|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Reuters:
"An exiled Iranian opposition group said on Thursday a delegation of
North Korean experts in nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles visited a
military site near Tehran in April amid talks between world powers and
Iran over its nuclear program. The dissident National Council of
Resistance of Iran (NCRI) exposed Iran's uranium enrichment plant at
Natanz and a heavy water facility at Arak in 2002... Citing information
from sources inside Iran, including within Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Corps, the Paris-based NCRI said the seven person North Korean Defence
Ministry team were in Iran for the last week of April. It was the third
time in 2015 that North Koreans had been to Iran and a nine person
delegation was due to return in June, it said. 'The delegates included
nuclear experts, nuclear warhead experts and experts in various elements
of ballistic missiles including guidance systems,' NCRI said." http://t.uani.com/1BrbtJn
Politico:
"For weeks, the Obama administration insisted it was winning the war
against the Islamic State, telling reporters that its pinpoint airstrikes
and military advice were rolling back the terrorist group's stunning
territorial gains in Iraq. But now, Obama's foreign policy team finds
itself relying on Iran-backed Shiite militias in a high-stakes bid to
retake Ramadi, a provincial capital where dozens of American soldiers
once died battling hordes of Sunni insurgents. For weeks, the Obama
administration insisted it was winning the war against the Islamic State,
telling reporters that its pinpoint airstrikes and military advice were
rolling back the terrorist group's stunning territorial gains in Iraq.
But now, Obama's foreign policy team finds itself relying on Iran-backed
Shiite militias in a high-stakes bid to retake Ramadi, a provincial
capital where dozens of American soldiers once died battling hordes of
Sunni insurgents... Many are effectively proxies for Iran - some openly
display images of the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei -
and serve to extend Tehran's influence in Baghdad. There is also an
emotional factor: Shiite fighters killed numerous Americans in the wake
of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and the prospect of cooperating
with them enrages many in the U.S. military." http://t.uani.com/1LLzG3p
Reuters:
"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Thursday he
hoped Tehran and world powers would reach a final nuclear deal 'within a
reasonable period of time' but this would be hard if the other side stuck
to what he called excessive demands... 'If the other side respects what
has been agreed in Lausanne and tries to draft, based on mutual respect,
a comprehensive agreement with Iran that is sustainable..., then we can
meet any deadline,' Zarif said after meeting his Greek counterpart. 'If
people insist on excessive demands, on renegotiation, then it will be
difficult to envisage an agreement even without a deadline,' he said in
Athens... 'I am hopeful we will reach a final conclusion within a
reasonable period of time,' Zarif said. 'In order to do that people need
to be realistic, people need to have their foot in reality, not in
illusions.' He said Iran could not accept any solution that is 'less than
respectful, less than dignified. We can only have agreements in which
both sides can claim that they have achieved positive results. You need
to either win together, or lose together. Iran, with millennia of
history, will not be intimidated.'" http://t.uani.com/1GGtYzz
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AFP:
"On Tuesday, Yukiya Amano, the head of the UN's atomic watchdog,
said Iran had agreed to implementing the Additional Protocol of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that allows for snap inspections.
'When we find inconsistency or when we have doubts, we can request access
to the undeclared location for example, and this could include military
sites,' the Japanese diplomat told AFP. Zarif has said the April
framework allows 'some access' but not inspections of military sites, in
order to protect national 'military or economic secrets.'" http://t.uani.com/1cl1IWA
AP:
"The top U.S. and Iranian diplomats plan to meet this weekend in
Switzerland as efforts intensify to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif will hold talks Saturday in Geneva." http://t.uani.com/1AA5oze
Reuters:
"The United States will not consider an extension to reach an
agreement on curbing Iran's nuclear program, the State Department said on
Wednesday, despite indications from France and Iran that talks may
stretch into July. 'We're not contemplating any extension beyond June
30,' State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said at a news briefing.
