|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"Negotiators at the nuclear talks in Switzerland emerged from
marathon talks on Thursday with a surprisingly detailed outline of the
agreement they now must work to finalize by the end of June. But one
problem is that there are two versions. The only joint document issued
publicly was a statement from Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign
minister, and Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy
chief, that was all of seven paragraphs. The statement listed about a
dozen 'parameters' that are to guide the next three months of talks,
including the commitment that Iran's Natanz installation will be the only
location at which uranium is enriched during the life of the agreement.
But the United States and Iran have also made public more detailed accounts
of their agreements in Lausanne, and those accounts underscore their
expectations for what the final accord should say. A careful review shows
that there is considerable overlap between the two accounts, but also
some noteworthy differences - which have raised the question of whether
the two sides are entirely on the same page, especially on the question
of how quickly sanctions are to be removed. The American and Iranian
statements also do not clarify some critical issues, such as precisely
what sort of research Iran will be allowed to undertake on advanced
centrifuges during the first 10 years of the accord. 'This is just a work
in progress, and those differences in fact sheets indicate the challenges
ahead,' said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the
International Atomic Energy Agency... No sooner were the negotiations
over on Thursday, however, than Mr. Zarif posted to Twitter a message
that dismissed the five-page set of American parameters as 'spin.' In an
appearance on Iranian state television Saturday, Mr. Zarif kept up that
refrain, saying that Iran had formally complained to Secretary of State
John Kerry that the measures listed in the American statement were 'in
contradiction' to what had actually been accepted in Lausanne... The
starkest differences between the American and Iranians accounts concern
the pace at which punishing economic sanctions against Iran are to be
removed. The Iranian text says that when the agreement is implemented,
the sanctions will 'immediately' be canceled. American officials have
described sanctions relief as more of a step-by-step process tied to
Iranian efforts to carry out the accord." http://t.uani.com/1ICPR0x
WSJ:
"President Barack Obama's bet on a diplomatic agreement to deter
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon faces an immediate test at home,
where he must overcome the politics of skeptical Republicans as well as
some Democrats in Congress. The political struggle-part of the most
complex battle of Mr. Obama's presidency-is already under way as the
GOP-controlled Congress aggressively presses for a bigger role in
reviewing the nuclear-framework agreement reached last week between Iran,
the U.S. and five other nations... Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) said Sunday that Congress should play a
larger role in reviewing any final nuclear pact with Iran, which
negotiators aim to complete by the end of June. 'It's very important that
Congress is in the middle of this,' Mr. Corker said on Fox... Mr. Corker
said Sunday his legislation is close to having the 67 votes needed to
override a presidential veto. Acknowledging the strength of bipartisan
support for Mr. Corker's bill, administration officials recently said Mr.
Obama is open to compromise legislation that gives lawmakers more limited
oversight of a deal." http://t.uani.com/1aBLokc
Reuters:
"All United Nations Security Council resolutions related to Iran's
nuclear program will be lifted immediately if a final deal is agreed,
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Saturday, stressing the
benefits to Iran of this week's negotiations. After leading Iranian
negotiators to a preliminary deal with world powers in Switzerland, Zarif
must now convince a domestic audience that the talks are heading toward a
final deal that is in Iran's interest. He disputed a 'fact sheet'
released by the United States shortly after the deal that emphasized
Iranian concessions and referred to sanctions being suspended rather than
lifted and only after confirmation that Tehran has complied with the
terms of the agreement. 'The Americans put what they wanted in the fact
sheet... I even protested this issue with (U.S. Secretary of State John)
Kerry himself,' he said in a television interview cited by the Fars news
agency, adding that U.N. Security Council would oversee any deal...
Separately, France has released its own fact sheet on the nuclear deal,
which includes additional detail about the easing of limitations on
Iran's enrichment program after 10 years. While it does not contradict the
U.S. fact sheet, it notes that Tehran would eventually be able to use
advanced centrifuges. The French fact sheet said Tehran would be allowed
a 'gradual and precisely defined increase in (enrichment) capacity
between the tenth and thirteenth years with the introduction of advanced
IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges.'" http://t.uani.com/1MXObVZ
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AP:
"The parameters for a comprehensive accord by June 30 still include
big holes for Washington and its negotiating partners. The limits are
vague on Iran's research and development of advanced technology that
could be used for producing nuclear weapons. Inspectors still might not
be able to enter Iranian military sites where nuclear work previously
took place. The Americans and Iranians already are bickering over how
fast economic sanctions on Iran would be relaxed. Obama's assertion that
the penalties could always be snapped back into force is undermined by
the U.S. fact sheet describing a 'dispute resolution process' in the
agreement. But the biggest issue may be one U.S. officials have
emphasized above all others: the 'breakout time' Iran would need to surreptitiously
produce a nuclear weapon. The framework imposes a combination of
restrictions that would leave Iran needing to work for at least a year to
accomplish that goal, rather than the current two months to three months.
