Friday, May 8, 2015

Eye on Iran: Senate Passes Iran Nuclear Review Bill, House up Next






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

Reuters: "The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to pass a bill giving Congress the right to review, and potentially reject, an international agreement with Iran aimed at keeping it from developing nuclear weapons. The 98-1 vote sent the measure to the House of Representatives, which could consider it as soon as next week. The White House said President Barack Obama would sign it into law if it also passes the House, as expected, without significant changes. 'I look forward to House passage of this bill to hold President Obama's administration accountable,' John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House, said in a statement supporting the bill shortly after the Senate vote. The bill gives Congress 30 days to review a final nuclear deal after international negotiators reach such an agreement, and during that time bars Obama from temporarily waiving any U.S. sanctions on Iran that were passed by Congress. If the Senate and House pass a resolution of disapproval of the deal, it would prevent Obama from offering any waiver of congressional sanctions, the overwhelming majority of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Such sanctions can only be permanently lifted by Congress. Lawmakers made clear another battle, over a final nuclear deal, lays ahead. 'Make no mistake, that will not be the end of the story,' Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech urging the bill's passage. 'There is bipartisan concurrence that we do not trust Iran,' said Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a bill co-sponsor and the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." http://t.uani.com/1H6eiqD

NYT: "While the Obama administration spent the past two years getting within striking distance of a deal to delay Iran's race for a nuclear bomb, North Korea went on an atomic spending spree: an expansion officials here fear Washington has little hope of stopping. Satellite photographs of the North's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon, released in 2013, have shown a doubling in size of the nuclear enrichment plant there, which the United States did not know about until 2010, and American officials strongly suspect there is a second one. A consensus is emerging that the North most likely possesses a dozen or so nuclear weapons and could be on the way to an arsenal of as many as 20 by the end of 2016. 'In my view, 20 is a hell of a lot of bombs,' Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and a professor at Stanford, said in an interview... The apparent buildup in nuclear bombs, after 20 years of failed efforts by the United States to keep North Korea from reaching this point, has become a rallying call for both sides debating the agreement with Iran." http://t.uani.com/1P62skG

Fars (Iran): "Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami played down the US officials' war rhetoric against Iran, and stressed that the country has prepared itself for the worst case scenario. 'We have prepared ourselves for the most dangerous scenarios and this is no big deal and is simple to digest for us; we welcome war with the US as we do believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power,' Salami said in an interview with the state-run TV on Wednesday. His remarks came after US Secretary of State John Kerry, who leads his country's team in the nuclear talks with Iran, in a charm offensive to rebuild ties with Israel over the Iran policy said recently that military action is still among possible options for Washington. Salami underlined that the era of using force and military power is over, and said the US has gained victory over some countries which had 'rotten' armies and couldn't resist against aggression and Washington shouldn't compare the Islamic Republic's powerful Armed Forces with them. The top General warned that Tehran will set fire to every military base from which a hostile US plane takes off for bombing Iran, and said, 'We warn their pilots that their first flight (to target Iran) will be their last one and no one will be allowed to go back safe and sound and they should call their flights as their last flight.'" http://t.uani.com/1H3HQT0

   
Nuclear Program & Negotiations

Fars (Iran): "Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari dismissed the US officials' renewed military threats against Iran as ridiculous remarks. 'Today, the Islamic Iran's pride and might has made the world's biggest materialistic and military powers kneel down before the Islamic Republic's might,' Jafari said, addressing a ceremony in the Northern city of Semnan on Thursday. 'The military option that the westerners speak of constantly is ridiculous and they know that if the military option could have produced any result, they would have already used it many times, and today they have shifted their focus to other types of threat and to the soft war front,' he added. The IRGC top commander further warned of enemies' attempts to create insecurity in the neighboring countries to make Iran insecure, and said despite all these plots Iran is considered as an island of stability and tranquility in the region." http://t.uani.com/1Qt8Gby