Rathke said the United States believes the world powers working with
Tehran can achieve their goal of reaching an agreement by the
self-imposed deadline." http://t.uani.com/1AvYrj1
AFP:
"Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday praised
the work of his country's nuclear negotiators after they came under heavy
criticism from the conservative camp in parliament. The negotiators, who
resumed talks with world powers in Vienna on Tuesday, 'are working,
making efforts, breaking sweat... to obtain what is in the interests of
the country and the regime', he said in a meeting with members of
parliament. The intervention from Khamenei, who has the final say on all
matters of state in Iran, came after several deputies accused the
negotiators of having betrayed the Islamic republic by making key
concessions... In his bid to restore order on the home front, Khamenei
called for 'mutual respect' -- without accusations and suspicions --
between parliament and the government. Members of parliament must
maintain a 'respectful attitude towards ministers' and the government
must avoid insulting deputies, he said." http://t.uani.com/1KAS4Op
NYT:
"President Obama's chief negotiator with Iran, Wendy R. Sherman,
said on Wednesday that she planned to leave the administration shortly
after the June 30 deadline for a final deal on limiting the country's
nuclear program. 'It's been two long years,' Ms. Sherman, the under
secretary of state for policy, said in her office on Wednesday. With her
departure, all the top officials who have negotiated with Iran over those
two years will have left the administration, leaving questions about who
will coordinate the complex process of carrying out a deal if one is
struck by the deadline... Her work is hardly done: Ms. Sherman left for
Austria and Switzerland on Wednesday, shortly after telling her staff
about her plans, on her 30th trip as lead negotiator. Over the next five
weeks, her task will be to see if the final differences with Tehran - on
issues like the timing of the dismantlement of much of its nuclear
infrastructure and the details of inspections of military and other sites
- can be bridged." http://t.uani.com/1LMeBoD
Syria Conflict
AFP:
"Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Wednesday that Iran and
Russia would never give up their support for his regime in the face of a
four-year-old armed revolt. 'I assure you that the relationship between
Syria, the Russian Federation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is much
deeper than some people think,' Muallem said at a press conference with
his visiting Armenian counterpart Edward Nalbandian. He said Tehran and
Moscow 'have not and will not delay in providing aid to help us
persevere,' while armed rebels had 'clear support from conspirators' and
were infiltrating from Turkey... Muallem said Damascus looked forward to
'a better and bigger Iranian role in the international arena' after the
end of Tehran's negotiations with world powers on a nuclear accord."
http://t.uani.com/1FF4n83
Yemen Crisis
FT:
"The Shahed's voyage follows months of suspicious shipping activity
between Iran and Yemen amid mounting claims from regional western
diplomats and intelligence officials of Tehran's complicity in the Yemeni
civil war. Maritime data obtained by the Financial Times show that at
least four large cargo ships, with a combined capacity of more than
15,000 tonnes, made a series of highly unusual and undeclared trips
between Iran and Yemeni ports controlled by the Houthis in the first few
months of this year. All four undertook voyages to transport cargo from
the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran to Yemen's Houthi-controlled port of
Hodeida - a route none had plied before - after the Houthi capture of Sana'a
in January. The ships changed their ensigns, turned off their tracking
devices at key points during their voyages, registered false information
in international shipping logs and met unidentified craft
mid-ocean." http://t.uani.com/1Ks7jWL
Human Rights
AP:
"A letter a detained Washington Post journalist wrote to U.S.
President Barack Obama and a trip he made to the U.S. Consulate in Dubai
have become major topics of his espionage trial in Iran. Jason Rezaian,
the Post's 39-year-old bureau chief in Tehran, is being tried in a
Revolutionary Court on allegations of 'espionage for the hostile
government of the United States' and propaganda against the Islamic
Republic, Iran's official IRNA news agency has reported. The Post has
said he faces 10 to 20 years in prison if convicted... Rezaian, his wife
Yeganeh Salehi and two photojournalists were detained on July 22 in
Tehran. All were later released except Rezaian... Last week, Rezaian's
lawyer said Salehi, who is a reporter for The National newspaper in the United
Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi, and a freelance photographer who
worked for foreign media, also will stand trial." http://t.uani.com/1FczpRr
AFP:
"Iran hit back Thursday at US charges that the trial of Washington
Post journalist Jason Rezaian on spying charges lacked transparency, with
Tehran insisting its judiciary is independent. Washington has called for
the release of Rezaian, who went on trial behind closed doors on Tuesday,
with National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan condemning a
'complete lack of transparency' in the case... Foreign affairs
spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said it was up to a judge to decide the
journalist's fate. 'In any country, questions of justice, judicial
process and inquiry have their own procedures,' Afkham was quoted as
saying on her ministry's website. 'There is no room for premature
judgement and speculation.'" http://t.uani.com/1QcGtUb
RFE/RL:
"Iranian authorities have sent a celebrated journalist Ahmad
Zeidabadi into internal exile after nearly six years in prison, dashing
the hopes of his family and displaying continued intolerance for freedom
of speech in the Islamic republic. Zeidabadi, widely respected and seen
as upholding the honor of Iran's journalists and intellectuals, was
arrested in the 2009 state crackdown that followed the disputed
reelection of Mahmud Ahmadinejad as president in June of that year.
Zeidabadi and scores of other intellectuals and political activists were
tried on charges that included plotting to overthrow the Islamic establishment.
