Join UANI
Top Stories
AP: "Even
if Congress rejects his final Iranian nuclear deal, President Barack Obama
could use his executive pen to offer Tehran a hefty portion of sanctions
relief on his own... legislation is expected to pass both the Senate and
House that would block Obama from using his current authority to waive
congressional sanctions against Iran for at least 30 days after any final
agreement, to give lawmakers time to weigh in. However, even if Congress
rejected a final agreement, Obama could take unilateral actions that - when
coupled with European and U.N. sanctions relief - would allow a deal with
Tehran to be implemented. The president could suspend some existing U.S.
sanctions with his waiver authority. He could issue new orders to permit
financial transactions that otherwise are banned under current law. And he
could simply take certain Iranians and entities, including nearly two dozen
Iranian banks, off U.S. target lists, meaning they no longer would be
subject to sanctions. Only Congress can terminate its legislative
sanctions. And those are some of the toughest penalties against Iran
because they target its energy sector, central bank and key segments of its
economy. But experts say Obama can neutralize the effect of some of those
sanctions, too, and work with the Europeans to neutralize others." http://t.uani.com/1E9y1ow
WSJ:
"Sanctions have yet to be lifted on Iran, but signs that Western oil
executives are hungry to do business there were evident this week at a
stately hotel a few blocks from the Danube River. Called the Second South
Caspian Region Petroleum and Energy 2015 Summit, the little-publicized
conference drew energy executives from Houston and London to Vienna where
they shared coffee and cake with Iranian government officials on Tuesday
and Wednesday. Among the international companies that sent executives was
Chevron Corp. , according to attendees. The presence of Western oil
officials at an Iran-focused conference was a sign of an emerging new
landscape for doing business in the Persian Gulf country now that sanctions
could be lifted sometime this year... Western executives have maintained
clandestine contacts with Iranian energy officials, and that isn't illegal.
But it is still viewed as a sensitive matter... Some of the secrecy has
relaxed since the agreement. 'Before, when I met Iranian officials in
Tehran, I had to introduce myself as company-X for fear of leaks, said one
Western European oil official at the Vienna summit. At this conference, he
said, 'I finally could say who was my employer.'" http://t.uani.com/1Imhg7j
Fox News:
"The family of a U.S. Marine imprisoned in Iran for nearly four years
says the American has been drugged, whipped and told a heartbreaking lie
that his mother died in a car accident while he awaits a retrial. The
sister and brother-in-law of Amir Hekmati appeared on Fox News Channel's
'On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren,' where they described in chilling
detail the torture that the veteran has endured since his arrest in August
2011. Hekmati, they said, has suffered stun-gun assaults, has been whipped,
dosed with lithium and hung by his arms while held in the Islamic Republic.
But the worst abuse of all may have been the emotional torture of being
told by cruel guards that his mother had died, according to his sister, Sarah
Hekmati." http://t.uani.com/1OmLfgZ
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
The Hill:
"Russia's sale of the S-300 air defense missile system to Iran does
not affect the U.S.'s military options against Iran, the Pentagon said
Thursday. 'We've known about the potential for that system to be sold to
Iran for several years, and have accounted for it in all of our planning,'
said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 'The
military option that I owe the president, to both encourage the diplomatic
solution and if the diplomacy fails to ensure that Iran doesn't achieve a
nuclear weapon, is intact,' he told reporters at the Pentagon
briefing." http://t.uani.com/1ImmDmR
Regional
Destabilization
AP:
"Saudi Arabia's government insists it is not at war with Iran despite
its three-week air campaign against Tehran-backed rebels in Yemen, but the
kingdom's powerful clerics, and its regional rival's theocratic government,
are increasingly presenting the conflict as part of a region-wide battle
for the soul of Islam. The toxic rivalry between Sunni Saudi Arabia and
Shiite Iran is playing out on the battlefields of Yemen and Syria, and in
the dysfunctional politics of Iraq and Lebanon, with each side resorting to
sectarian rhetoric. Iran and its allies refer to all of their opponents as
terrorists and extremists, while Saudi Arabian clerics speak of a regional
Persian menace." http://t.uani.com/1aDqi4j
Iraq Crisis
Reuters:
"Iraq's prime minister said on Thursday that he welcomed Iranian
