Friday, April 17, 2015

Eye on Iran: Obama Could Ease Many Iranian Sanctions Without Congress






Join UANI  
 Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our videos on YouTube
   
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
        


Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.  UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

No comments:

Post a Comment