AFP: "Iran is a destabilising force that must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, top US diplomat John Kerry said in Saudi Arabia Thursday, aiming to calm Riyadh's worries... 'We made clear that we remain concerned about Iran's destabilising actions in the region,' Kerry said after talks with King Salman. Because of those concerns 'we believe that it is so important that Iran not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the region,' said the US secretary of state." http://t.uani.com/1zJLf9s

Reuters: "Concerns over a final nuclear deal with Iran and civil war in Yemen will top the agenda of talks in Paris on Friday between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Gulf Arab states. After marking the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe at the Arc De Triomphe, Kerry met counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain, as well as the head of the Gulf Cooperation Council.He was joined by Washington's chief Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman and U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, a nuclear specialist. The Paris meeting will lay the groundwork for a summit next week in Washington and Camp David between U.S. President Barack Obama and the six-nation GCC. Obama faces a formidable challenge to allay Gulf Arab fears over a nuclear deal with Tehran which is due by June 30." http://t.uani.com/1zResQ5

Reuters: "The United Arab Emirates is seeking some form of U.S. security guarantee from President Barack Obama's Camp David meeting with the six Gulf Cooperation Council nations, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to Washington said on Thursday. 'We are looking for (some form of) security guarantee given the behaviour of Iran in the region,' Ambassador Youssef Al Otaiba said at a Washington think tank. 'In the past, we have survived with a gentleman's agreement with the United States about security ... I think today we need something in writing. We need something institutionalized.' Obama has invited GCC leaders for meetings in Washington and at the Camp David presidential retreat May 13-14, an offer he made following the conclusion of a framework nuclear agreement with Iran." http://t.uani.com/1JvRr5a

Congressional Action

Politico: "Picking up where Sens. Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio left off, House conservatives plan to press House GOP leaders to allow a series of hard-to-oppose amendments to the Iran nuclear review bill. The move by the conservative House Freedom Caucus could put Speaker John Boehner in a bind. He'll have to decide whether to clamp down on attempts to change the bill as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did in the Senate, angering his right flank - or to allow votes on their amendments at the risk of tanking the legislation authored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.)... 'The current Corker deal gives the illusion of government oversight while actually just providing political cover,' Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a Freedom Caucus member, said in an interview. 'A number of conservative House members want to encourage our leadership to allow meaningful amendments.' ... Senior House Republicans are split over how leadership should handle the amendments. Some top GOP aides and lawmakers want to kill the Corker bill, arguing it's weak and gives a stamp of approval to Obama's talks with Iran. But a larger contingent of leadership officials seems to want quick passage - including Boehner himself, who in a statement Thursday called the legislation 'important.'" http://t.uani.com/1ImiB1h

Roll Call: "In a major signal of public support, 150 House Democrats signed a letter Thursday supporting President Barack Obama's framework for a nuclear deal with Iran. 'As negotiations over Iran's nuclear program continue, we urge you to stay on course, building on the recently announced political framework and continuing to work toward a strong and verifiable agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran that will prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon,' the letter begins. The 150 Democrats - 145 of whom can vote - is a significant number. As the Washington Post points out, if Congress voted to reject the Iranian nuclear deal, and Obama vetoed the rejection, there would appear to be just enough Democrats to sustain the president's veto. The Senate advanced language Thursday, 98-1, that would give Congress a say over the deal. But the current language would effectively require a two-thirds majority, meaning the 150 Democrats signed onto Thursday's letter - which was written by Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Lloyd Doggett of Texas and David E. Price of North Carolina - could essentially render input from the rest of Congress meaningless. Of course, that assumes all Democrats on the letter remain supportive of a deal that would hypothetically be voted down by the rest of Congress. Notably, there are more than 40 Democrats who did not sign the letter, including Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California did sign." http://t.uani.com/1JTSS0K