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have cited the longer breakout
period as proof they have secured a 'good deal.' They say the one-year
window is enough time for the U.S. to detect a covert Iranian push toward
a bomb and to respond. That standard would hold only for a decade, however.
Over the following five years, it's unclear how far Iran's nuclear
program would be kept from the bomb. After the 15-year deal expires
completely, there appear to be no constraints left to speak of -
something congressional opponents and Iran's regional rivals, Israel and
Saudi Arabia, cite as evidence of a 'bad deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1CbEl7M
NYT:
"And it was far removed from the first year of Mr. Obama's
presidency when, one of his top aides recalled a few years ago, there
were more Situation Room meetings on Iran than any other topic. By the
end of his first year in office, the president had come to some big
conclusions... Insisting that Iran dismantle everything would not work,
either; that would kill a negotiation before it started... Back then, the
thinking was that Iran could have only a token production capability.
Over time, though, the administration's objectives became less ambitious.
As the negotiations sputtered forward, it became clear that to reach an
agreement at all, Iran would have to be able to preserve a narrative of
not backing down, not dismantling... But as the talks hit one deadline
after another, the administration had to compromise more. The last
tradeoffs were painful. When the Iranians insisted on keeping some
centrifuges at Fordo, Mr. Obama approved the concession after Mr. Moniz
assured him the facility, devoid of fissile material under the accord,
would pose no threat. His credibility carried the day. And administration
officials were struck by the fact that Iran was willing to waste 1,000
centrifuges, essentially spinning uselessly, to preserve national
pride." http://t.uani.com/1FvIg3M
VOA:
Washington's reassurances that the framework nuclear deal reached
Thursday will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb may not be
enough to keep Saudi Arabia from taking increasingly bold steps to
counter Tehran. And there are new warnings that one of those steps could
include transforming the kingdom into a nuclear power, perhaps overnight.
'The Saudi Arabian leadership has said that Saudi Arabia will go
nuclear,' said former U.S. ambassador Mark Wallace, now the chief
executive officer at the Counter Extremism Project and co-founder of
United Against Nuclear Iran [UANI]. "That may be as easy as paying
for and taking delivery of a bomb from Pakistan." http://t.uani.com/19X4bVS
Reuters:
"In a televised speech on Friday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani,
a relative moderate elected in a landslide two years ago on a promise to
reduce Iran's isolation, said the nuclear talks were just the start of a
broader policy of opening up. 'This is a first step towards productive
interactions with the world,' he said. 'Today is a day that will remain
in the historic memory of the Iranian nation,' he added. 'Some think that
we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers. We say it is
neither of those, there is a third way. We can have cooperation with the
world.'" http://t.uani.com/19YedWS
Reuters:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the United States
on Sunday to seek a better deal to curb Iran's nuclear program and said
he would press American lawmakers not to give Tehran 'a free path to the
bomb.' ... In appearances on U.S. television on Sunday, Netanyahu did not
repeat his assertion on Friday that any final agreement should include a
commitment by Iran recognizing Israel's right to exist. But, speaking on
CNN's 'State of the Union' program, he said of the deal, 'This is not a
partisan issue. This is not solely an Israeli issue. This is a world
issue because everyone is going to be threatened by the pre-eminent
terrorist state of our time, keeping the infrastructure to produce not
one nuclear bomb but many, many nuclear bombs down the line.' ...
