Sunni Muslim partners in the region. The stated goal of the
proposed framework is to stop Iran's nuclear weapon program, yet, if the
deal is a bad one, the very real possibility exists for further nuclear
proliferation by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and maybe others. We are
faced with the strong potential of a nuclearized Middle East during a
time of state instability and irrational non-state actors. How would
deterrence or mutually assured destruction unfold under these
circumstances? The dangers would be incalculable, the potential for
escalations near infinite. I argue that now is the time to demonstrate
resolve to the world by reaffirming our original objective - no Iranian
nuclear weapons capacity. Let low oil prices take their toll on the
Iranian regime and their Russian backers. Leave existing sanctions in
place and enact stronger ones if it's not too late. If Iran is to survive
economically, the Ayatollahs need a deal more than we do. Let's act like
it." http://t.uani.com/1D6V4dI
|
|
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