Al-Monitor: "Republicans have signaled that they know they don't have the votes to override a veto. Rather than schedule a difficult and ultimately doomed vote on disapproval, which would put them on the record as pro-actively trying to undermine a final deal, they are considering instead a resolution of approval that's destined to fail but would publicly demonstrate the lack of congressional support for Obama's diplomacy. 'There's a couple ways that you can look at it,' Corker told reporters after the vote. 'A resolution of disapproval would stop the deal if you were successful. If the majority of people in the Senate thought that the deal was not a good one, but you didn't have enough votes to disapprove, you could move to a resolution of approval.' McConnell suggested last week that this might be his intention. 'A failed resolution of approval, as the bill before us would permit, would send an unmistakable signal about congressional opposition to lifting sanctions,' he said on the floor April 30. 'Let me say that again. A failed resolution of approval, permitted under this bill, would send an unmistakable signal about congressional opposition to lifting sanctions.' Congress may also decide to hold two votes: one on approval, and another on disapproval. 'There will definitely be a vote,' a senior Republican aide told Al-Monitor. 'The question is, on what?'" http://t.uani.com/1FTHuiV

Sanctions Relief

Press TV (Iran): "Minister of Petroleum Bijan Zangeneh says Iran plans to splash out $180 billion to revive and renovate its oil, gas and petrochemical industries by 2022. Addressing an energy security summit in Berlin, the minister said Iran has always been a reliable energy supplier, adding the country wants to regain its position in the energy market... Zangeneh held important talks with German leaders, including Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday. The minister was reportedly set to hold more talks with energy giants, including Siemens, Linde and Lurgi, about the release of Iranian LNG equipment and parts seized by German companies under the European sanctions regime. According to Zangeneh, Germany was Iran's prime energy partner in the downstream oil industry as well as its petrochemical, refinery, turbines and industry parts sector before sanctions. The three energy companies have a history of two decades of operation in Iran's giant South Pars gas projects. Linde had undertaken to build equipment for gas liquefaction of Iran's LNG plant. According to CEO of National Iranian Gas Company Ali Reza Kameli, the company has completed construction of the equipment but is refusing to deliver it because of sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1F9XgaE

Reuters: "PSA Peugeot Citroen is in talks to cooperate with Iranian carmaker Iran Khodro if sanctions against the Islamic Republic are lifted, Germany's Manager Magazin cited Peugeot brand chief Maxime Picat as saying. 'We are speaking to our Iranian partners on a weekly basis about how and when we can start our activities,' the monthly magazine on Friday quoted Picat as saying in an interview... 'We are thinking about launching a joint venture with Khodro with which we could cover the whole spectrum from procurement to manufacturing and the sale of spare parts,' Manager Magazin quoted him as saying." http://t.uani.com/1EUS47k

Yemen Crisis

FT: "They are hundreds of miles apart and their local struggles have little in common, yet Lebanon's Shia force Hizbollah and Yemen's Houthi rebels are opening up about a relationship forged by sectarian politics transforming the Middle East. With regional tensions exacerbated by a Gulf-backed coalition striking the Houthis, the long rumoured but never proven ties are becoming visible. Some sources say Iran-backed Hizbollah may even be providing direct support to their Yemeni allies - a sign of how the rivalry between Sunni Gulf states and Shia Iran is reshaping local conflicts. Linked by Iranian patronage and emboldened by the fight in Yemen, the Hizbollah-Houthi relationship may fuel rival Sunni states' fears of expanding Shia alliances, analysts say. Officially, Hizbollah has made no comment on its role with the Houthis, but a political source close to the group's leadership said the relationship goes back several years and hinted it may be playing an advisory role to Houthi forces. 'Perhaps a limited role, giving advice and counsel, but there is no presence on the ground,' the source said. Other Hizbollah fighters say they have played a more active role on the ground in Yemen. A Houthi official who met the Financial Times in Beirut said relations with the Lebanese movement stretch back over a decade." http://t.uani.com/1H3Fi7n

