|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"President Obama fiercely defended the framework nuclear agreement
with Iran on Saturday and criticized those Republicans he said were
politicizing foreign policy and working to derail the deal. 'I don't
understand why it is that everybody's working so hard to anticipate
failure,' Mr. Obama said of the negotiations to hammer out a final
nuclear accord, during a news conference at the end of a summit meeting
of Latin American nations here. 'My simple point is let's wait and see
what the deal is.' He said he remained 'absolutely positive' that if a
final agreement codified the commitments agreed upon earlier this month,
it would be the best way of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon. And he said that he was worried that Republican critics of the deal
were trying to 'screw up' its completion. Mr. Obama singled out Senator
John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who he said had suggested that
Secretary of State John Kerry was 'somehow less trustworthy' than Iran's
supreme leader in describing the deal, calling it 'an indication of the
degree to which partisanship has crossed all boundaries.' ... As for
Congress, he said he had talked to Senator Bob Corker, Republican of
Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a sponsor
of the review bill, and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the
panel's senior Democrat, about how to give Congress a voice in the
debate. 'I want to work with them so that Congress can look at this deal
when it's done,' Mr. Obama said. 'What I'm concerned about is making sure
that we don't prejudge it,' he added, or allow opponents of the deal to
'try to use a procedural argument essentially to screw up the possibility
of a deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1yojxyG
Reuters:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday paved the way for
long-overdue missile system deliveries to Iran and Moscow started an
oil-for-goods swap with Tehran, showing the Kremlin's determination to
boost economic ties with the Islamic Republic... The Kremlin said Putin
signed a decree lifting Russia's own ban on the delivery of S-300
anti-missile rocket system to Iran, removing a major irritant between the
two after Moscow cancelled a corresponding contract in 2010 under
pressure from the West. A senior government official said separately that
Russia has started supplying grain, equipment and construction materials
to Iran in exchange for crude oil under a barter deal. Sources told
Reuters more than a year ago that a deal worth up to $20 billion was
being discussed with Tehran and would involve Russia buying up to 500,000
barrels of Iranian oil a day in exchange for Russian equipment and
goods." http://t.uani.com/1yoigHQ
Al-Monitor:
"The long-awaited, much-delayed day is here: Congress is finally
getting its say on President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee is slated to vote April 14 on
legislation from Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., that would mandate
congressional review of the deal. Lawmakers on the committee have filed
no fewer than 52 amendments, guaranteeing a lively debate on the most
controversial foreign policy issue before Congress. Ahead of the vote,
the White House has started an all-out effort to stop the bill from
getting a veto-proof majority - or at least water it down enough that it
doesn't endanger the preliminary deal reached April 2. This includes
amendments from the new ranking member, Ben Cardin, D-Md., to reduce the
review period to 10 session days, give the president some power to start
lifting sanctions in accord with the deal, and strike a certification
that Iran is not engaging in terrorism against US targets." http://t.uani.com/1aWSmR3
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"Beefing up international monitoring of Iran's nuclear work could
become the biggest stumbling block to a final accord between Tehran and
major powers, despite a preliminary deal reached last week. As part of
that deal, Iran and the powers agreed that United Nations inspectors
would have 'enhanced' access to remaining nuclear activity in Iran, where
they already monitor key sites. But details on exactly what kind of
access the inspectors will have were left for the final stage of talks,
posing a major challenge for negotiators on a complex and logistically
challenging issue that is highly delicate for Iran's leaders. Securing
proper inspections is crucial for the United States and other Western
