Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"Snap back? Not so fast. The biggest enforcement provision in the
preliminary nuclear agreement with Iran is turning into one of the mostly
hotly contested elements. And the debate barely involves Iran. Instead,
it concerns the Obama administration's promise to quickly re-impose
sanctions on Iran if the Islamic Republic cheats on any part of the
agreement to limit its nuclear program to peaceful pursuits. This would
be relatively straightforward for the sanctions imposed by the U.S., as
Congress is eager to keep the pressure on. But it is far from clear
whether President Barack Obama can guarantee such action at the United
Nations, which has imposed wide-ranging penalties that all U.N. members
must enforce. At present, there's no firm agreement on how or when to
lift the sanctions in the first place... Assuming it can be, that still
would leave the big question of possible re-imposition... 'Undertaking
the snapback of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as
the phrase implies,' former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and
George Shultz said in a joint opinion piece in The Wall Street
Journal." http://t.uani.com/1GSOmN1
The Hill:
"A top Democrat in the Iran debate pushed back against the White
House's argument that passing a bill to allow Congress to review a final
nuclear deal with Iran before June 30 would derail the nuclear talks.
'There is zero chance that Corker-Menendez passing will harm these negotiations,'
said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), in an interview with The Washington Post
published Thursday... Kaine said even if Democrats override the
president's veto on Corker-Menendez, they could still choose to approve
the final deal. 'If you posit a final deal that looks like the agreement
announced Thursday? Absolutely. A number of us who will vote for
Corker-Menendez are very supportive of diplomacy,' he said. Kaine noted
even if the bill passed, a later resolution of disapproval would also
have to overcome a presidential veto. 'The prospects of a resolution of
approval passing both houses is tough. But a resolution of disapproval
passing would be unlikely,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1FI0miV
WashPost:
"Gary Samore, a former arms control adviser in the Obama
administration who now heads a group United Against Nuclear Iran, said
Khamenei's speech reflects Iran's negotiating position on two of the main
unresolved issues: the timing of sanctions relief; and whether military
facilities can be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
'We probably won't know whether Iran is prepared to be flexible on these
issues and accept compromises offered by the U.S. until we reach the next
deadline,' he said... Thursday's speeches are also an acknowledgment of how
difficult it is for some hard-liners in Iran to contemplate any deal with
the United States. 'The nuclear issue's become a symbol for debate in
both countries,' said Robert Litwak, director of international security
studies at the Wilson Center. 'In America, it's a surrogate for the
broader debate about how to deal with rogue states like Iran. In Iran,
it's a surrogate for a fundamental debate about how to relate to the
outside world, and the Great Satan, in particular.'" http://t.uani.com/1chMK4i
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
NYT:
"Iran's supreme leader on Thursday challenged two of the United
States' bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that
all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any final
agreement was signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits
to foreign inspectors. The assertions by the leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, could be tactical, intended to give both the negotiators and
himself some political space to get Iran's hard-liners accustomed to the
framework of the nuclear deal reached a week ago with the United States
and other world powers. But they sharply illustrated the difficult
hurdles that lie ahead as Secretary of State John Kerry and a large team
of diplomats, energy experts and intelligence officials try to reach a
June 30 deadline that would ensure that Iran could not race for a bomb
for at least a decade - and would establish a permanent inspection regime
to catch any cheating." http://t.uani.com/1Fua8Tn
WSJ:
"U.S. officials, however, acknowledged that Mr. Khamenei's comments
ran counter to the terms of the deal they said were agreed to last week,
both in terms of the timing of sanction relief and Iran's obligations to
address concerns about its military sites. 'The process of sanctions
suspension or relief will only begin after Iran has completed its major
nuclear steps and the breakout time has been increased to at least a
year,' State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said. 'So that's consistent
with what we've said over the last week or so, and that was agreed upon
by all the parties in Lausanne.' In light of possible military dimensions
of Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Rathke said Iran must answer long-standing
questions by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear
inspection force. 'They have to undertake a process that will address the
IAEA concerns,' he said. Mr. Khamenei seemed to rule out unfettered
access to facilities. 'It must absolutely not be allowed for them to
infiltrate into the country's defense and security domain under the
pretext of inspections,' he said. 'Military officials must not allow
strangers into this private domain under the pretext of supervision and
inspection, or stop the defensive development of the country.'" http://t.uani.com/1CCfWYK
Military
Matters
WT:
"Iran has placed an 'explosive emphasis' in putting military
surveillance and attack drones into the sky, including 'suicide' aircraft
that increase risks for Israel and for U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf,
according to a new U.S. Army analysis. The Iranian army is spearheading
the drive for a fleet of explosive-mounted killer drones. It tested them
in December against ship targets near the Strait of Hormuz, the
chokepoint for maritime traffic in and out of the Gulf. The implication
is clear: The hard-line Shiite-dominated regime has long threatened to
close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's
oil is transported daily. The live-fire test/exercise shows that kamikaze
drones are in the Iranian war plan. Iran also is sharing new drone technologies
with allies Hamas on Israel's south and Hezbollah on its north, the Army
study says." http://t.uani.com/1IznzYa
Congressional
Action
NYT:
"Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, set off a tempest this week when
he issued a statement strongly supporting a bill that could disrupt a
nuclear deal with Iran. With that bill, Congress is trying to ensure it
has a say in the final agreement, and the strong stand by Mr. Schumer,
the Senate's No. 3 Democrat, suggested that he could oppose an accord
President Obama sees as a potentially legacy-defining achievement. Mr.