'There's still time to get a better deal and apply pressure to Iran to roll
back its nuclear program.'" http://t.uani.com/1CbnodF
AP:
"Israel's prime minister on Sunday urged world powers to step up
pressure on Iran as they finalize a nuclear deal in the coming months,
saying there was still time to improve what he said was a deeply flawed
framework agreement reached last week. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's appearances on multiple American TV news programs on Sunday
signaled the launch of what is expected to be a furious lobbying effort
to scuttle or reshape a deal that he has criticized as 'bad' and a threat
to Israel's very existence. A document drawn up by experts in Netanyahu's
office, obtained by The Associated Press, gives a glimpse of the
arguments the Israeli leader is going to raise, targeting vague language
in the system of inspections and its failure to address issues beyond the
nuclear program... Netanyahu believes the deal leaves too much of Iran's
suspect nuclear program intact, would give it quick relief from economic
sanctions and create an easy path for the Islamic Republic to gain the
ability to produce a bomb. He also says the deal fails to address Iran's
support for militant groups across the Middle East. 'I think the
alternatives are not either this bad deal or war. I think there's a third
alternative. And that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure, until
you get a better deal,' Netanyahu told CNN. 'A better deal would roll
back Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure and require Iran to stop its
aggression in the region, its terror worldwide, and its calls and actions
to annihilate the state of Israel.' ... The Israeli analysis of the
framework raises 10 questions about alleged shortcomings in the
framework." http://t.uani.com/1C6wtFo
AFP:
"Iran's military chief has hailed the success of his country's negotiators
in talks with world powers that secured a framework for a deal on its
long-disputed nuclear programme. The remarks by General Hassan
Firouzabadi -- a close ally of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who
has yet to comment on the agreement -- were published Sunday on the
Revolutionary Guards' sepanews.com website. Firouzabadi congratulated the
Iranian leader on the 'success of the team of Iranian negotiators and
thanked the president' Hassan Rouhani and officials involved led by
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif." http://t.uani.com/1Cse8kW
JPost:
"The Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah praised the framework
agreement reached on Thursday between the Western powers and Iran as 'a
victory.' A Hezbollah lawmaker in the Lebanese parliament, Nawar Sahli,
told the English-language newspaper Daily Star that that the deal gives
Iran 'global recognition as a member of the nuclear club.' 'We hope the
agreement will have positive repercussions on security and stability in
the region, even though Iran had said the nuclear issue was separate from
regional conflicts,' Sahli said. Lebanese factions opposed to Hezbollah
and critical of Iranian meddling in the country's internal affairs
expressed apprehension over the agreement, fearing that it would give the
Shi'ite regional power greater carte blanche to exert its influence in
the Land of the Cedars." http://t.uani.com/1PciQNV
WSJ:
"The Pentagon has upgraded and tested the largest bunker-buster bomb
in the U.S. arsenal, senior U.S. officials said, readying a weapon that
could destroy or disable Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear facilities
should a nuclear deal fall apart and the White House decide to take
military action. Even while the Obama administration was pursuing a
diplomatic agreement with Iran to rein in its nuclear program, the
Pentagon was readying the improvements to one of its most destructive
conventional weapons, including electronic countermeasures to prevent an
adversary from jamming its guidance systems. 'The Pentagon continues to be
focused on being able to provide military options for Iran if needed,' a
senior U.S. official said. 'We have not taken our eyes off the ball.'
Work on the bunker buster started before the current round of talks with
Iran got under way. But the most recent testing took place mid-January,
when the upgraded bunker buster was dropped at a testing site at an
undisclosed U.S. location by a B-2 bomber that took off from Whiteman Air
Force Base in Missouri, officials said." http://t.uani.com/1C6o7O1
WSJ:
"Once-wide gaps between Iran and the international group had
narrowed to two issues: Tehran's insistence on an early rollback of
United Nations Security Council sanctions and the knotty issue of
restrictions on Iran's research work. The second issue was crucial. Since
the whole nuclear deal was premised on Iran being kept at least a year
away from amassing enough nuclear fuel for a bomb, the development and
deployment of more advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium could have
blown a hole in the accord... On Wednesday, Iranian officials added to
the confusion. Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a key player in
his delegation, and who had served on the negotiating team of former
hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Iranian reporters that the
two sides may settle for a watered-down joint statement which declared
that progress had been made and talks would continue. Yet with U.S.
lawmakers threatening fresh sanctions bills by mid-April, it wasn't clear
the joint-statement outcome would be an acceptable result." http://t.uani.com/1NNzMqG
Congressional
Action
WSJ:
"When 47 Republican senators sent a letter last month to Iran's
leaders panning U.S.-led nuclear talks, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.)
didn't even consider signing it. The chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee had his own plans: He didn't want to risk
undercutting bipartisan support for his legislation requiring President
Barack Obama to submit any final deal with Iran to Congress for its
review. The senator's decision to steer clear of sharply partisan moves,
including the Iran letter, highlight why White House officials view Mr.