powers to ensure a final deal, due by June 30, is effective and to
persuade a skeptical U.S. Congress and Israel to accept the agreement.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, but it has never welcomed intrusive
inspections and has in the past kept some nuclear sites secret... David
Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International
Security, said it was crucial to come up with a mechanism for 'anytime,
anywhere' inspections that go beyond the IAEA's own special arrangements
for short-notice inspections, known as the Additional Protocol." http://t.uani.com/1yjVdO8
WSJ:
"Iran would extend talks for a final nuclear deal with world powers
beyond a June 30 deadline if need be to maintain red lines drawn this
week by its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a senior Iranian
official said. 'Iran will work hard to reach an agreement within the
specified time of three months or even sooner, but if the deal doesn't
meet the criteria the leader has introduced for a good deal, we would
extend the time,' said Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, a member of
the Iranian negotiating team, in televised comments reported Friday by
the Mehr News Agency... Mr. Araqchi said it would be hard to close the remaining
gaps before the end of June. 'As Ayatollah Khamenei noted, we have a very
difficult task ahead,' he said, adding Iran was 'not in a situation of
agreement or guaranteed agreement.'" http://t.uani.com/1cp5fUp
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defended on Sunday his
presentation of a framework agreement on Iran's nuclear program after a
different interpretation was offered by Iran's supreme leader, and a
prominent U.S. senator said Kerry was 'delusional.' 'I will stand by
every fact that I have said,' Kerry told ABC's 'This Week.' ... 'You
know, they're going to put their spin on their point of view and
obviously they'll allege that we're putting a spin on our point of view,'
Kerry said of the Iranian comments." http://t.uani.com/1IXnTN8
Reuters:
"An outline nuclear accord reached this month between Iran and world
powers respects Iran's red lines, though ambiguities over the lifting of
sanctions must be resolved, a top Iranian military official was quoted as
saying on Saturday... 'Solutions have been obtained and it seems that the
principles and red lines of the Islamic Republic in technical issues have
been accepted by the enemy,' said Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Fars News.
'However in regards to removing the sanctions, there are ambiguities
which need to be made clear and we must realize that this very issue of
how the sanctions will be removed can lead to a lack of agreement.'"
http://t.uani.com/1HjReTP
Reuters:
"U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Friday that a nuclear
agreement with Iran must include inspections of its military sites, a
position at odds with recent comments by Iran's Supreme Leader. In an
interview with CNN, Carter said the nuclear deal being negotiated between
the United States, other world powers and Iran must include ways to
verify Tehran's compliance. 'It can't be based on trust. It has to have
adequate provisions for inspections,' he said, adding inspections
'absolutely' would have to include military sites." http://t.uani.com/1cp2PFk
Bloomberg:
"President Barack Obama will dispatch three cabinet members to brief
skeptical lawmakers this week on the outlines of a deal with Iran that
would trade nuclear restrictions for a lifting of economic sanctions.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz will hold a closed-door meeting on Monday for
members of the House of Representatives, according to Lew's published
schedule. A similar briefing for senators will be held Tuesday. Lawmakers
return to Washington this week after a two-week recess. The meetings give
Obama's administration a chance to explain to lawmakers in person the
particulars of the nuclear deal and continuing negotiations with Iran for
the first time since the framework of an accord was announced April 2 in
Lausanne, Switzerland... Kerry used appearances on three U.S. television
talk shows Sunday to plead again for congressional restraint, saying the
White House should be allowed to negotiate the final terms of a deal
before lawmakers weigh in." http://t.uani.com/1JDAWo4
The Hill:
"The framework deal on Iran's nuclear program has come under heavy
scrutiny as the Obama administration seeks to sell the agreement to
skeptical lawmakers. Many of the terms mark a shift from President
Obama's stated goals at the start of negotiations 18 months ago.