Schumer has since largely declined to elaborate and has said only that he
will wait for a classified briefing before making further comment. His
position - annoying to the White House, at odds with the majority of
Senate Democrats and expressed during a congressional recess - reflects
the vigorous crosscurrents Mr. Schumer faces in his first real test since
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, announced that he
would retire, placing Mr. Schumer as heir apparent... The bill that Mr.
Schumer supports - one that would ensure the right of Congress to
essentially approve or disapprove the rollback of sanctions against Iran
- is being viewed by many in Washington as a proxy for all senators'
views on the underlying framework for a deal. Left-leaning groups equate
support for the sanctions measures as advocating war, while hawkish
groups warn that failing to support them is akin to capitulating to
Iran." http://t.uani.com/1OiJ4wK
Reuters:
"U.S. progressive groups rallied on Thursday to persuade Democratic
senators not to support a bill giving Congress a vote on a nuclear deal
with Iran, echoing the White House's insistence that the measure could
blow up delicate negotiations. Five groups - CREDO, Daily Kos, Democracy
for America, MoveOn.org Political Action and USAction - sent a letter
warning Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Whip Richard Durbin
and other Democratic Senate leaders that they would hold them accountable
if they backed legislation seen as detrimental to the talks. Supporters
say they are close to a veto-proof majority of 67 senators behind a bill
from Republican Senator Bob Corker and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez
giving Congress the opportunity to approve or reject sanctions relief in
an Iran nuclear deal... 'We urge you to support the diplomatic process,
and ensure that Democrats don't deliver the Republicans the votes they
need to override a presidential veto of diplomacy-killing legislation and
begin yet another war of choice in the Middle East,' they wrote." http://t.uani.com/1aQRUnA
Terrorism
The Hill:
"Americans who were held hostage in Iran from 1979 to 1981 are
pushing the Obama administration to demand that they be compensated as
part of any nuclear deal. Dozens of the hostages and their families will
meet with lawmakers' staffs early next week to reiterate their call for
compensation from Iran, which has gone unanswered in the 35 years since
they were held prisoner. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has filed two
amendments to Iran legislation that would 'ensure that resolving the
issue of compensation for hostages is considered' prior to any nuclear
agreement, a source familiar with the amendments told The Hill... 'During
this period of time when we're talking about relaxing sanctions against
Iran - this is really our last shot,' said Don Cooke, one of the
hostages, who is now 60. 'If we move toward normalizing our relations
with Iran without resolving this, then the issue of hostage compensation
is pretty much a lost cause." http://t.uani.com/1ycdYmH
Yemen Crisis
NYT:
"Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia deepened on Thursday as
Iranian leaders lashed out with rare vehemence against the continuing
Saudi air campaign in Yemen, even hurling personal insults at the young
Saudi prince who is leading the fight... Some analysts suggested that the
battle for Yemen may further complicate the delicate politics of a deal
with the Western powers to restrain Iran's nuclear program. But others
argued that the deal had instead emboldened Iran to flex its muscles
against Saudi Arabia. 'Deep down, the Iranians know that they are
winning,' said Michael Stephens, the head of the Royal United Services
Institute in Doha, Qatar." http://t.uani.com/1CCdZvB
AFP:
"As they consolidated their hold on Sanaa, the Huthis' links to
Tehran became ever more clear. The Huthi-run Saba news agency reported
that Iran would provide Yemen with crude oil for a year and also build a
165-megawatt power plant. A Huthi delegation was received in the Islamic
republic and on March 1, an Iranian commercial flight landed in Sanaa --
the first in many years and the fruit of an aviation accord with Tehran.