Human Rights

UN News Centre: "Two United Nations human rights experts have condemned the sharp increase in executions across Iran in recent weeks, urging the Government in Tehran to heed the Organization's appeal for an immediate halt on the use of the death penalty. 'When the Iranian government refuses to even acknowledge the full extent of executions which have occurred, it shows a callous disregard for both human dignity and international human rights law,' Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, stressed in a press release issued earlier today...  Iran has witnessed a surge in executions over the past two years. At least 852 individuals were executed between July 2013 and June 2014 - the last reporting period for which data is available - representing an 'alarming' increase in the number of executions in relation to the already-high rates of previous years, according to UN estimates. In addition, more than 340 persons, including at least six political prisoners and seven women, were reportedly executed since January 2015." http://t.uani.com/1ImkB9M

NYT: "Furious over the unexplained death of a chambermaid, ethnic Kurds in an Iranian provincial capital rioted on Thursday, apparently setting the fire that roared through the hotel where she had worked. Police officers used tear gas to disperse the crowds, according to news accounts, witnesses, and images posted on social media. The anger, which appeared to have been smoldering for days in the city, Mahabad, spread over the mysterious circumstances surrounding the fate of the chambermaid, Farinaz Khosravani, 25, who on Monday plunged from a fourth-floor window of the city's only four-star hotel, the Tara, Kurdish news media reported. Mahabad is the capital of West Azerbaijan Province, and its population is mostly Kurdish. The protesters suspected foul play in Ms. Khosravani's death, according to the Rudaw news website, based in the neighboring Kurdish region of Iraq... He said that many in the city of 280,000, had read news on the Internet saying that Ms. Khosravani had been trying to escape an Iranian official who was threatening to rape her. According to those reports, the official had the help of the hotel's owner, who had been promised a fifth star for helping arrange the official's stay there." http://t.uani.com/1EUTYF9

RFE/RL: "Thousands of teachers across Iran have again taken to the streets to call for higher wages. Iran's semiofficial ILNA news agency, which focuses on labor issues, reports that silent protests were held on May 7 in more than a dozen Iranian cities, including Tehran, Tabriz, Shiraz, Isfahan, and Sanandaj. Reports say that, in the Iranian capital, an estimated 3,000 teachers protested peacefully in front of the parliament amid the heavy presence of security forces. Silent protests in other cities were reportedly held in front of the buildings of the Islamic republic's education ministry. ILNA reported that, ahead of protests, numerous teachers were summoned by security officials and allowed to go free on the condition that they would not participate in the May 7 rallies. Photographs of the protests show demonstrators holding signs warning against 'discrimination' and 'poverty' among teachers due to their low wages." http://t.uani.com/1Ehrnai

