Friday, April 10, 2015

Eye on Iran: Snap Back? Not So Fast. Sanctions a Big Issue in Nuke Talks






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