Democrats and the White House say those changes are the result of tough
negotiations and are calling for time to allow diplomats to finalize the
accord. But Republican critics say the administration made concessions
that go too far and secured little in return. Here are five areas where
the administration shifted course during negotiations." http://t.uani.com/1Dbkyc7
Sanctions
Enforcement
Reuters:
"As the United States and Iran come closer to a historic nuclear
deal, many U.S. states are likely to stick with their own sanctions on
Iran that could complicate any warming of relations between the long-time
foes. In a little known aspect of Iran's international isolation, around
two dozen states have enacted measures punishing companies operating in
certain sectors of its economy, directing public pension funds with
billions of dollars in assets to divest from the firms and sometimes
barring them from public contracts. In more than half those states, the
restrictions expire only if Iran is no longer designated to be supporting
terrorism or if all U.S. federal sanctions against Iran are lifted -
unlikely outcomes even in the case of a final nuclear accord. Two states,
Kansas and Mississippi, are even considering new sanctions targeting the
country." http://t.uani.com/1FCbewi
Regional
Destabilization
Reuters:
"The world powers' interim nuclear accord with Iran coupled with
U.S. President Barack Obama's call for political reform in Gulf Arab
countries has rattled Washington's traditional allies in the region.
Fearing change at home could play into the hands of Iran, their rival for
influence across the Middle East, Gulf Arab leaders will have much to
disagree over with Obama at a summit he has invited them to at Camp David
and is expected soon.But they are also taking matters into their own
hands, as the Saudi intervention in Yemen shows.Obama told the New York
Times on Tuesday that the greatest security threat for the Sunni Muslim
Gulf was not Shi'ite Iran but poor governance and extremism at home.
Although some Gulf Arab citizens and activists may agree with Obama's
diagnosis, their leaders view change at home as a recipe for chaos that
Tehran could capitalize on. 'We're astonished that the United States
thinks this is a formula for success in this region,' said Sami al-Faraj,
a Kuwaiti analyst and adviser to the Gulf Cooperation Council, a
political and economic alliance." http://t.uani.com/1COGYfP
Iraq Crisis
WSJ:
"Standing just a few feet from the American soldiers who were
training him in ground-assault techniques on Thursday, Iraqi Pvt. Ali
Saleh let loose with a confession: During his leave from Iraq's
U.S.-trained military, Pvt. Saleh fights the militants of Islamic State
as part of the Hezbullah Brigades-an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group
that only a few years ago was attacking U.S. soldiers. Several other
Iraqi soldiers under training said they actively served on their days off
with Shiite militia-some of them, like the Hezbullah Brigades, still
listed by the U.S. as terrorist groups. 'The militias are much better
than the regular Iraqi army,' said Pvt. Saleh. 'They have more support
and more weapons.' ... While the Iraqi military carries the trappings of
official army service, the militias are quickly being integrated into the
government: Iraq's cabinet voted Tuesday to make the militias-including
those explicitly backed by Iran-officially answerable to the ministry of
interior, with attendant government financing and political
support." http://t.uani.com/1COEXAp
Yemen Crisis
WSJ:
"U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea this month boarded a freighter
suspected of delivering Iranian weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen,
American military officials said. The destroyer USS Sterett's search of
the Panamanian-flagged Saisaban on April 1 came up empty. But the
officials said it marked the U.S. Navy's first boarding operation in an
expanding campaign to ensure Iran doesn't supply game-changing weapons
such as surface-to-air missiles that would threaten Saudi-led airstrikes
on the Houthis... U.S. and Saudi officials say Tehran has been providing
arms, weapons, training and funding for the Houthis for years-allegations
Iran denies. A senior defense official said the U.S. knows Tehran is
trying to supply the militant group with surface-to-air missiles. Since
the Red Sea search, the U.S. military has stepped up its surveillance in
the region so it can keep a closer eye on what Iran and the Houthis are doing
to turn the tide in their favor, the U.S. officials said." http://t.uani.com/1z9Vi2a
Al Arabiya:
"Two Iranian military officers advising Houthi rebels have been
captured in Yemen's southern city of Aden during fighting on Friday
evening, Popular Resistance sources in the city told Al Arabiya News
Channel. The claims were supported by Reuters news agency which quoted
local militiamen as saying the two Iranians were from an elite unit of
the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards. 'The initial investigation
revealed that they are from the Quds Force and are working as advisors to
the Houthi militia,' one of the militia sources told Reuters. Both men,
who were identified as a colonel and a captain, were seized in two
different districts rocked by heavy gun battles, the news agency
reported." http://t.uani.com/1DBfH5x
Human Rights
WashPost:
"Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter imprisoned in Iran for
almost nine months on suspicion of espionage, is accused of passing on
sensitive economic and industrial information about Iran, the Fars news
agency said Sunday. Fars, a semiofficial outlet known for its ties to
hard-liners in Iran, said Rezaian faces 'security' charges in the
Revolutionary Court involving allegations of espionage and acting against
the national security. It said no trial date has been set. Fars reported
that prosecutors allege Rezaian, who is The Post's Tehran bureau chief
and holds dual citizenship in the United States and Iran, gave economic
and industrial information on Iran to Americans who were not named by the
agency." http://t.uani.com/1FNX5id
Reuters:
"The United States targeted Iran's record on women's rights on
Friday by calling a rare vote on the country's 'wholly inappropriate' bid
to join the executive board of the United Nations gender equality body.