Corker as someone they can work with, particularly important as the
administration attempts to sell the nuclear-framework agreement reached
Thursday between Iran and six world powers. But one point of tension is
complicating their relationship: Mr. Corker wants Congress to play a
larger role in reviewing any Iran deal, while the White House is nervous
its interference could scuttle negotiations." http://t.uani.com/1y8v5WQ
Politico:
"Despite the White House's strong push to rally its congressional
allies behind an Iran deal, Senate Republicans think they're close to
having enough Democratic support to move forward with a bill that would
give lawmakers the final say over any nuclear agreement with Tehran,
according to interviews with key members of Congress. But that Democratic
support likely comes with a cost, members said. Many Democrats are
demanding that the measure be amended so it doesn't kill the deal before it
can be finalized by a June 30 deadline. So the onus is on Republicans to
work with Democrats - particularly if they want to assemble a 67-vote
veto-proof majority - although it's not clear exactly what legislative
changes would preserve the complex and still-evolving agreement.
Independent Maine Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats and is a
cosponsor of the bill, offered a glimpse inside the caucus's thinking.
Asked if he would still vote for it, King replied: ''Yes, but ...' is my
answer.' ... 'The White House has decided that they can't avoid
congressional review altogether,' said one senior Democratic aide.
'Democrats want to talk about what tweaks they can make that the
administration can live with.' Still, the official line from the White House
is that the president would veto the bill. 'Our position on that has not
changed,' said press secretary Josh Earnest. 'We believe that this is
clearly the purview of the president.'" http://t.uani.com/1C6BGgq
Sanctions
Relief
WSJ:
"In a sanctions-free Iran, Western energy companies would likely be
the biggest foreign first-movers: Iran has the world's fourth-largest
proven oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves. But those
big-ticket investments overshadow what some investors and consultants say
could be a more enticing natural resource: Iran's 80 million people, who
have been all but cut off from global trade and transactions in recent
years. 'Iranians love to eat, consume and shop, and they have continued
to surprise domestic and international brands with their resilience,'
said Ali Borhani, the founder of Incubeemea, a Dubai-based advisory firm
that works with multinationals looking at Iran. 'In a post-sanctions
world, on the back of a multifaceted economy beyond hydrocarbons and oil
and gas, Iran can be the most exciting frontier market.' European
companies may have an edge on U.S. competitors at first, lawyers say,
because the European Union sanctions regime hasn't been as restrictive,
and U.S. companies tend to be more wary... U.S. sanctions are stricter
than those imposed by Europe, curtailing almost all dealings with the
country. But even some U.S. companies have started to scope it out.
Iranian companies in Dubai have received draft contracts to be official
resellers of Hewlett-Packard laptops in Iran, according to Iranian
businessmen. And late last year, Dubai-based managers of Hewlett-Packard
Development Company L.P. traveled to Tehran to prospect the market and
meet Iranian distributors, they said." http://t.uani.com/1yOOpmF
Reuters:
"German companies are hoping to win billions of euros worth of
business from Iran after world powers reached a preliminary nuclear
accord with Tehran, and Germany's engineering body urged banks to revise
their business policies towards Iran. The tentative agreement struck on
Thursday opens the way for a settlement to allay Western fears that Iran
could build an atomic bomb, with economic sanctions on Tehran being
lifted in return. But difficult details still need to be worked out
before a self-imposed June deadline. 'German businesses see the agreement
as an encouraging sign,' Felix Neugart, a foreign trade expert at
Germany's DIHK Chambers of Commerce and Industry, told Reuters. If
economic sanctions were lifted by mid-year, business with Iran could 'pick
up markedly' in the second half of 2015, Neugart said. He added that
German exports to Iran could double in the next five years. In 2014, the
value of German shipments to Iran rose by almost 30 percent to 2.4
billion euros after some sanctions were suspended." http://t.uani.com/1yOSzLd
Reuters:
"Precautionary talks have already started between Iran and some big
Western investors" in areas such as oil and autos, said Iranian-born
economist Mehrdad Emadi of London's Betamatrix consultancy. 'Now there will
be accelerating momentum.' He predicted annual growth of Iran's $420
billion economy would rise by as much as 2 percentage points to over 5
percent in the year after a final nuclear deal. It could accelerate
further to 7 or 8 percent in the following 18 months - matching the
growth of Asia's 'tiger economies' during their boom years. Iran's trade
with the European Union, which totalled 7.6 billion euros ($8.3 billion)
last year, could balloon 400 percent by mid-2018, Emadi said... But the
single most damaging sanctions measure, the U.S. Treasury's use of
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act to identify Iran as a money laundering
area, could be lifted quickly by the Obama administration, analysts
believe. This would have a big impact on trade and investment by letting
foreign banks deal with Iran without fear of being targeted by U.S.