Opinion & Analysis

John Hannah in FP: "And to what end? What's the likely payoff for running these extraordinary risks? If there were serious analytical grounds for believing that this kind of deal was likely to transform the Islamic Republic into something approaching a normal state, well, there'd be something to argue about. But not even the administration is willing to make that case, not publicly at least, or at least not as anything more than a vague aspiration rather than a realistic expectation. But if not transformation, then what exactly are we buying with this deeply flawed deal? The answer seems to be time. Ten to 15 years to be exact - if (and this is a very big if) Iran does not lie, cheat, and steal its way to sneak out before then. So there's a reasonable bet to be made that we might get a decent interval of sorts, a chance to kick the can down the road until ... well, frankly, until it becomes a future president's problem to deal with, at a time when the mullahs are likely to be infinitely richer and more powerful than they are today. Now, time is not nothing. It can be a very valuable commodity in foreign affairs - especially when alternative courses of action are not obviously superior and entail their own set of serious downsides. But a Faustian bargain that maybe buys us 10-15 years of quiet before giving Iran virtually everything its ever wanted in terms of its nuclear program, sanctions relief, and international legitimacy is one thing. Doing all that while also throwing wide open the Gates of Hell in the Middle East is quite another. Problematic as it is, the administration's deal with the devil begins to look a whole lot worse when you realize that the fine print includes provisions likely to unleash regional mayhem and a nuclear arms race. It seems belatedly to have dawned on the administration that this all could pose a slight problem. Witness the forward-leaning posture in support of the recent Saudi-led intervention in the god-awful mess that is Yemen. Witness next week's summit at Camp David with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the flurry of poorly thought-out proposals to deluge them with military hardware and promises of U.S. support. Whether this signals a serious strategy to mitigate some of the worst regional consequences that the Iran deal is likely to trigger is far from clear. A cynical observer could be forgiven for wondering if it really isn't just a short-term effort to anesthetize the Arab leaders against the world of pain that's about to rain down on them, a means of keeping them supine until the dirty deed is done... Taken on its own, the Iran deal looks like a highly risky proposition. Add in the most likely knock-on effects in the region and we're potentially flirting with real disaster. So much has been given away already on the nuclear front that a deeply flawed agreement now looks all but inevitable. Damage limitation, risk mitigation and making the best of a truly awful situation may be all that we're left with at this point - both inside the negotiating room and beyond it. Difficult and distasteful as that thought may be for the world's sole remaining superpower, it's likely the harsh reality that we now have to confront. We can only pray that the administration shows more resolve and strategic foresight in handling this phase of the Iranian nuclear challenge than it has heretofore. And by all means, let's hope that the president is feeling very, very lucky. We're going to need it." http://t.uani.com/1Iml1Ne

William Kristol in The Weekly Standard: "Now, one could imagine a sophisticated case for a not-fully-reassuring deal, made by a more sophisticated negotiator than John Kerry: It's not perfect, but some visibility into the program is better than none; we'll probably pick up cheating once it's been going on for a while; and, as Clint Eastwood put it, 'If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.' But we don't have a serious or sophisticated negotiator. We have John Kerry. So the deal will be catastrophic. And the defense of it will be dishonest. That's why a group of senators fought over the last couple of weeks to strengthen the Corker-Cardin legislation-seeking to add to it standards that would make clear what an acceptable deal would be, and to create a process that would establish a fair playing field for debate and votes on the deal. The junior senators did their best. We salute them for struggling against the odds. But they could not overcome Corker's resistance to modifying what he'd negotiated with the Democrats, other senior Republicans' unwillingness to challenge a committee chairman's work, the pro-Israel establishment's commitment to bipartisanship, and a general lack of urgency about acting now to stop a bad Iran deal. The effort was not entirely in vain. These senators at least began to educate their colleagues and the country in the many ways in which the deal toward which the Obama administration is hurtling is a very bad one. And perhaps the House will improve the legislation as it comes over to that body. What is crucial now is that the broader anti-nuclear Iran effort not take the next two months off while Kerry negotiates. What is crucial now is that opponents of a nuclear Iran put aside tactical differences to focus on the fundamental task: preventing-or laying the groundwork for defeating-a deal that paves the way toward a Middle East dominated and intimidated by a terror-sponsoring, America-hating, Israel-denying, nuclear-weapons-capable Iran, whose economy will be strengthened with sanctions removed and whose nuclear weapons infrastructure the 'international community' will have blessed. For our part, we 'absolutely guarantee' that if there is no further effort to rally opposition to this deal until after it's signed, it will be too late. That's why some senators had a sense of urgency about shaping the debate now. They were rebuffed by their elders in the Senate. But the fight goes on. It is a fight against strengthening the Iranian regime at home and abroad, a fight against a nuclear shield for Iranian terror, a fight against a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a fight for a strong America and for a secure Israel. The battle over Corker-Cardin may be over. The fight to stop the Iran deal has just begun." http://t.uani.com/1Qt71CF
         

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