The 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Council held a secret ballot on
the uncontested Asia-Pacific regional slate for the board of UN Women,
which was created by the United Nations in 2010 as a body for gender
equality and empowerment of women. Only 53 council members voted on
Friday, diplomats said, using blank ballots on which they had to write in
the country names. Samoa and United Arab Emirates got 53 votes,
Turkmenistan 52 votes and Pakistan 49 votes. Iran was elected with 36
votes...Power said she was 'extremely disappointed' that the Asia-Pacific
group had endorsed Iran's candidacy for the three-year term beginning
Jan. 1, 2016." http://t.uani.com/1yjV11p
IHR:
"One prisoner was hanged in the city of Mehriz (Yazd Province,
Central Iran) early Sunday morning April 12, reported the Iranian state
media... According to unofficial reports two prisoners were hanged in the
prison of Zahedan (Baluchistan Province, Southeastern Iran) Saturday
morning, April 11. Several unofficial sources have also reported about
transfer of 16 prisoners for execution in Karaj (west of Tehran). These
prisoners are scheduled to be executed in the coming days." http://t.uani.com/1amVCUH
Domestic
Politics
Guardian:
"As hundreds gathered in north Tehran's Vanak square last Friday to
celebrate the news that a nuclear deal between Iran and the 5+1 group was
in the offing, Morteza, an eyeglass shop owner, stood in the crowd
alongside his wife. 'These few years have turned us into a truly damaged
people,' he said. 'The wounds are so deep that there is no easy
treatment. What we want is normal relations with foreign countries and a
healthy economy, and we will pick up the pieces gradually. But I fear
that we'll never fully regain what we've lost.' Still reeling from the
effects of western sanctions, Iranians voiced bittersweet responses to
the agreement outlined in Lausanne on 27 March. After years of
withstanding the resulting economic devastation under the banner of what
their government termed 'resistance' to US hegemony, Iranians are now
questioning the purpose of their sacrifices. 'Sure, a lot of people are
celebrating, but we're really just celebrating the fact that we're back
at zero again,' said Ardeshir, a 27-year-old law student. 'Even though
the celebrating is superficially very joyous, in a sense it's actually
very sad.'" http://t.uani.com/1H0lW3Q
Opinion &
Analysis
WSJ Editorial:
"Remember when Senator Barack Obama assailed President George W.
Bush for exceeding his presidential powers? In the twilight days of his
own Presidency, Mr. Obama is speaking and acting as if he can determine
U.S. foreign policy all by his lonesome. That afflatus was on display
Saturday at the Summit of Americas in Panama City, where the President
took umbrage that anyone would disagree with his unilateral forays on
Cuba, Iran and climate change. He was especially annoyed at Senator John
McCain for daring to point out that Secretary of State John Kerry's
interpretation of his 'framework' nuclear accord differs substantially
with that of Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei... Asked in Panama
about Mr. Khamenei's remarks, Mr. Obama dismissed them as posturing:
'It's not surprising to me that the Supreme Leader or a whole bunch of
other people are going to try to characterize the deal in a way that
protects their political position.' So what the Ayatollah says doesn't
matter, but American critics should shut up because all they want is war.