assistance in Iraq's battle against Islamic State but suggested unease with
the prominence of a top Iranian general, who has been widely seen in photos
from Iraq's battlefields. Major General Qassem Soleimani, commander of
Iran's al-Quds brigade of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was
almost an invisible man until Islamic State's Sunni jihadists overran
cities in northern and central Iraq last year. But photos of Soleimani,
whose force engages in operations outside of Iran, are now commonplace. He
was even seen directing fighting in the battle to recapture from Islamic
State the Sunni city of Tikrit, birthplace of Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Prime
Minister Haidar al-Abadi, speaking to a forum in Washington, suggested the
photos themselves sent the wrong message and said he was trying to find out
who had taken them." http://t.uani.com/1DPRgS1
Yemen Crisis
Al-Monitor:
"At a security conference in Moscow on April 16, Hossein Dehghan,
Iran's defense minister, said, 'The Saudi government, which undertook this
military invasion with the help of America and Israel and intelligence help
from some regional countries, not only will not achieve its own
illegitimate goals, but has provided the grounds for its own collapse and
irreparable failures and a similar fate of that of Saddam [Hussein] is
awaiting it.'" http://t.uani.com/1aDrmFa
Domestic Politics
AP: "Iran's
semi-official ILNA news agency says thousands of teachers have staged
nationwide protests demanding higher wages. The report says peaceful
protests were held Thursday in several cities, including the capital,
Tehran. It says the teachers gathered in silence in front of provincial
Education Ministry buildings. In Tehran, hundreds of teachers gathered in
front of parliament. The protesters carried placards in which they asked
for higher wages and demanded the release of teachers allegedly detained in
similar protests last month." http://t.uani.com/1Jbi3YO
Foreign Affairs
AFP:
"Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visits Iran at the weekend
looking for Tehran to take back failed asylum seekers, but the rare trip
also has deeper significance as the West seeks to seal a deal to rein in
the Islamic state's nuclear ambitions. The first visit to Shiite Iran by an
Australian foreign minister in 12 years follows the framework political
agreement reached last month under which Tehran would accept strict nuclear
controls in return for the easing of damaging economic sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1G0SFEM
Opinion &
Analysis
Sen. Bob Corker in
WashPost: "Any deal on Iran's nuclear program would
affect generations to come, which is why it was troubling to watch
President Obama and his deputies try to shut out the public and Congress
from having a say in this consequential decision. Time and again, the
administration suggested that a vote in Congress would scuttle any nuclear
agreement and leave war with Iran as the only alternative. This week,
Democrats and Republicans pushed back, forcing the administration to bow to
the inevitable role of Congress in this process. With a unanimous vote, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee affirmed that the American people -
through their elected representatives - must be given a voice on what is
one of the greatest geopolitical issues of our time. The Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act will allow Congress to weigh in after an agreement is
reached to ensure that any deal with Iran is truly strong enough to
eliminate the threat of the regime's nuclear program. This bipartisan bill
accomplishes three things. First, it will ensure transparency. The bill
requires the president to submit to Congress the details and all related documents
regarding any final deal with Iran. The administration has confirmed that
it will seek a resolution at the U.N. Security Council endorsing a final
agreement. If the Security Council can pass judgment on the validity of an
agreement, then surely the U.S. Congress should do so as well. Second, it
will provide oversight and allow lawmakers time to review all parts of an
agreement before the president could suspend the sanctions on Iran that
Congress put in place... Our bill will make sure the president could not
waive these sanctions before Congress has the chance to first review a deal
and, if it chooses, vote on whether to approve or disapprove it. The bill
gives Congress up to 52 days to act. If lawmakers vote to disapprove a
final deal, the president would be prohibited from suspending the
congressionally mandated sanctions... Third, our legislation helps hold
Iran accountable. The president will be required to certify to Congress
every 90 days that Iran is complying with the agreement. Should Iran violate
the terms, the bill enables Congress to snap its sanctions back into place.