officials. http://t.uani.com/1C5rDbA
Regional
Destabilization
AP:
"On a basic level, the framework deal between world powers and
Tehran will be judged by whether it prevents an Iranian bomb, but that
will take years to figure out. A more immediate issue is the projection
of Western power. Supporters of the framework deal can argue that the
U.S. and world powers extracted significant concessions from Iran,
breaking a decade-long impasse and proving that diplomacy backed by tough
sanctions can bring about positive change even in the Middle East. But
if, as critics contend, the agreement ends up projecting U.S. weakness
instead, that could embolden rogue states and extremists alike, and make
the region's vast array of challenges -- from the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the Syrian civil war to the fighting in Libya and Yemen --
even more impervious to Western intervention... The implications of a
weak United States, meanwhile, are not just regional but global,
affecting events from Russia to China and North Korea - as well as the
prospects for global accords on climate change or even significant trade
deals." http://t.uani.com/1FfISro
Iraq Crisis
Reuters:
"On April 1, the city of Tikrit was liberated from the extremist
group Islamic State. The Shi'ite-led central government and allied
militias, after a month-long battle, had expelled the barbarous Sunni
radicals. Then, some of the liberators took revenge. Near the charred,
bullet-scarred government headquarters, two federal policemen flanked a
suspected Islamic State fighter. Urged on by a furious mob, the two
officers took out knives and repeatedly stabbed the man in the neck and
slit his throat. The killing was witnessed by two Reuters
correspondents... Since its recapture two days ago, the Sunni city of
Tikrit has been the scene of violence and looting. In addition to the
killing of the extremist combatant, Reuters correspondents also saw a
convoy of Shi'ite paramilitary fighters - the government's partners in
liberating the city - drag a corpse through the streets behind their
car... Despite Baghdad's efforts to rein in the paramilitaries, the
fingerprints of the Shi'ite militias - and of Iran itself - were all over
the operation's final hours. On Wednesday, as Tikrit fell, militiamen
were racing to stencil their names on houses in order to take credit for
the victory. An Iranian fighter, with a Kalashnikov rifle slung over his
shoulder and a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
pinned to his chest, bragging about Tehran's role in the campaign. 'I am
proud to participate in the battle to liberate Tikrit,' said the man, who
called himself Sheik Dawood. 'Iran and Iraq are one state now.'" http://t.uani.com/1aaJ7Md
Human Rights
NYT:
"The families of three American citizens of Iranian descent who are
incarcerated in Iran, one of them held for more than three and a half
years, have been hoping that the success of diplomacy on the nuclear
dispute would herald their releases as good-will gestures. But the fates
of the three - Jason Rezaian, 39, Saeed Abedini, 34, and Amir Hekmati, 31
- remained just as hazy as they had ever been on Friday, a day after the
framework agreement was reached. They were barely mentioned in the
initial flurry of news announcements on the framework agreement which,
when finalized, would limit Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for
sanctions relief, and portend an end to the country's prolonged
isolation." http://t.uani.com/1DaZ5RP
NYT:
"In a major shift, Iran announced Saturday that women would be
allowed to attend big sporting events, reversing a rule that had barred
them from entering stadiums to watch matches attended by men. The
announcement, following criticism from international sport federations
and protests by Iranian women and women's rights activists, appeared to
have been timed to coincide with the news of a breakthrough in the
negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. A Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports official told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency that
women and their families would be allowed to attend most athletic events,
except for those of 'masculine' sports, like wrestling or swimming,
during which male athletes wear uniforms or suits that cover little of their
bodies. Women will most likely be assigned to special sections in the
stadiums, while mixed seating will be available for families... Ms.
Davari said it was clear that international pressure had played a role in
Iran's decision to reverse the policy. 'Iran was missing out on so many
opportunities,' she said. 'This had to change.'" http://t.uani.com/1y8tRKY
Opinion &
Analysis
Thomas Friedman in
NYT: "In September 1996, I visited Iran. One of my
most enduring memories of that trip was that in my hotel lobby there was
a sign above the door proclaiming 'Down With USA.' But it wasn't a banner
or graffiti. It was tiled and plastered into the wall. I thought to
myself: 'Wow - that's tiled in there! That won't come out easily.' Nearly
20 years later, in the wake of a draft deal between the Obama
administration and Iran, we have what may be the best chance to begin to
pry that sign loose, to ease the U.S.-Iran cold/hot war that has roiled
the region for 36 years. But it is a chance fraught with real risks to America,
Israel and our Sunni Arab allies: that Iran could eventually become a
nuclear-armed state. President Obama invited me to the Oval Office
Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these
risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last
week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I'd call an 'Obama
doctrine' embedded in the president's remarks. It emerged when I asked if
there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from
longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran.