Zeidabadi, a former student leader, was sentenced to six years in prison,
five years in exile in the northeastern city of Gonabad, and a lifetime
ban from journalistic, political, and social activity." http://t.uani.com/1SE6DDj
IranWire:
"Activists have called for the immediate release of Narges
Mohammadi, the jailed deputy director and spokesperson for the Center for
the Defenders of Human Rights. Gathering outside Mohammadi's house on May
20, protesters celebrated Mohammadi's commitment to human rights, and
insisted that her continued imprisonment not only violated human rights
but also went against Islamic and family values. Security forces arrested
Mohammadi on May 5. Supporters of the Women Citizenship Center (WCC) and
other groups, including anti-death penalty campaign group Karzar Legam,
attended the rally, along with journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad
and Gohar Eshghi, the mother of Sattar Beheshti, the blogger who died
while in jail in 2013. Eshghi and Nourizad were both present at the time
of Mohammadi's arrest." http://t.uani.com/1RqABcy
Opinion &
Analysis
Eric Edelman,
Robert Joseph & Ray Takeyh in Politico: "The
Obama administration says that any nuclear agreement it negotiates
between the United States and Iran will be binding on the president's
successors, while nearly every Republican presidential contender has
insisted on re-evaluating the agreement, if not jettisoning it all
together. Secretary of State John Kerry has rejected such claims,
maintaining that future presidents are unlikely to 'turn around and just
nullify it.' Yet the history of arms control demonstrates that
controversial agreements are usually reviewed by incoming
administrations. On at least three recent occasions, a new president
ultimately annulled a landmark agreement that he determined was not
serving the interests of the United States or was being violated by an
adversary it was meant to restrain. The cornerstone of arms control in
the 1970s was the SALT II accord. Building on the earlier negotiations of
the Nixon/Ford administration, Jimmy Carter finally concluded the treaty
on June 18, 1979 and submitted it to Senate for ratification. However,
once the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter withdrew the treaty
from further consideration. Nonetheless, both the United States and the
Soviet Union agreed to comply with its terms. The Reagan Administration's
review concluded that the agreement was 'fatally flawed' but
provisionally decided to abide by the unratified treaty. Ultimately, in
light of indications of Soviet non-compliance and more importantly the
need to move forward with a major strategic modernization program, it was
set aside. In May 1986, the administration announced that 'in the future,
the United States must base decisions regarding its strategic force
structure on the nature and magnitude of the threat posed by the Soviet
strategic forces and not on standards contained in SALT structure.'
Reagan determined that the wisest course was to abandon SALT II despite
the fact that the agreement was long-standing and had been negotiated by
both his Republican and Democratic predecessors. In December 2001,
another key element of the Cold War arms control architecture collapsed
when President George W. Bush announced the U.S. intention to withdraw
from the 1972 ABM Treaty-after making support for missile defense a
pillar of his campaign. The reason for this action was clearly stated:
given the emergence of new missile and nuclear threats from rogue states,
the United States had to defend itself against attacks from countries
like North Korea... Upon assuming office, President George W.
Bush's review of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea concluded
that the agreement had essentially rewarded bad North Korean behavior,
but that the U.S. would continue to abide by it so long as North Korea
continued to fulfill its commitments. The U.S. ended its participation in
December 2002 after Pyongyang was assessed to have undertaken a
large-scale uranium enrichment program. In testimony to Congress, Clinton
administration officials had earlier stated that any enrichment would be
considered a material breach of the agreement. When confronted with
evidence of its illicit procurement activities, North Korea initially
denied, but then soon acknowledged the existence of the program-a program
that made sense only in the context of producing fissile material for
nuclear weapons. Following Pyongyang's confirmation that it was pursuing
uranium enrichment, and after consulting with regional allies, President
Bush stopped the delivery of heavy fuel oil to North Korea, leading to
the demise of the agreement. Most presidents prefer to adhere to the
commitments negotiated by their predecessors. However, at times, the
deficiencies of an agreement are so great that presidents reconsidered
their patrimony. The emerging deal with Iran is likely to be one of the
most unusual and contentious accords in the history of arms control. It
will likely be embraced by the U.N. Security Council while greeted with
skepticism, if not outright rejection, by Congress. It will be will be
applauded by America's rivals and adversaries, such as Russia and China,
yet disclaimed by its closest allies such as Israel and the Gulf Arab
states. Given the absence of domestic consensus on the deal and given
that it is transacted with a profoundly unsavory regime, it is likely to
be debated and its value questioned by many officeholders. This is
particularly the case if the verification and monitoring provisions are
considered inadequate in light of Iran's record of denial, deception and
cheating. Successor administrations may take a more questioning view
about Iran's adherence as the examples above suggest. As the Obama
administration concludes its negotiations with Iran, it would be wise to
insist on stringent terms and clear consequences for cheating. After all,
the longevity of the agreement will be determined less by the approbation
of the UN than by future presidents who must judge whether it serves
America's interests." http://t.uani.com/1BrfWvy
Yaroslav Trofimov
in WSJ: "Reformers and hard-liners in the Iranian
regime have been jockeying for influence for decades. As the Islamic
Republic now nears a landmark nuclear agreement with the U.S. and other
world powers, the Middle East's future depends on which force emerges as
the deal's main beneficiary. Will the accord empower the more pragmatic
factions interested in normalizing Iran's relations with the West, even
as the regime maintains repression at home? Or, as some of Iran's
neighbors fear, will the financial windfall from the lifting of sanctions
enable the hard-liners to step up the export of Iran's Islamic revolution
throughout the region?Relative moderates such as President Hasan Rouhani
and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif have invested much political capital to
bring Iran to the cusp of a nuclear deal. Their domestic supporters have
raised expectations that the accord, which is due to be completed by June
30, will usher in a new era of regional cooperation. 'The nuclear issue
would be the first step for testing whether the engagement policy is
successful. If the U.S. continues the policy of engagement rather than
confrontation, you would find Iran much more flexible and much more ready
to cooperate on regional issues,' said Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who
headed the foreign relations committee at Iran's National Security
Council until 2005 and is now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.