This would give the administration an essential tool to help ensure that
any final deal can be enforced. Additionally, given Iran's continued
sponsorship of terrorism, the bill includes strong requirements for the
president to report to Congress on any Iranian acts of direct or indirect
support of terrorism against Americans or our allies. The preliminary
framework agreed to earlier this month by the major world powers and Iran
already has caused people to declare themselves supporters or critics of a
potential long-term deal, but many details are unresolved and important
decisions have yet to be made. Our legislation neither prejudges nor
prevents the president from reaching a deal with Iran that is strong,
verifiable and enforceable... Now is the time to tie any future relief of
statutory sanctions with a formal process for Congress to assess a final
accord... With Congress serving as a backstop, this approach can help empower
our negotiators and lead to a better result in the talks and a stronger
outcome for our national security." http://t.uani.com/1OmPsBs
UANI Advisory Board
Member Michael Gerson in WashPost: "'I have never seen
anything like it.' So I was told by a former U.S. official, who had seen
much as a senior diplomat. It has become hard to deny that the rollout of
the Lausanne framework is a first-rate debacle - a dazzling display of
self-destructive incompetence. Who proposed that the State Department issue
an interpretive fact sheet before the deal was actually sealed? The Iranian
negotiators were bound to feel ambushed. Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad
Javad Zarif, had political work to do in selling an agreement at home. The
Obama administration's interpretive victory dance made his job considerably
harder. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei quickly denounced the fact sheet as
'incorrect and contrary to the substance of the negotiations.' Do the
elements outlined in that document now constitute a set of Obama
administration 'red lines'? This dispute highlights the fact that at least
three parts of the deal are not settled: an Iranian accounting for past
research and development, the timing of sanctions relief and the
agreement's verification mechanisms. So everything is settled - except
everything that matters most. 'The sanctions must all be completely removed
on the day of the agreement,' Khamenei demands. 'One must absolutely not,'
he continues, 'allow infiltration of the security and defense realm of the
state on the pretext of inspection.' Which is the meaning of inspection.
The administration's high-profile announcement of an embryonic nuclear deal
has already had the practical effect of undermining the isolation of Iran.
Russia used the occasion to announce its own agreement: an $800 million
deal to provide Iran with an advanced air-defense system... Sanctions have
already begun to fall apart, which will eventually free up billions of
dollars for the Iranians to further destabilize the Middle East. Why would
the Obama administration claim victory in the middle of a sensitive
negotiation, in a manner that prods the other side to harden its demands
and encourages the unraveling of sanctions? Maybe for the same reason that
the swap of five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was declared a
national triumph and Bergdahl himself, now charged by the Army with
desertion, was praised for serving with 'honor and distinction.' On
occasion, the administration seems so anxious to score political points
that it is incapable of acting with restraint. There is another, related
explanation. President Obama oversold the Iran nuclear agreement in an
obvious attempt to back congressional opponents into a corner. It is, the
administration has repeatedly argued, a simple choice: concessions or war.
But this strategy actually backs the United States into a corner. Does
Obama not think the Iranians are listening when he sets out these
alternatives? No one - not enemies, not allies, not bystanders in the
street - believes that Obama would use force against Iran. And this means
there is no theoretical limit to the concessions that could be justified to
avoid conflict. The argument of 'concessions or war' is another way of
saying that any deal is better than no deal. And this is a terribly weak negotiating
position for the United States to occupy. The administration's botched
announcement was accompanied by typically sensitive congressional outreach.
At first, members of Congress were declared irrelevant and told to butt out
of an executive agreement. Then Obama accused his opponents of being
irrational, militant and atavistic - the functional equivalent of the
Iranian mullahs. This campaign resulted in a remarkable, bipartisan
congressional consensus - to assert oversight over an administration that
is not inspiring confidence. With all this, a deal with Iran is still
likely - and likely to be bad - unless Khamenei is incapable of getting to
'yes.' Obama's grand strategy, meanwhile, remains a cipher. He could
believe that a nuclear agreement and the lifting of sanctions will help
transform Iran into a more benevolent regional power - which is naive. He
could be making the move of an uber-realist - trying to extricate the
United States from involvement in the Middle East by recognizing Iranian
hegemony and developing a working relationship with the worst of the worst.
This would fulfill the nightmares of Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Or
Obama could have no strategy at all - in need of a political win,
desperately hoping for a legacy and too invested to walk away." http://t.uani.com/1aDs4SP
James A. Baker III
in WSJ: "Within days of the April 2 announcement of
the tentative agreement to curb Iran's nuclear-weapons program, it was
apparent that there are substantial misunderstandings about a deal the
administration has hailed as 'an historic understanding.' Clearly, much
work must be done if there is to be a final agreement by the June 30
deadline. Iranian leaders quickly disputed key points about the White
House's description of the terms of the agreement. Among them was Iran's
demand that all sanctions be removed once a final deal is signed. That is a
far cry from the U.S. understanding that sanctions will only be removed
over time, as Iran meets its obligations. This different Iranian position may
have been aimed at Iran's domestic audience. But if Iran holds to it, there
should be no final agreement. Arms-control negotiations are rarely easy,
and there remain serious questions about more than the phasing out of
sanctions. These include verification mechanisms (including access to
Iran's military bases for inspections); the 'snapback' provisions for
reapplying sanctions; and Iran's refusal so far to provide historical
information about its nuclear-enrichment program so that there is a
baseline against which to measure any future enrichment. The proposed
snapback and verification provisions, while still being negotiated, look
like they will be particularly bureaucratic and cumbersome. Experience
shows Iran cannot be trusted, and so those four weaknesses need to be
addressed and fixed. Yes, it would be good if we could have a verifiable
agreement extending the current 'breakout' period for Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons to one year from the current two-to-three months. And for
that extension to last at least 10 years. As things now stand, however, if
in the end there is no final agreement-and if the U.S. is seen to be the
reason why-we could be in a worse position than we are today, because the
United Nations and European Union sanctions would likely be watered down or
dropped. The U.S. would then be left with the option of only unilateral
sanctions, which are far less effective. So it is critical that the U.S.