Once again Mr. Obama is more respectful of foreign enemies than of
domestic opponents, which is one reason his diplomacy has so many
Americans worried." http://t.uani.com/1DWRCYX
UANI Advisory
Board Member Walter Russell Mead in The American Interest:
"It's hard to predict how events will play out, but the Obama
Administration should have no illusions on one count: Iran must be taken
seriously when it says it sees this negotiation as part of a struggle
with an enemy. Liberal American diplomats often delude themselves that
foreigners prefer them to conservative hardliners. They think that
American adversaries like the Castro brothers or the Iranians will want
to work cooperatively with liberals here, and help the American liberals
stay in power in order to advance a mutually beneficial, win-win agenda.
Thus liberals think they can get better deals from U.S. opponents than
hardliners who, as liberals see it, are so harsh and crude in their
foreign policy that they force otherwise neutral or even pro-American
states into opposition. What liberal statesmen often miss is that for
many of these leaders it is the American system and American civilization
that is seen as the enemy. It is capitalism, for example, that the
communists opposed, and they saw liberal capitalism as simply one of the
masks that the heartless capitalist system could wear. For the Iranians,
it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and
military power that they see as the core threat. Obama's ideas from this
point of view are if anything less sympathetic to Iranian theocrats than
those of, say, American evangelicals who aren't running around supporting
gay marriage, transgender rights and an industrial strength feminism that
conservative Iranian mullahs see as blasphemy made flesh. The mullahs in
other words, don't see blue America as an ally against red America. It is
America, blue and red, that they hate and want to bring down. And while,
like the Soviets during the Cold War, they may be willing to sign
specific agreements where their interests and ours coincide on some
particular issue, they do not look to end the rivalry by reaching
agreements. The Iranians are as likely to use negotiations to trip up and
humiliate Obama as they were willing to doublecross Jimmy Carter and to
drag out hostage negotiations as a way of making him look weak in the
eyes of the world. American power is what they hope to break, and they
don't like it more or trust it more when a liberal Democrat stands at the
head of our system. The Iranians appear to believe that Obama desperately
needs an agreement with Iran, and are using the leverage they think this
gives them to tease and torment the president while they push for more
concessions. They think, for example, that his reluctance to intervene in
the Middle East reflects his desperate hunger for a deal-and so they are
doubling down on that by stepping up support for the Houthis in Yemen.
With the announcement of the framework agreement and their subsequent
pullback, they seem to be playing him exactly the way Lucy plays Charlie
Brown: the goal is to snatch the football away after Charlie Brown is
committed to kicking it... Iran may in the end be willing to give Obama
the deal he so badly wants, but the mullahs aim to make him pay the
highest possible price for the smallest possible gain that they
can. From what we have seen in the days since the framework
agreement was announced, Iran doesn't think the squeezing process is
over, and it thinks that the Obama administration can and will end up
paying more to get less." http://t.uani.com/1CB6R3R
Jackson Diehl in
WashPost: "The weakest point in President Obama's
defense of his deal with Iran is his claim that 'it is a good deal even
if Iran doesn't change at all.' Let's consider that scenario. An Iran
that does not change will reap hundreds of billions of dollars in fresh
revenue from the lifting of sanctions, and it will surely use much of
that to fund its ongoing military adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and
Yemen. It will supply more weapons to Hamas and other radical Palestinian
groups, and invest more in its long-range missiles, cyberweapons and
other military technologies not covered by the agreement. It will
continue developing advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment and after