Obama said his view was that 'engagement,' combined with meeting core
strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three
countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that
America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence
to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities - like
trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to
keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build
a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer. 'We are powerful
enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at
risk. And that's the thing ... people don't seem to understand,' the
president said. 'You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the
possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban
people, there aren't that many risks for us. It's a tiny little country.
It's not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there's
no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it
doesn't lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is
true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one
that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S.
citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran's defense budget is $30
billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands
that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The
doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.' The
notion that Iran is undeterrable - 'it's simply not the case,' he added.
'And so for us to say, 'Let's try' - understanding that we're preserving
all our options, that we're not naïve - but if in fact we can resolve
these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely
to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows?
Iran may change. If it doesn't, our deterrence capabilities, our military
superiority stays in place. ... We're not relinquishing our capacity to
defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn't we test
it?' Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. 'Now, what
you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect,
is the notion, 'Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don't have the luxury
of testing these propositions the way you do,' and I completely
understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel's belief
that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can't be
dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to
them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they
maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any
potential future attacks, but what I'm willing to do is to make the kinds
of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including
Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we
would stand by them. And that, I think, should be ... sufficient to take
advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we
can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.' He added: 'What I
would say to the Israeli people is ... that there is no formula, there is
no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be
more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put
forward - and that's demonstrable.' ... That said, the Iran deal is far
from finished. As the president cautioned: 'We're not done yet. There are
a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and
slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here
in the United States Congress.' On Congress's role, Obama said he insists
on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding
agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval. However,
he added, 'I do think that [Tennessee Republican] Senator Corker, the
head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is somebody who is sincerely
concerned about this issue and is a good and decent man, and my hope is
that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but
does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives - and ensures
that, if in fact we get a good deal, that we can go ahead and implement
it.' ... he added, 'what we've also seen is that there is a practical
streak to the Iranian regime. I think they are concerned about
self-preservation. I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their
publics. I think the election of [President Hassan] Rouhani indicated
that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with
the international community, an emphasis on the economics and the desire
to link up with a global economy. And so what we've seen over the last
several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran
that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for
a long time to move in a different direction. It's not a radical break,
but it's one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of
relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression
of that.' What about Iran's supreme leader, who will be the ultimate
decider there on whether or not Iran moves ahead? What have you learned
about him? 'He's a pretty tough read,' the president said. 'I haven't
spoken to him directly. In the letters that he sends, there [are]
typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances
against Iran, but what is, I think, telling is that he did give his
negotiators in this deal the leeway, the capability to make important
concessions, that would allow this framework agreement to come to
fruition. So what that tells me is that - although he is deeply suspicious
of the West [and] very insular in how he thinks about international
issues as well as domestic issues, and deeply conservative - he does
realize that the sanctions regime that we put together was weakening Iran
over the long term, and that if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter
the community of nations, then there were going to have to be changes.'
... But if we're able to get this done, then what may happen - and I'm
not counting on it - but what may happen is that those forces inside of
Iran that say, 'We don't need to view ourselves entirely through the lens
of our war machine. Let's excel in science and technology and job
creation and developing our people,' that those folks get stronger. ... I
say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that we've put together is not
based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.' ... 'It is a good
deal even if Iran doesn't change at all,' Obama argued... As for the
Obama doctrine - 'we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities' -
the president concluded: 'I've been very clear that Iran will not get a
nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we
mean it. But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic
arrangement - and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations -
and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with
its neighbors.'" http://t.uani.com/1CKzy0f
Michael Morrell in
WashPost: "One of the interesting aspects of
international affairs is that states and nonstate actors will occasionally
say publicly exactly what they are thinking, doing and planning to do. No
need for spies, no need for diplomats - just a need to listen... The
world recently witnessed another moment of such candor - and it came just
weeks before Iran and world powers agreed to a framework for how to
handle Iran's nuclear program over the next 10 to 15 years. Last month, a
senior adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke at a conference
in Tehran on 'Iran, Nationalism, History, and Culture.' The adviser made
clear that Iran's ambition is to become a regional hegemon - in short, to
reestablish the Persian empire. The adviser, Ali Younesi - who was head
of intelligence for former president Mohammad Khatami - told conference
attendees, 'Since its inception, Iran has [always] had a global
[dimension]. It was born an empire. Iran's leaders, officials and
administrators have always thought in the global' dimension. Younesi
defined the territory of the Iranian empire, which he called 'Greater
Iran,' as reaching from the borders of China and including the Indian
subcontinent, the north and south Caucasus and the Persian Gulf. He said
Iraq is the capital of the Iranian Empire - a reference to the ancient
city of Babylon, in present-day Iraq, which was the center of Persian life
for centuries. 'We are protecting the interests of [all] the people in
the region - because they are all Iran's people,' he said. 'We must try
to once again spread the banner of Islamic-Iranian unity and peace in the
region. Iran must bear this responsibility, as it did in the past.'
Younesi said that the aim of Iranian actions in 'Greater Iran' was to
ensure the security of the people there, adding that Saudi Arabia has
nothing to fear from Iran's actions because the Saudis are incapable of
defending the people of the region. He also said that anything that
enters Iran is improved by becoming Iranian, particularly Islam itself,
adding that Islam in its Iranian-Shiite form is the pure Islam, since it
has shed all traces of Arabism. These are not the views of a single
individual. They are shared widely among Iranian elites. They are also
not new. They stretch back decades and are deeply rooted in Iranian
society and Persian culture. Younesi's speech was an outline of Iran's
grand strategy. And, most important, it puts into context Iran's behavior
in the region - largely covert operations to undermine its Arab
neighbors, Israel and the United States, the countries that stand in the
way of its pursuit of hegemony. Iran conducts terrorism as a tool of
statecraft - it is one of the only countries in the world to do so -
largely against its neighbors. An Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi
ambassador to the United States in a Georgetown restaurant was foiled in
2011. Iran supports international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah,
which was behind the 1983 attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks
in Beirut that killed 258 Americans. These attacks are seen as the
beginning of Islamic jihad against the United States as well as the start
of the use of suicide car and truck bombs." http://t.uani.com/1GYI8M6
Hisham Melhem in
Al Arabiya: "President Obama's long and treacherous
journey to a rehabilitated Iran began simultaneously with his improbable
march to the White House. During a July 2007 debate among Democratic
presidential candidates one participant asked if they would be willing to
meet with the leaders of pariah states such as Iran, Syria, and North
Korea among others. Candidate Obama was emphatic saying 'I would', then
indignantly protested that 'it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to
them' and vowing that he would send 'a signal that we are going to talk
to Iran and Syria'. The signal was sent loud and clear on his first
Inaugural Address on January 29 2009.' To those who cling to power through
corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on
the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are
willing to unclench your fist.' President Obama intoned... After six long
years of travel on the road to Iran, president Obama finally laid his
eyes on his Iranian prize. It was not as dramatic as Saint Paul's vision
when he was on the road to Damascus, but the 'Parameters for a Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's
nuclear program'(JCPOA) arrived at on April 2nd can be considered as
proof that the American sojourner has almost arrived... The nuclear
accord with Iran comes at the worst time imaginable. The Middle East
region has descended to depths of depravity not seen in more than a
century. Civil and regional wars are intertwined in a web of sectarian
demonization and violence on a scale never experienced since the
formation of the state system following the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire. The prospects of ending or even containing these wars any time
soon are non-existent. There is a kernel of truth in the claim by the
allies of the United States, that the nuclear accord with Iran reflects
inter alia the relative decline of America's stature and influence in the
region. Signing a deal with Iran that would practically ratify its
stature as a legitimate nuclear power that would be free a decade from
now to pursue its nuclear ambitions unencumbered, and at a time where
Iran is the most influential player in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and probably
Yemen, is tantamount to ordaining Iran as the region's hegemon. The
United States not only failed to extract concessions from Iran to curb
its regional ambitions during the nuclear negotiations, it in fact
unwittingly enabled Iran in Syria and Iraq. It is true as Ayatollah
Khamenei said recently that Iran 'will not negotiate with America over
regional matters. The goals of the Americans on regional matters are
exactly the opposite of our goals', but why couldn't the Obama
Administration do what U.S. administrations did during the Cold War, when
they negotiated nuclear treaties and agreements with the Soviet Union
while simultaneously maintaining pressure on Moscow to stop violating
human rights in general and defending the dissidents and helping them
politically, morally and materially. More importantly, engaging Moscow
did not stop U.S. attempts at rolling back Soviet and Communist advances
in regional conflicts from the Korean War to the Afghan War... William
Burns, the former deputy secretary of state, who played a leading role in
the secret and open talks with the Iranians that led to the accord, wrote
on Thursday 'we should urgently pursue new forms of security assurances
and cooperation. Taking a firm stance against threatening Iranian actions
in the region, from Syria to Yemen, not only shores up anxious longtime
friends. It also is the best way to produce Iranian restraint, much as a
firm stance on sanctions helped persuade Iran to reassess its nuclear
strategy'. This is a sound advice from one of the best American diplomats
in his generation, but somehow I don't anticipate that it will penetrate
the insular world President Obama lives in, or can convince him that his
Iranian interlocutors are complicit in sectarian slaughter in Iraq and
crimes against humanity in Syria." http://t.uani.com/1DEFdIN
Zalmay Khalilzad
in TNI: "In our public-relations driven political
culture, once the administration in power decides on a significant policy
issue, it moves to oversell it at home and abroad, exaggerating the
benefits and downplaying the problems. The just-announced Iran nuclear
framework agreement is a clear illustration... But beyond hyperbole and
spin, there are four reasons why this agreement is flawed and poses
significant risks: First, using the so-called fatwa by Iran's Supreme
Leader Khamenei as an indicator of Iran's true intentions- present and
future-is a mistake. A far better case can be made that the acquisition
of nuclear weapons capability has been and remains Iran's objective. The
economic rationale for Iran to use nuclear power to generate electricity
is very weak. Iran is rich in hydrocarbons and has huge amounts of
natural gas. It would certainly be more economical for Iran to generate
power using alternatives to nuclear power. Additionally, Iran does not
need the enrichment capabilities it retains under the agreement, because
it has only one power reactor with a long-term fuel supply arrangement
with Russia. The logical assumption is that Iran has been pursuing
civilian power to acquire the capability for nuclear weapons-using the
former as the cover for the latter. Although Iran has signed the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires a commitment not to seek
nuclear weapons, it is clear that Iran has had a clandestine nuclear weapons
program, that it has been and might still be working on nuclear weapons
design at undeclared and dedicated facilities, and that the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have yet to get to the bottom of
it because of the lack of Iranian cooperation... Fourth, the framework
agreement assumes that if Iran violates the deal, the sanctions that were
lifted can be re-imposed-or can snap back into place. The
Administration's discussion of snap back makes the re-imposition appear
automatic or almost automatic. As of now, it is unclear what the dispute
resolution mechanism for charges or suspicions of a violation by Iran
would be. Iran may have its own demands with regards to sanctions
removal. Also, will Russia and China agree to automatic re-imposition of
UNSC sanctions if Iran violates the term of a final agreement? What would
the mechanism be for determining that a violation has occurred? This has
the potential to become protracted and difficult if all parties,
including Russia and China, would have to go along-especially given the
state of our relations with Moscow. Such a process can impact the
timeline of Iran's distance to a bomb. Even our European partners are
likely to push for time and compromise with Iran to avoid the re-imposing
sanctions and foregoing the benefits of trade and economic relations with
Iran. It took a long time and a great deal of effort to get where we are
and to impose the sanctions now in place. Once eased, it will be very
difficult-if not impossible -- to reinstate the rapidly." http://t.uani.com/1HHLLEh
WashPost
Editorial: "The response in the Middle East to the
preliminary accord on Iran's nuclear program began even before the
agreement was reached. The Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen and
the announcement last weekend of a new multinational Arab military force
reflected a determination by Sunni-led regimes to counter what they see
as mounting Iranian aggression. The Obama administration, for its part,
happened to choose Tuesday to disclose that it was resuming full military
aid to Egypt, even though its autocratic regime has met none of the human
rights requirements established by Congress. These moves reflect the
reality that, in the short term at least, the largest effect of the
nuclear agreement will be to juice the ongoing proxy wars in Iraq, Syria,
Yemen and elsewhere between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and their
allies. If the deal is fully implemented, Iran will receive hundreds of
billions in additional revenue, and Tehran is likely to devote much of it
to funding its murderous militias in Iraq, the Bashar al-Assad regime in
Syria, and the Houthi movement in Yemen - not to mention Lebanon's
Hezbollah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Obama administration has
enabled Iran's aggression by refusing to respond to it while negotiating
the nuclear accord. Now the president appears to be rushing to offer
'reassurance' to traditional U.S. allies in ways that are not
particularly wise. Shipping F-16s and tanks to the Egyptian military will
do nothing to counter Iran or stabilize the region. Providing
intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi bombing campaign in
Yemen, as the administration has begun to do, encourages an ill-advised
offensive that is unlikely to achieve the goal of restoring the previous
regime. What's missing is a coherent U.S. strategy for stabilizing the
region that integrates the nuclear accord with measures to check Iran's
hegemonic ambitions and rebuild crumbling Arab states. Such a policy
would focus on the areas where Iranian forces are most active, and most
destabilizing - Iraq and Syria." http://t.uani.com/1DEG9x3
|
|
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