On Tuesday, Iranian state television reported that Tehran had sent a
shipment of non-military aid to Yemen, the first since the coalition
launched its operation." http://t.uani.com/1JvLsxs
Opinion &
Analysis
Charles
Krauthammer in WashPost: "It was but a year and a
half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he
said that Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its
plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were
all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear:
Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program,
these would have to go. Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell,
not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran's entire nuclear
infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length
of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow's centrifuges will keep
spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of
uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the
world's most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope
facility to a bomb-making factory. And upon the expiration of the deal,
conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran's breakout time to a nuclear bomb will
be 'almost down to zero,' i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear
weapons at will and without delay. And then there's cheating. Not to
worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: 'unprecedented
inspections' and 'snapback' sanctions. The inspection promises are a
farce. We haven't even held the Iranians to their current obligation to
come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous
nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12
issues. As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes
future verification impossible - how can you determine what's been
illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there's been
no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth - at-will,
unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint
European-Iranian statement spoke only of 'enhanced access through agreed
procedures,' which doesn't remotely suggest anywhere/anytime inspections.
And on Thursday, Iran's supreme leader ruled out any 'extraordinary
supervision measures.' The IAEA hasn't been allowed to see the Parchin
weaponization facility in 10 years. And the massive Fordow complex was
disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents. Yet even if
violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the
IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to
challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and
adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where
China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran's
lawyers. Which all would take months - after which there is no guarantee
that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway. As for the
'snapback' sanctions - our last remaining bit of pressure - they are
equally fantastic. There's no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they
have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia and the
Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it
doesn't snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving,
post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought
every step of the way, leaving the United States, not Iran, isolated.
Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering
its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies
logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions
injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its
relentless drive for regional dominance? An overriding objective of these
negotiations, as Obama has said, is to prevent the inevitable
proliferation - Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states - that would occur if Iran
went nuclear. Yet the prospective agreement is so clearly a pathway to an
Iranian bomb that the Saudis are signaling that the deal itself would
impel them to go nuclear. You set out to prevent proliferation and you
trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you
legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world's greatest exporter of
terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you're
on the verge of making it the region's economic and military hegemon.
What is the alternative, asks the president? He's repeatedly answered the
question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal." http://t.uani.com/1CChJgq
David Brooks in
NYT: "Beyond all the talk of centrifuges and enrichment
capacities, President Obama's deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on
the nature of the Iranian regime. The core question is: Are the men who
control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev? Do
they still fervently believe in their revolution and would they use their
postsanctions wealth to export it and destabilize their region? Or have
they lost faith in their revolution? Will they use a deal as a way to
rejoin the community of nations? We got a big piece of evidence on those
questions on Thursday. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
delivered his first big response to the sort-of-agreed-upon nuclear
framework. What did we learn? First, we learned that Iran's supreme
leader still regards the United States as his enemy. The audience chanted
'Death to America' during his speech, and Khamenei himself dismissed
America's 'devilish' intentions. When a radical religious leader uses a
word like 'devilish,' he's not using it the way it's used in a
chocolate-cake commercial. He means he thinks the United States is the
embodiment of evil. Second, we learned that the West wants a deal more
than Khamenei does. 'I was never optimistic about negotiating with
America,' he declared. Throughout the speech, his words dripped with a
lack of enthusiasm for the whole enterprise. President Obama is
campaigning for a deal, while Khamenei is unmoved. That imbalance
explains why Western negotiators had to give away so many of their
original demands. The United States had originally insisted upon an end
to Iran's nuclear program, a suspension of its enrichment of uranium, but
that was conceded to keep Iran at the table... Fifth, Khamenei reminded
us that, even at the most delicate moment in these talks, he is still
intent on putting Iran on a collision course with Sunnis and the West. He
attacked the Saudi leaders as 'inexperienced youngsters' and criticized
efforts to push back on Iranian efforts to destabilize Yemen...
Khamenei's remarks could be bluster, tactical positioning for some domestic
or international audience. But they are entirely consistent with recent
Iranian behavior. His speech suggests that Iran still fundamentally sees
itself in a holy war with the West, a war that can be managed prudently
but that is still a fundamental clash of values and interests. His speech
suggests, as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz put it in a brilliant
op-ed essay in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, that there is no
congruence of interests between us and Iran. We envision a region of
stable nation-states. They see a revolutionary anti-Western order... If
Iran still has revolutionary intent, then no amount of treaty subtlety
will enforce this deal. Iran will begin subtly subverting any
agreement... If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of
change, the deal is a home run. But we have a terrible record of
predicting trends in the Middle East. Republican and Democratic
administrations have continually anticipated turning points in the Middle
East: Republicans after interventions, Democrats after negotiations. But
the dawns never come. At some point, there has to be a scintilla of
evidence that Iran wants to change. Khamenei's speech offers none.
Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But
with this guy? Good luck with that." http://t.uani.com/1aQZhLG
Kimberley Strassel
in WSJ: "The only useful aspect of the sucker's deal
on Iran's nuclear program is that it's providing a moment of political
clarity in Washington. About a dozen Senate Democrats and independents
loudly insisted for over a year that they opposed the direction of the
administration's nuclear talks, that they wanted more sanctions, and that
Congress should have a say on any deal. Iran hawks, all. Where are they
now? Scrambling to formulate any good excuse to back away from those
vows, and to give their lame-duck president a free hand. Only a week ago,
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) was but a few
votes shy of the 67 he'd need to override a presidential veto of his bill
giving Congress review over an Iran deal. The framework now announced,
the White House now twisting arms, the votes needed are vanishing. 'Yes,
but . . . ' was Maine Sen. Angus King's response to the question of
whether he will still vote for the Corker bill. He's now not sure
bipartisan Republicans can be trusted to implement a bipartisan bill that
he, a bipartisan 'independent,' co-sponsored. 'I'm not in if it's a
partisan weapon,' he said, vaguely. Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.), who last
year co-sponsored a bill to impose additional sanctions on Iran,
explained in December that he felt 'no greater responsibility than to
ensure that the United States pursues policies that maximize our security
interests.' He's now doing the White House's bidding, demanding an amendment
to the Corker bill (he too is a co-sponsor) releasing the administration
from having to certify Iran doesn't support terrorism. This is where
Democrats will lay the groundwork for defection, in Mr. Corker's
committee markup of the legislation next week. Sen. Chris Murphy (D.,
Conn.) has unveiled his own White House cover, a separate amendment to
allow Mr. Obama to unilaterally roll back sanctions on Iran-regardless of
what Congress does. Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), self-described as one of
the 'strongest supporters of Israel' and also a co-sponsor of the Corker
bill, has announced he will also propose modifications that are
'acceptable to the White House.' Sen. Michael Bennett (D., Colo.),
another co-sponsor, is also in favor of alterations. The goal of these
amendments is to render the Corker legislation useless. Yet if
Republicans balk, watch for Senate Democrats to howl that the GOP is
acting in a partisan fashion, or refusing to be flexible. And watch for
those same Senate Democrats to then use those complaints as their pretext
for voting against the legislation." http://t.uani.com/1FHX0N1
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "A week ago, the White House was on top
of the world. President Barack Obama announced a new framework agreement
with Iran and five other great powers to resolve the long-standing
stand-off over Iran's nuclear program. And after producing a detailed
fact sheet, the White House got some unexpected good news: Sen. Mark
Kirk, the Republican co-author of sanctions legislation the president had
said would kill the talks if it passed, said he would shelve his bill
until the June 30 final deadline for the nuclear discussions. That
promise is no longer operative. Kirk told me Thursday that he is pushing
for a full Senate vote on his Nuclear Weapons Free Act of 2015,
legislation he authored with Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat who was
indicted last week by a grand jury on corruption charges. Kirk initially
delayed pushing for a full Senate vote on his bill because it appeared
the president and Secretary of State John Kerry had actually gotten the
Iranians to agree on a political framework for a nuclear deal -- the
bottom line stipulation for an earlier agreement by 12 Senate Democrat
supporters of Kirk's bill to hold off on voting for it. Now Kirk feels
that there isn't much of an agreement at all. As he told me Thursday,
'Because Iran refuses to agree to the same framework for a final deal as
the United States, and because Iran still strongly disputes basic issues
like how a final deal will address comprehensive sanctions relief,
uranium enrichment, and coming clean on Iran's military nuclear
activities, I believe the full Senate should vote, sooner rather than
later, on the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015.' The
context here is important. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
had been silent about the framework agreement until Thursday. At an
official celebration for Iran's 'National Day of Nuclear Technology,'
Khamenei said in effect that nothing was really agreed last week. He
criticized the White House fact sheet on the deal, saying it 'was wrong
on most of the issues.' Khamenei did not stop there. He said he would not
approve any deal that did not lift the sanctions against his country upon
Iran signing the agreement... It's possible the Iranians are bluffing.
But in the last dispute like this, the Iranian side prevailed. After
completing the interim agreement with Iran at the end of November 2013,
Kerry went on the Sunday news shows and asserted the deal did not
'recognize' Iran's right to enrichment. At the time, Iran's foreign
minister, Javad Zarif, said the opposite, asserting that the interim deal
did. Today even the White House's disputed fact sheet says Iran will
continue to enrich uranium with at least 5,000 centrifuges at its Natanz
facility during the implementation of the agreement. While the deal
doesn't explicitly acknowledge Iran's right to enrich uranium, it
implicitly grants such a right by allowing Iran to enrich uranium." http://t.uani.com/1DPLguc
|
|
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