a decade will begin installing them. By Obama's own account, in 13 or 14
years Iran will reemerge as a threshold nuclear state with a breakout
time 'almost down to zero.' It will still seek domination of the Middle
East and the elimination of Israel, but with far greater resources and
the capability to build a nuclear weapon at any time of its choosing. A
future president, administration officials concede, will have to go back
to the same strategy - sanctions, sabotage and the threat of force - that
Obama now proposes to set aside, but the odds of preventing a nuclear
Iran will be considerably worse than they are now. To say the least, that
future president is unlikely to agree that Obama made a good deal. So
let's be honest: Everything depends on Obama's hope that nuclear detente
will change Iran. 'If in fact they're engaged in international business,
and there are foreign investors, and their economy becomes more
integrated with the world economy, then in many ways it makes it harder
for them to engage in behaviors that are contrary to international
norms,' is the way he put it to National Public Radio... Obama may deny
that this transformation is baked into the terms he agreed to. But it's
well known that his belief that 'engagement' with rogue regimes leads to
peaceful and positive change is the distinguishing foreign policy idea of
his presidency, one that he has applied to Burma and Cuba, as well as to
Iran. It explains why he would agree to temporarily restrain, rather than
eliminate, Iran's capacity to build a bomb. There's no point in simply
buying time unless you expect something to change. The biggest question
about the accord is consequently not how quickly sanctions are lifted or
whether inspections are rigorous enough. It is whether 'those forces
inside of Iran that say, 'We don't need to view ourselves entirely
through the lens of our war machine' ... get stronger,' as Obama told the
New York Times. So can they? Fifteen years ago, most Western experts on
Iran might have said yes. That was when the reformist president Mohammad
Khatami, elected in a 1997 landslide, was encouraging a 'dialogue of
civilizations' and saying it was up to the Palestinians to decide the
future of their homeland; when liberal students marched at universities
and a robust independent press demanded even greater freedoms. In 2009,
when the 'Green Movement' surged into the streets following a disputed
election, the possibility of radical political change in Tehran once
again seemed real. It turned out, however, that both Iranian liberals and
Western analysts underestimated the strength of Iran's deep state - the
Revolutionary Guards, the reactionary clergy, the hard-line judiciary.
Those forces crushed both Khatami and the Green Movement; presiding over
them is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who last week reiterated
his abiding hatred for the West and everything it represents... Obama
keeps insisting in media interviews that he's not banking on an Iranian
transformation. In reality, he is. It's the apotheosis of his worldview,
the sine qua non of the nuclear deal - and the riskiest bet of his
presidency." http://t.uani.com/1H0prXX
David Albright,
Andrea Stricker, Serena Kelleher-Vergantini & Houston Wood in ISIS:
"We delayed our analysis in order to learn more about provisions not
included in the U.S. Fact Sheet and to obtain important details
pertaining to existing provisions that were initially unclear. This
allowed us to assess the framework more thoroughly. Our overall
assessment is that this complicated framework has some excellent
provisions, several that are inadequate as currently described, and
several that cannot be judged at this time because they remain to be
further negotiated. Our goal remains obtaining an adequate deal. To do
so, a key goal of the negotiations remains a final deal which provides
confidence of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program
and ensures sufficient reaction time, namely, enough time to respond
diplomatically and internationally to stop Iran if it does decide to
renege on its commitments and build nuclear weapons. According to
Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, 'We must be confident that any
effort by Tehran to break out of its obligations will be so visible and
time consuming that the attempt would have no chance of success.'