position on these issues be supported by most, if not all, of the other
members of the P5+1 group, as the permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council plus Germany are called. A great deal of negotiating is yet to
come. That provides Secretary of State John Kerry, who has done a herculean
task getting the talks this far, with an opportunity. In the coming weeks,
he and other American diplomats should travel to the P5+1 capitals and
convince their counterparts there to support non-negotiable positions on
the four outstanding questions, positions that Iran must agree to if it
wants to start reaping the substantial economic benefits a final deal can
bring it. Iran should not be rewarded for waffling and re-trading. Even
before it began complaining about the tentative agreement, Iran has reneged
on prior agreements. Two days before a March 31 deadline, for example, Iran
backed away from its pledge to send a large portion of its uranium
stockpile to Russia, where it could not be used to make weapons. Our P5+1
partners should understand that if we can't trust Iran to stick to its
promises during negotiations, we cannot trust that it won't resume its
nuclear-weapons program after a final deal is reached. Only after we have
the necessary support from the P5+1 should we resume our discussions with
Iran. And then, only after the Iranians have been told in no uncertain
terms that we have reasonable specific demands they must meet. Let Iran and
the world know what those demands are. If Iran balks at such an
arrangement, then it will be that country's fault that the talks broke
down." http://t.uani.com/1JbkP07
Noah Feldman in
Bloomberg: "Does the new version of the bill giving
Congress a vote on the Iran nuclear agreement -- a bill which President
Barack Obama has agreed to sign -- shift the constitutional balance of
power when it comes to foreign agreements? At first glance, it looks as if
it might: Obama initially declared that he could make an executive
agreement with Iran that evaded Congress. Now he has agreed to sign a law
that gives Congress the chance to review the deal before it goes into
effect and block it if there are enough votes to override a presidential
veto. This looks like a restraint on the president's untrammeled executive
power in foreign affairs. On second glance, however, the bill seems to be
more symbolic than practical. Even if the bill didn't exist, Congress could
still have responded to any Iran deal by enacting a resolution condemning
it and blocking its implementation. The president could then have vetoed
the resolution -- essentially the same result that would occur under the
new bill. Given this reality, the bill would seem to leave intact the
existing division of powers between Congress and the president... If, as
seems more likely, Obama vetoed Congress' formal objection, then the
scenario would probably turn out differently. Republicans would no doubt
make the public point that the president shouldn't act against a majority
in Congress, because doing so seems undemocratic. But the Republicans'
argument against the Iran deal might actually then be weaker than it
would've been without the bill. The president would probably say in his
veto message that he was simply following the script mandated by the bill.
He had democratically given Congress the chance to review the deal, and
Congress did so. There was a way for Congress to block the deal, namely a
supermajority. Obama could therefore credibly say that Congress had in
effect approved the deal by declining to block it via a supermajority.
Notice the remarkable fact that in this scenario, the current bill would
have made the president, not Congress, stronger in the field of negotiating
international agreements. The bill gives the president the chance to say
that Congress has a role in reviewing the Iran deal, without strengthening
that role in practical terms. Behold the fascinating and weirdly uncertain
effects of the present bill. Congressional Republicans seem to believe that
by passing it, they are weakening the president and the Iran deal, because
there will now be a formal chance for them to review and vote against it.
Congressional Democrats, for their part, see an opportunity to please
pro-Israel constituents or others who oppose the Iran deal -- without
blocking the president who comes from their own party from actually doing a
deal. As for Obama, he's more than smart enough to have thought of how the
bill may actually strengthen him in the long run. He appears now to have
made a concession to Congress by giving them a voice. But if he wants to
override a later veto, he can say he hasn't acted undemocratically, even
while going against a majority in Congress. It isn't exactly true that
everybody wins. But all sides might well be gambling credibly that the deal
will help them more than it hurts. And that, let's recall, is the nature of
a compromise." http://t.uani.com/1NXyYVu
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment