Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said
Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more
than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink
to almost nothing after 13 or more years... 'What is a more relevant fear
would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that
enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times
would have shrunk almost down to zero,' Obama said. Breakout time refers
to how long it would take to build a bomb if Iran decided to pursue one
full-bore - in other words, how long the rest of the world would have to
stop it. The framework deal expands Iran's breakout time - currently two
to three months - to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in
place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start
phasing out. Although Obama acknowledged that Iran's breakout time could
shrink, he said at least the world would have better insight into Iran's
capabilities because of extensive inspections in the earlier years. 'The
option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain
a nuclear weapon is undiminished,' Obama said." http://t.uani.com/1Ca8wNn
Politico:
"Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of Capitol Hill's most
influential voices in the Iran nuclear debate, is strongly endorsing
passage of a law opposed by President Barack Obama that would give
Congress an avenue to reject the White House-brokered framework unveiled
last week. The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting
illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While
there's no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement
with Iran, there's an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress
should at least have the ability to do so. 'This is a very serious issue
that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified
briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the
right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which
would allow that to occur,' Schumer said in an emailed statement to
POLITICO. Schumer had quietly signed on to a bill allowing congressional
review of the Iran deal two weeks ago, but made little fanfare of his
co-sponsorship. In a brief statement on Friday, he said only that he'd
review the agreement. Now that the outlines of an agreement are known,
Schumer's emphatic statement that Congress has an important role becomes
more significant, signaling to fellow Democrats that it's safe to jump on
board the review bill... 'The argument that the Corker bill somehow
interferes with the negotiations is a complete red herring,' [Sen.
Tim] Kaine [(D-Va.)] said. 'I did not sign on to this bill because
of an anti-diplomacy mind-set.'" http://t.uani.com/1DfCeoj
Times of Israel:
"The terms delineated in the framework agreement will leave Iran as
'a threshold breakout nuclear state for the next 10 years,' and after
that the remaining safeguards against a breakout to the bomb will begin
to fall away, former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen warned Monday. In
a lengthy interview, Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's
former top official for monitoring nuclear proliferation, expressed a
range of concerns about the deal taking shape, warned of Iran's history
of deception, and also cautioned that the one-year framework for nuclear
breakout pushed by the Obama administration might leave insufficient time
for an international reaction to violations of the agreement. Heinonen
said that the framework agreement, announced in Lausanne, Switzerland,
last Thursday, leaves a number of key concerns unanswered. Although it
appears to be more robust than previous nuclear agreements, he said
missteps could result in a repeat of the outcome that the non-proliferation
regime suffered when North Korea violated the terms of an agreement and
rushed toward a nuclear bomb... 'I think that this whole exercise should
begin with a full complete declaration from Iran about its nuclear
program,' he said. 'Many things have changed since 2003 when Iran made
its previous statement.'" http://t.uani.com/1yawX12
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Times of Israel:
"French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has
not been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of
Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced
centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US
official parameters, which make no such specific provision. The use of
the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to
the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the
highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its
breakout time to the bomb. The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran
will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6
and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times
the speed of Iran's current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American
parameters are less specific. Differences between the texts issued by
Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and
supervision of Iran's activities, with the French document indicating
that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to
visit any suspect site in Iran - so-called 'anywhere, anytime' access -
whereas the US document is less far-reaching." http://t.uani.com/1yS9DQr
AP:
"In selling the Iran nuclear deal to Congress and other skeptics,
President Barack Obama said it is built on 'unprecedented verification,'
telling his radio audience over the weekend: 'If Iran cheats, the world
will know it.' Only time will tell if Obama is right... More likely,
[Iran] will push for every loophole any agreement provides but honor it,
and wait out the 10 years of strict restrictions any deal will impose...
But as negotiators try to turn a sketchy understanding into a
comprehensive deal by June 30, Tehran's nuclear history cannot be
ignored... That means that Iran again could turn to delaying tactics to
blunt sleuthing attempts by the U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency
- even though on paper at least, Iran appears to have little wiggle room...
Iran may push back on any dispute. And - as in the past - that could give
it plenty of potential cover-up time. Whether it's IAEA's 35-nation board
or a specially created U.N. panel, any arbiter is bound to be composed of
multiple countries, including some with more sympathy for Iran than
harbored by the United States and its Western allies. That means that
consultations leading to any ruling that special inspections are
necessary could take, days, weeks, even months - with Tehran fighting it
all the way. And while U.S. intelligence agencies will be on sharpened
lookout for cheating, they're not infallible." http://t.uani.com/1N3scwP
Reuters:
"The United States made clear on Monday that sanctions on Iran would
have to be phased out gradually under a nuclear pact and President Barack
Obama poured cold water on an Israeli demand that a deal be predicated on
Tehran recognizing Israel. 'The notion that we would condition Iran not
getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel
is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of
the Iranian regime completely transforms,' Obama said in an interview
with National Public Radio (NPR). 'That is, I think, a fundamental
misjudgment... We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because
we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing,' he said. Meanwhile
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no ambiguity about the
U.S. demand that sanctions on Tehran be lifted in phases under a final
deal, but details still had to be negotiated. 'It has never been our
position that all of the sanctions against Iran should be removed from
Day One,' he told a briefing." http://t.uani.com/1N3lffl
Reuters:
"President Barack Obama said in an interview released on Tuesday he
is confident sanctions against Iran could be reimposed if Tehran violates
an agreement to restrict its nuclear program. Obama told National Public
Radio (NPR) that U.S. and European negotiators are trying to reach a deal
with Iran in which sanctions could be reimposed without a U.N. Security
Council vote, where Tehran-ally Russia would have a veto. 'We are
absolutely convinced we can do it again,' Obama said of the international
sanctions, which have crippled Iran's economy. He said a reimposition of
sanctions would be triggered by a finding of the International Atomic
Energy Agency that Tehran had broken the agreement... Obama said a
nuclear deal could help strengthen moderate elements in Iran. 'If they
are shown to have delivered for their people, presumably it strengthens
their hand vis-a-vis some of the hardliners inside of Iran,' he
said." http://t.uani.com/1Fb5EGo
NYT:
"Clearly unsatisfied with assurances from President Obama about the
provisions of the Iran nuclear deal, Israel on Monday listed specific
requirements that it declared were necessary in any final agreement. The
list, produced by Yuval Steinitz, Israel's minister of intelligence and
strategic affairs and one of the Israeli government's harshest critics of
the negotiations, marked a change in direction for the government of
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now, Israel has argued, at least
publicly, that the only good deal would halt all uranium enrichment by
Iran, essentially rolling back the clock by 20 years. It has never before
defined the 'better deal' that Mr. Netanyahu told Congress the world
needed. But Mr. Steinitz's list of desired modifications for the final
agreement, due to be concluded by June 30, appeared carefully designed to
echo some of the more sophisticated critiques of the agreement that have
circulated since the United States described critical elements of the
deal on Thursday... Mr. Steinitz said that the suggestion that there was
no alternative to the framework, or that Israel had not put forward an
alternative, 'is wrong.' 'The alternative is not necessarily to declare
war on Iran,' he said, briefing international reporters at a Jerusalem
hotel. 'It is to increase pressure on Iran and stand firm and make Iran
make serious concessions and have a much better deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1O3fECW
Politico:
"The White House is getting a cheering section going for the Iran
deal - thanks to a ramped-up series of briefings to allies who can make
the case from the outside. Diplomats, scientists and other activists
began making their own arguments Monday for the preliminary nuclear deal
reached last week, releasing statements that praised the agreement and
urged lawmakers to give negotiators a chance to pursue a comprehensive
accord... The administration hasn't tried to give these groups talking
points, the person said, and there haven't been any big secrets that have
been revealed at the briefings, but they've served their purpose by
getting the groups interested in speaking out. 'It's less about asking us
to do anything and more that the discussion around the table turns to, We
need to really hammer home on this point.'" http://t.uani.com/1Cui7xy
AP:
"The chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard praised the work of the
country's nuclear negotiators after they struck a deal with world powers,
state television reported Tuesday, a major endorsement from the Islamic
Republic's most powerful institution. The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali
Jafari came as some 200 hard-liners protested in Tehran against the
framework deal reached last week in Switzerland. Jafari's endorsement
likely will isolate those still opposing the deal further amid the
widespread support negotiators have received and may smooth any potential
parliamentary vote over it. 'With God's grace, the revolutionary children
of Islamic Iran have succeeded in defending the rights of the Iranian
nation and the Iranian nation and the Guard appreciate their honest
political efforts,' Jafari was quoted as saying on state TV's
website." http://t.uani.com/1agbGrw
Al-Monitor:
"After Iran and the six world powers announced a framework that
would drastically reduce Iran's nuclear program, negotiators arrived home
from the marathon talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, and immediately began
selling the deal to their domestic critics. Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif gave a two-hour interview with state TV to defend
the deal. The stiffest opposition so far has come from parliament.
According to a number of Iranian websites, Zarif's address to
parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee about the
nuclear talks and the framework deal turned into an 'unprecedented'
argument between Zarif and conservative parliament member Javad
Karimi-Ghodousi... According to witnesses, the argument in the session
became so intense that security officers kicked out the reporters." http://t.uani.com/1c40v6t
Congressional
Action
NYT:
"While negotiators toiled late into the night in Switzerland,
scratching together a nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator Bob Corker was
conducting his own tense talks back home. The new chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Mr. Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was trying to
marshal a bipartisan coalition for his bill to force President Obama to
send any agreement with Iran to Congress for approval - a bill that could
get enough votes to overcome a veto by Mr. Obama. 'I know that the
diplomats in Switzerland, knowing that Congress was likely to weigh in on
this deal, that was a positive thing,' Mr. Corker said in a telephone
interview on Monday. 'Voting for this legislation will have a positive
effect on the negotiations, not a negative effect.' There are few people
on Capitol Hill more important to the White House right now than Mr.
Corker, the silver-haired senator with the Southern drawl who sees himself
as a bridge builder in a Senate known for polarization. At the White
House, nobody likes his bill, which would give Congress a 60-day window
to debate the Iran agreement before voting yes or no or taking no action,
but Mr. Obama and his advisers see him as someone who might work with
them to revise the legislation and ultimately make a deal... The White
House now views its central challenge as either negotiating a compromise
with Mr. Corker or stopping enough Democrats from joining him so that he
is short of a veto-proof majority, at least through June 30, the deadline
to translate last week's preliminary agreement with Iran onto paper.
After that, officials said, Mr. Obama may be in a stronger position to
argue the merits of the accord." http://t.uani.com/1DZii9G
NYT:
"While negotiators toiled late into the night in Switzerland,
scratching together a nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator Bob Corker was
conducting his own tense talks back home. The new chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Mr. Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was trying to
marshal a bipartisan coalition for his bill to force President Obama to
send any agreement with Iran to Congress for approval - a bill that could
get enough votes to overcome a veto by Mr. Obama. 'I know that the diplomats
in Switzerland, knowing that Congress was likely to weigh in on this
deal, that was a positive thing,' Mr. Corker said in a telephone
interview on Monday. 'Voting for this legislation will have a positive
effect on the negotiations, not a negative effect.' There are few people
on Capitol Hill more important to the White House right now than Mr.
Corker, the silver-haired senator with the Southern drawl who sees
himself as a bridge builder in a Senate known for polarization. At the
White House, nobody likes his bill, which would give Congress a 60-day
window to debate the Iran agreement before voting yes or no or taking no
action, but Mr. Obama and his advisers see him as someone who might work
with them to revise the legislation and ultimately make a deal... The
White House now views its central challenge as either negotiating a
compromise with Mr. Corker or stopping enough Democrats from joining him
so that he is short of a veto-proof majority, at least through June 30,
the deadline to translate last week's preliminary agreement with Iran
onto paper. After that, officials said, Mr. Obama may be in a stronger
position to argue the merits of the accord." http://t.uani.com/1DZii9G
Sanctions
Relief
WSJ:
"Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Iran on Tuesday
seeking deeper economic ties and common ground on conflicts in the Middle
East, even as the historic rivals compete to influence the outcome of
wars in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The previously planned one-day state visit
comes on the heels of Tehran's accord with six world powers on a
framework for a deal on its nuclear program, and will mark Turkey's push
to benefit from an anticipated trade windfall as the U.S., European Union
and United Nations lift sanctions on its eastern neighbor. When Mr. Erdogan
meets with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President
Hasan Rouhani, the Turkish president will try to sideline sectarian
tensions between the countries and capitalize on years of diplomatic and
economic support to Tehran as it came under pressure because of its
nuclear program... 'Turkey is the most prepared country for Iran to be
free of sanctions, for Iran's economy to normalize,' Turkish Economy
Minister Nihat Zeybekci said on Monday." http://t.uani.com/1Pg0nzX
Reuters:
"Brent crude oil fell below $58 a barrel on Tuesday on signs of
growing oversupply as Iranian officials visited Beijing to seek more oil
sales after a framework nuclear deal that could lead to the lifting of
sanctions... Representatives of state-run National Iranian Oil Company
will meet China's biggest crude buyers including Unipec, the trading arm
of top Asian refiner Sinopec Corp, and state trader Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp,
officials told Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1O3j4Wg
Reuters:
"A British asset manager is teaming up with a Tehran-based firm to
establish funds that will invest in the Iranian securities markets, in a
sign that flows of foreign money into Iran may not wait for economic
sanctions to be lifted. London-based Charlemagne Capital, an emerging
market asset management group with about $2.5 billion under management,
said on Tuesday it would set up and promote the funds jointly with
Turquoise Partners. The interest of foreign investors in Iran has been
ignited by last week's preliminary agreement between Tehran and world
powers on curbing its nuclear programme." http://t.uani.com/1yarK9x
AFP:
"Iran has been approved as a founding member of the Beijing-backed
Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), China's finance ministry said Tuesday,
just days after Tehran sealed a historic framework agreement on its
nuclear programme. Tehran's application was backed by other founding
members on Friday, China's Ministry of Finance said in a statement on its
website. The United Arab Emirates' bid was also approved. More than 50
countries, plus Taiwan, have now applied to join the bank in a diplomatic
coup for Beijing after Washington initially opposed its allies becoming
members." http://t.uani.com/1CQKJVm
Terrorism
Reuters:
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Barack Obama's
administration to weigh in on an appeal over whether Iran's central bank
must pay $1.75 billion to relatives of American troops killed in the 1983
Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon. The court said it wants the
U.S. Justice Department's views on whether the nine justices should hear
the appeal filed by Bank Markazi. If the justices ultimately decline to
hear Bank Markazi's appeal, the money, currently held in a trust account,
would have to be turned over to families of the victims. It would go
toward paying off a $2.65 billion U.S. court judgment the families won
against Iran in 2007. The families accused Iran of providing material
support to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shi'ite militant group responsible
for the October 1983 truck bomb attack at the Marine compound in Beirut
that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. The high court's action comes at a
delicate time for American-Iranian relations, with the United States and
other world powers last week reaching a framework agreement intended to
curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic
sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1DZn47f
Yemen Crisis
WSJ:
"Saudi Arabia believes military advisers from Iran's elite military
unit, the Revolutionary Guards, have been embedded in the Houthi militia
that has taken control of large swathes of Yemen in recent months. Riyadh
and Tehran, embroiled in regional competition, have backed opposing proxy
forces in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia has launched a series of
airstrikes on Houthi positions over the past two weeks that are aimed at
driving them from the Yemeni capital, San'a, and forcing them to cede
power back to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi's government. Houthi
rebels forced him to flee on March 25. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to
Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, has said Iran is providing substantial
military support, financing and intelligence to the Houthis, who share
Tehran's Shiite faith. On Monday, he also charged that members of the
Revolutionary Guards are on the ground in Yemen helping to direct Houthi
military operations. 'If that's not support for the Houthis, I don't know
what is,' he told a roundtable of reporters in Washington." http://t.uani.com/1FhRCxq
Extremism
JPost:
"Individuals from fifty countries are scheduled to participate in
the Second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest to be held in Iran in
early May, according to multiple Iranian media outlets. On Monday, the
Islamic Republic's FARS news agency reported that some 839 pieces of
'artwork' making light of the Holocaust had been sent to contest
officials, many of which will be displayed in the 12 day exhibition held
in the Iranian capital beginning on May 9. A total of 312 'artists' will
be involved in the event, most of whom hail from Iran itself, but many
will also come from France, Indonesia and Turkey, Iran's state IRNA news
service reported." http://t.uani.com/1yaxzUo
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI President
Gary Samore in Foreign Affairs: "The parties have a
lot more work ahead of them if they are to complete a comprehensive
agreement by their self-imposed deadline of June 30, 2015. Comparing the
U.S. and Iran fact sheets (as translated by the Belfer Center's Payam
Mohseni), here are some of the remaining disputes. First, what happens to
Iran's existing stockpile of low-enriched uranium? During the course of
earlier negotiations, the United States agreed that Iran could retain
6,000-7,000 IR-1 centrifuges on the understanding that most of Iran's
low-enriched uranium would be shipped abroad for fabrication into fuel
for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, leaving only 300-500 kilograms on
Iran's soil at any time. This formula was necessary to preserve a
one-year breakout period-the time required for Iran to produce enough
weapons-grade uranium for one bomb (27 kilograms of 90 percent enriched
uranium) at its Natanz enrichment facility. In the final days of
negotiations, however, Iran pulled back and declared that it had no plans
to export its low-enriched uranium. The issue apparently remains
unresolved. According to the U.S. fact sheet, Iran will retain 6,104 IR-1
centrifuges at Natanz, 5,060 of which will continue enriching. The sheet
also notes that 'Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of
10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for
15 years.' Iran's fact sheet states that 'Iran will be able to use the
existing enriched stockpile for producing a nuclear fuel center and/or
its export to international market in exchange for uranium.' The United
States has suggested that any surplus low-enriched uranium in Iran beyond
the permitted 300 kilograms should be 'diluted'-that is, mixed with
depleted uranium and returned to natural uranium. Iran prefers to
'convert' the surplus from UF6 (a gas that can be used for further
enrichment) to a solid oxide form to supply its efforts to develop an
indigenous fuel fabrication facility. Resolving this issue is important
because, in theory, Iran could re-convert any remaining low-enriched
uranium oxide to UF6 and use it for enrichment, potentially reducing its
breakout time below a year. The second question is what the limits are on
enrichment in years 10-15 of the agreement. According to the U.S. fact
sheet, the limits on enrichment to ensure a one-year breakout time will
be enforced for ten years. These physical limits include caps on the
number of installed and operating IR-1 centrifuges and the stockpile of
low-enriched uranium, as well as prohibitions on the construction of
additional enrichment facilities, enrichment above 3.67 percent, and
enrichment with more advanced centrifuges. After 15 years, all of these
physical limits will be removed. Between ten and 15 years, the U.S. fact
sheet suggests that some limits will be eased, such as the ban on using
advanced centrifuges for enrichment, based on an 'enrichment and
enrichment R&D plan' specified in the comprehensive agreement. The
Iranian fact sheet, however, simply states that 'the timeframe of the
Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran's enrichment program will be
10 years,' suggesting that all limits are removed after that point. The
final agreement will need to specify constraints on the number and type
of centrifuges that can be deployed at Natanz between year ten and year
15, which will determine how much Iran could reduce the breakout timeline
below a year after year ten of the agreement. Third, how will Fordow be
converted? Both sides have agreed that the Fordow enrichment facility
will be converted to a research facility, but several details remain to
be determined. According to the U.S. fact sheet, Fordow will not be used
for enrichment or enrichment research and development for 15 years. In
addition, almost two-thirds of Fordow's existing 3,000 centrifuges and
infrastructure will be removed, with the remaining centrifuges not to be
used enriching uranium. According to Iran's fact sheet, 'More than 1,000
centrifuges and all related infrastructure in Fordow will be preserved
and maintained, out of which two centrifuge cascades will be in
operation.' Two cascades equal slightly more than 300 centrifuges.
Presumably, Iran intends to keep the remaining nearly 700 centrifuges at
Fordow on standby to resume uranium enrichment if the comprehensive
agreement fails. It is not clear that the United States has agreed to
this arrangement. Both sides do seem to be in agreement that the
operating centrifuges at Fordow will be used to produce stable isotopes
for industrial or medical uses, but the United States may seek to further
specify those isotopes (such as Zinc and Molybdenum) that render the
centrifuges unusable for uranium enrichment, while Iran may wish to
produce isotopes (such an Xenon) that allow the centrifuges to be reused
for uranium in the future. The fourth question is how enhanced
inspections and monitoring will be implemented... Finally, the two sides
must nail down the timing of sanctions relief. The U.S. fact sheet states
that 'the U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after
the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related
steps' and that 'all past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran
nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneously with the completion, by Iran,
of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment,
Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).' Iran's fact sheet is less clear.
In one section, it states that 'after implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN Security Council resolutions will be
revoked and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of
the EU and the unilateral ones of the US including financial, banking,
insurance, investment, and all related services, including oil, gas,
petrochemicals, and automobile industries will be immediately revoked.'
Elsewhere, the Iranian fact sheet is more specific: 'At the same time as
the start of Iran's nuclear-related implementation work, all of the
sanctions will be automatically annulled on a single specified day.'
Clearly, there is a major issue. The United States wants sanctions relief
to be dependent on performance, whereas Iran wants immediate relief. Also
worth noting is an underlying dispute on the content of the UN Security
Council resolution required to implement the comprehensive agreement. The
U.S. fact sheet emphasizes that the new resolution will 'endorse' the
comprehensive agreement and 'urge' its implementation, while retaining
'important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles.' In
Iran's version, the resolution should be 'binding and executable for all
UN member states.' This suggests that Iran will seek to codify sanctions
relief in international law, which the United States will oppose for
political and constitutional reasons." http://t.uani.com/1DFpZTZ
UANI Advisory
Board Member Michael Singh in WSJ: "Whether one
views the 'key parameters' of the Iran nuclear deal announced Thursday as
good or bad, it is hard to deny that they hew more closely to Iran's
long-held demands than to those of the United States. So why is this
particular deal, and not a different one, what was reached? A 'zone of
possible agreement' is key to any negotiation. That is, all parties must
find the range of outcomes preferable to no deal. If such a zone is
present, then which of the possible agreements is reached depends on
negotiating tactics. Much of the debate in the U.S. during the talks
focused on alternatives: What are they, and are they better or worse than
whatever deal comes of the negotiations? How U.S. allies, Congress, and
the public answer these questions determines the reception of any final
agreement, which is why the administration and its critics have clashed
so fiercely to frame those answers. When it comes to the no-deal options,
a clear difference has emerged between Iran and the United States.
Whatever the reality, Iran has consistently asserted that it can live without
a deal. And it didn't stop at rhetoric: Tehran has worked to improve its
no-deal options and worsen those of the United States, such as by
pursuing deals to circumvent sanctions and pressing its campaign for
influence in the Middle East as the talks proceeded. Meanwhile, the U.S.
has done the opposite: playing down the likelihood or likely efficacy of
new sanctions and emphasizing the dangers of conflict while doing little
to counter Iranian regional activities. The Obama administration's
negative view-aired publicly-of military conflict and its other
alternatives to a deal appear to have driven its willingness to make
concessions, and Iran's willingness to stand fast, more than any other
factor. In negotiations, once potential outcomes are identified they must
be compared to each other and not only to the no-deal options. Which of
the possible deals is achieved comes down to tactics at the table. On
this score, the Iranians lived up to their reputation as savvy
negotiators... As the negotiations progressed, Iran worked to improve its
options in the event of no deal and to worsen those of the other side,
while employing audacious tactics to secure the best possible agreement
among the range of feasible outcomes. The U.S. and its allies should take
note and seek to counter the Iranian approach, lest the nuclear
negotiations be remembered not as a signature foreign policy
accomplishment but as a case study of a powerful country playing a strong
hand poorly." http://t.uani.com/1HM0SwB
Josh Rogin in
Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama finally got his
framework nuclear deal with Iran, and now has to convince Congress to
back off its demand for an up-or-down vote on the final package. Its
going to be a tough sell: As of now, the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee doesn't even agree with Obama on what the deal will
mean for the region and the world. In an interview with me last week,
before the Obama administration announced the breakthrough between Iran
and six major world powers, Republican Senator Bob Corker said he had
figured out the overarching objectives of the president's various moves
in the Middle East, including not just Obama's drive to get a deal with
Iran but also his reluctance to get involved in Syria and his treatment
of Arab allies and Israel. Corker said Obama just wants to get out of the
region. 'It's become very evident as to what the administration is doing
relative to the Middle East,' Corker said. 'The administration's view is
that in order to extract ourselves in the Middle East, we need to move
away from our relationship from Israel and we need to more fully align
ourselves with Iran, so we create this balance in the Middle East between
Iran and its influence and the Arab Sunni influence in the region.' He
added: 'That seems to be our strategy. And that's what's creating all of
this turmoil in the region.' According to Corker, the Iran deal is
the lynchpin of Obama's drive to change the balance of power in Iran's
favor and then remove America's role from the region. But he said Obama's
plan was fatally flawed because Iran has no intention of reforming.
'The P5+1 discussions are central to that,' Corker said. 'The problem
with that today, the fact is, Iran hasn't changed its behavior. That's
why you see so much of what's happening in the Middle East.' ... But
Corker and Obama fundamentally disagree on the impact a nuclear Iran deal
will have on the region; Obama thinks it will be helpful, Corker thinks
it could be catastrophic. Before Obama will be able to convince Congress to
trust him on a deal he says will prevent Iran from getting the nuclear
bomb, he will have to convince the head of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that their views of how the deal will affect the world can
mesh." http://t.uani.com/1c3ZSdi
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "In the aftermath of the Iran nuclear
agreement reached last week, President Barack Obama has had a lot to say
about sanctions. On the one hand, the president doesn't think they really
work. Obama now concedes -- as does Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif
-- that while Iran was facing crippling sanctions it continued to install
thousands of centrifuges at its illicit facilities. In his weekly address
on Saturday, Obama said there were three options for Iran's nuclear
program: aerial bombardment, his deal, and sanctions. Not surprisingly,
Obama warned that sanctions 'always led to Iran making more progress in
its nuclear program.' Here's the catch: Two days earlier, at the
announcement of the framework agreement, Obama praised the efficacy of
renewing sanctions in case Iran cheats. 'If Iran violates the deal,' he
said. 'Sanctions can be snapped back into place.' All of this presents a
major problem for Obama and his team as they try to sell their deal to a
skeptical Congress. If Obama doesn't think the sanctions that have cut
off Iran's banks from the international finance system and blocked the
Tehran government from legally selling its oil will halt the regime's
nuclear program, why does he think snapping them back would deter Iran
from cheating? I put that question to Darryl Kimball, the executive
director of the Arms Control Association and a supporter of the deal. He
acknowledged that Iran built up nearly 20,000 centrifuges at the facility
at Natanz since 2006, when the first United Nations Security Council
sanctions were passed against the regime. And he acknowledged that the
snap-back provision was designed to increase the cost of cheating. But he
said the influx of trade and foreign investment may change the Iranians'
sanctions calculations. 'They will have access to trade, foreign
investment, oil sales to other countries, that will have a strong effect
on their behavior too,' Kimball told me. 'As the foreign trade and
investment increases over time, Iran's incentives to comply will become
stronger than they are today.' This is possible. But another scenario is
that Iran's leadership was never all that interested in the overall
health of the country's economy, and instead wanted to avoid an economic
meltdown that would cut into the personal wealth amassed by the regime
elites. As a 2013 Reuters investigation found, Iran's supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, personally controls a charitable fund with
holdings worth $95 billion. Khamenei and his cronies have enough money to
ride out the devastating sanctions their defiance has brought down on
their people... It took a dozen years to put in place the crippling
sanctions that Obama said this weekend didn't deter Iran from building up
its illicit nuclear program. Now he is on the brink of signing an
agreement that recognizes in the broadest terms the legitimacy of the
facilities (albeit with important modifications) Iran built up as those
sanctions escalated. Obama says snapping them back into place will deter
Iran from cheating again. If he's going to sell this deal to Congress and
the American public, he'll need to explain that contradiction." http://t.uani.com/1CijAXT
Aaron David Miller
in FP: "Nowhere is the faith in diplomacy and the
U.S. capacity to fix things being tested more than in the current and
seemingly hopeful turn of events in Washington's long-standing effort to
reach an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue. Enter the recently
rolled out Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an oddly technical term
for a putative agreement on the nuclear issue that U.S. President Barack
Obama described as a 'historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully
implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' Perhaps.
But as Joni Mitchell and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young reminded us:
Life is for learning. And what I've learned - the hard way - is that
really good deals are few and far between, that real transformations are
rarer still, and that most of diplomacy - and life for that matter - is
transactional, more a series of flawed and imperfect enterprises. If
you're smart and lucky and circumstances cooperate, these ventures might
actually make things better. But rarely do they offer up comprehensive
solutions. And right now that's precisely how we ought to look at the
U.S. and Iranian effort on the nuclear issue. For the moment, historic
though it may be, the Iran enterprise is a transaction - in short a
business deal devoid of much sentimentality in which both sides need
stuff from the other and are still not sure they can get it, and it's an
imperfect and incomplete transaction at that. Indeed, points of no return
have not yet been crossed. Whether the deal holds the promise of more
fundamental change or transformation - in the U.S.-Iran relationship,
Iran's behavior in the region, or even Iran's ultimate intentions toward
gaining a nuclear weapon - is far from certain. Indeed, anyone who wants
to crow recklessly about the accomplishment should be very circumspect
and careful in doing so. And certainly this administration has no cause
to be either defensive or impatient with those who have doubts about the
deal. And here's why... This may well prove to be the best the Obama
administration could have done with Iran. But let's not kid ourselves.
The train for any really good accord left the station long ago, if it
ever came through town at all. At this stage, there are only deals with
varying degrees of risk, particularly given the fact that Iran now has
the capacity and the right to enrich uranium and will likely be left with
a large nuclear infrastructure a decade from now... It would be great if
we could actually get a good deal. And maybe that's still possible. But
in squaring off against a wily and formidable counterpart with a lot to
gain and little to lose I'm thinking that we're going to have our hands
full just avoiding a bad deal." http://t.uani.com/1O3xNQR
|
|
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