That goal must be at the core of any agreement. Overall, however, we do
not assess that this essential goal has yet been achieved. This
assessment discusses our evaluation of where strengthening or more
detailing of provisions is necessary within the confines of the current
framework. We believe strengthening is necessary and achievable
during the next three months." http://t.uani.com/1GDoypH
Ernest Moniz in
WashPost: "The recent announcement of the Lausanne
framework concerning Iran's nuclear program has stimulated a lively
public and political debate. This is an important discussion that the
nation deserves to have, and it must be informed by clarity on the
specifics of the negotiated technical parameters for a final Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)... Iran has repeatedly emphasized
its commitment to a peaceful program, but today's reality of national and
U.N. sanctions highlights the international community's concern about
Iran's past nuclear activity. The Lausanne understanding is not built on
trust. It is built on hard-nosed requirements that would limit Iran's
activities and ensure vital access and transparency... The negotiated
parameters would block Iran's four pathways to a nuclear weapon - the
path through plutonium production at the Arak reactor, two paths to a
uranium weapon through the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities, and
the path of covert activity. To start, Iran would not have a source of
weapons-grade plutonium. The Arak reactor would be redesigned and
internationally certified to produce much less plutonium and no
weapons-grade plutonium. In addition, we have agreed that all of the
plutonium-bearing spent reactor fuel would be sent out of the country for
the lifetime of the reactor. Any attempt to use the Arak reactor to
produce weapons-grade plutonium would be easily detected. Furthermore,
for the indefinite future, Iran would have no capability to extract
plutonium from spent fuel from any reactor and conduct no research and
development on such reprocessing. No other heavy-water reactors, a type
often associated with weapons programs, would be built for at least 15
years, and any excess heavy water would be sold off. This framework shuts
down the plutonium pathway... Iran would quickly implement, and
eventually ratify, the Additional Protocol to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. The Additional Protocol allows
inspections and sampling at both declared nuclear facilities, such as
Natanz, Fordow and Arak, and undeclared sites at which out-of-bounds
activities are suspected... No options for response - sanctions,
diplomacy or other - are taken off the table. When combined with other
political provisions in the framework for an agreement negotiated by
Kerry and his partners, the recently concluded negotiation represents an
important step toward a safer world." http://t.uani.com/1IFUY3r
Jamie Dettmer in
The Daily Beast: "In trying to sell the idea that
Iran is serious about a nuclear deal both President Obama and Secretary
of State John Kerry have cited a fatwa that Khamenei supposedly issued
judging that nuclear weapons are haram, or forbidden. Obama mentioned it
in his April 2 statement after negotiators said they had agreed on a
framework, saying, 'Since Iran's Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa
against the development of nuclear weapons, this framework gives Iran the
opportunity to verify that its program is, in fact, peaceful.' But the
fatwa appears to be as elusive as...well, the Lausanne agreement. No one
has so far seen it. Several different dates have been given by Iranian
officials for the fatwa banning nuclear weapons-Hassan Rouhani claimed in
May 2012 before becoming Iran's president that it was issued in 2004. A
sermon delivered by Iran's Supreme Leader at Tehran University in
November 2004 is cited. But in that sermon Khamenei actually didn't say
possessing or using nuclear weapons was 'prohibited,' only 'problematic.'
Khamenei did issue a letter to a 2010 international nuclear disarmament
conference saying nuclear weapons are haram and later that was referenced
as a 'new fatwa' on his official website. He even tweeted it. But Iranian
legal scholars say this is problematic as it breaks convention on the
formatting and content requirements for a fatwa under Islamic
jurisprudence, which involves a question being asked of a religious
authority and the answer being provided citing Islamic religious sources.
Writing on the BBC Persian website last year, Iranian law expert Bahman
Aghai Diba argued: 'The fatwa banning nuclear weapons by Iran's Supreme
Leader remains shrouded in a fog.' And he notes that unlike any other
Khamenei fatwa the text of this highly important (claimed) one is not
actually provided on any official website 'nor in any of the numerous
collections of the Supreme Leader's publications.' With its provenance
and authenticity in doubt it remains non-binding. 'Such a fatwa has never
been issued, and to this day no one has been able to show it,' says Yigal
Carmon, a one-time counter-terrorism adviser to Israeli prime ministers
and now the head of the Middle East Media Research Institute. So a
dubious fatwa that doesn't accord with the tradition and accepted
practice of Islamic edicts and a nuclear agreement that doesn't bear any
similarity to a dictionary definition of 'agreement': It makes
negotiating with the Soviets look easy." http://t.uani.com/1FFG8Jo
|
|
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