'But if the West and the regional powers push for more coercion policies
against Iran, this would strengthen radicalism in Iran. The equation is
clear.' As momentum for a nuclear deal gathered in recent years, Iran's
involvement in regional conflicts from Syria and Iraq to Yemen also
expanded, led by the Revolutionary Guards and other hard-line elements of
the regime. Many of Iran's Arab neighbors, along with their European
allies such as France, are concerned these elements will be further
energized by a completed nuclear deal, which is expected to unfreeze
Iran's access to as much as $150 billion in overseas assets. Hoping the
nuclear agreement will curtail Iran's forays abroad is as naive as
arguing in 2013 that the deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria would
ease the brutality of Bashar al-Assad's regime, said Jean-Pierre Filiu, a
professor of Middle East studies at Sciences Po university in Paris and a
former diplomatic adviser to the French prime minister. 'What I see is,
since the preliminary deal [in April], things have become worse in Syria,
worse in Yemen, and worse in Iraq,' he said. Aiming to whip up a
nationalist backlash, hard-liners in Iran have sought to undermine
Messrs. Rouhani and Zarif by focusing on the price that Tehran might pay
for a nuclear accord, including international inspections of its military
facilities, a blow to the country's cherished sovereignty. 'The reformers
may be blamed for giving too much away,' said Vali Nasr, dean of the Paul
H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins
University and a former senior State Department adviser. 'It is possible
the deal would benefit the conservatives-they would get both the benefits
of the deal and the political capital. This is clearly the conservatives'
game plan. They are not objecting to the principles of the negotiations
but to what has been negotiated.'" http://t.uani.com/1GGv9it
Jennifer Rubin in
WashPost: "Lawmakers need to stop spectating and
congratulating one another on the Corker-Menendez bill, which was
supposed to be the start and not the end of congressional involvement in
the Iran process. Congress should get going now to prepare for the June
30 deadline. First, Congress should immediately begin oversight hearings
to understand the concessions and the rationale behind them; to review
purported instances of cheating; and to review the accelerated international
aggression and domestic repression. Second, with regard to Iran's
aggression in Yemen, its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
its domestic human rights abuses (including, but not limited to, the
imprisonment of Americans and the trial of Post reporter Jason Rezaian),
Congress should pass additional sanctions legislation now. The president
has said these issues are separate and apart from nuclear negotiations,
but he has taken no meaningful action to address them. Congress should
therefore act. If Senate Democrats want to filibuster sanctions against
Iran for terrorism, aggression and human rights atrocities, that is their
prerogative. Third, Congress should begin floor debate no later than June
30 on the Menendez-Kirk sanctions bill. Considering the content of the
framework released after the bill cleared committee, it is appropriate to
amend the bill to clarify that sanctions are not subject to executive
waiver and can be repealed only upon a congressional finding that a final
deal has dismantled Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure (including the
closure of Fordow) and shipped out of the country its fissile material;
has put in place anywhere/anytime inspections; and has required Iran to
disclose past military dimensions of its program - in other words has
agreed to the terms the administration originally set out to obtain.
Finally, Congress should require the administration to provide a
strategic plan for checking Iran's regional aggression. Plainly, we don't
have one now. That plan should include an explanation as to how the
administration intends to work with regional allies to check Iran's
advance and how to prevent Iranian domination of Iraq. We are about a
month away from another deadline. Congress should not let another
diplomatic failure go to waste. It's time to ramp up the pressure on Iran
and prevent the president from making an awful deal." http://t.uani.com/1d1uVXg
|
|
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