|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
WSJ:
"Sunni Arab leaders are warning the United States that Iran's role
in arming and funding Shiite allies in the Middle East is fueling support
for extremist groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda by those who fear
Tehran is gaining power in the region. These leaders are pressing the
Obama administration to more aggressively support Saudi Arabia and its
allies in pushing back Iranian influence in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and
elsewhere, in part, as a means to drain support for Islamic state and al
Qaeda. Both are Sunni-based terrorist organizations. They say Saudi
Arabia's ongoing military operations in Yemen, which are targeting an
Iranian-allied militia, should serve as a model for confronting Tehran
and its allies going forward. 'You felt something like people were
euphoric. Finally, somebody is standing up to Iran,' former Lebanese
Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, said of the Saudi campaign in Yemen."
http://t.uani.com/1GXWUUW
RFE/RL:
"While Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif believes Iran does not
jail people for their opinions, many disagree with his assessment. Zarif
was asked during a late April appearance on a U.S. news program about the
detention of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who has been in jail
in Tehran for the past nine months on security charges, including
espionage. 'We do not jail people for their opinions,' Zarif told host
Charlie Rose, before adding that the government has a plan to improve the
situation of human rights but that 'people who commit crimes, who violate
the laws of a country, cannot hide behind being a journalist or being a
political activist.' Former political prisoners and others were quick to
take to social media to dismiss Zarif's claim as a 'lie,' pointing out
that dozens of political prisoners -- including journalists, bloggers,
and political activists -- are languishing in Iranian prisons... Some
likened the Iranian foreign minister to Pinocchio by circulating a
photoshopped image of him with a long wooden nose." http://t.uani.com/1chPqiC
Politico:
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell defied expectations on
Monday and refrained from shutting down debate on Iran legislation, as
the Kentucky Republican searches for a deal to vote on further amendments
even though Democrats say there is little chance of such an agreement.
Senators in both parties had expected McConnell to move on Monday to
wrap-up debate on the legislation, which would allow Congress to review
and potentially reject any nuclear non-proliferation pact with Iran.
Instead, the majority leader opted to take more time to try and work out
a deal for floor votes on proposals that range from requiring Tehran to
recognize Israel to releasing Americans held overseas in Iran. Despite
McConnell's optimism, senators in both parties insist that taking
procedural steps to end debate, and the possibility of amendment, is the
only path forward after Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) on Thursday scuttled an emerging bipartisan framework to vote on
a series of politically difficult amendments... Democrats said they have
not reopened talks with Republicans on more amendment votes. They
predicted McConnell would move to finish the bill after discussing the
matter with the GOP caucus in a strategy discussion on Tuesday, when the
party meets for a closed-door lunch." http://t.uani.com/1DQlOye
Nuclear
Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"France and Saudi Arabia believe that any future nuclear accord
between Iran and six major powers must be robust, verifiable and no
threat to Tehran's neighbors, the two countries said ahead of a summit in
Riyadh on Tuesday. Saudi Arabia invited French President Francois
Hollande, whose country is deemed to have the toughest stance among the
six world powers negotiating with Iran, to Riyadh to discuss regional
issues with Gulf Arab leaders who fear a rapprochement with Tehran could
further inflame the region. 'France and Saudi Arabia confirmed the
necessity to reach a robust, lasting, verifiable, undisputed and binding
deal with Iran,' Hollande and the new Saudi King Salman said in a
statement after meeting on Monday. 'This agreement must not destabilize
the security and stability of the region nor threaten the security and
stability of Iran's neighbors,' the statement said." http://t.uani.com/1Pljru7
Military
Matters
Reuters:
"U.S. Navy warships have begun accompanying British-flagged
commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz as a result of Iran's
detention of a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship last week, the
Pentagon said on Monday. Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman,
said the U.S. Navy had accompanied one British ship through the strait,
one of the world's most important oil shipping channels, following talks
between Washington and London. 'They've asked if we would accompany their
flagged vessels through the strait,' Warren told reporters. The Navy has
been accompanying U.S.-flagged ships traversing the strait for several
days in response to last week's detention of the MV Maersk Tigris by
Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats. Pentagon officials say the
action is a temporary one as a result of recent Iranian actions in the
waterway." http://t.uani.com/1F3OcUN
The Hill:
"The U.S. is trying to secure the release of a Marshall
Islands-flagged ship from Iran, which has become the latest thorn in the
U.S.-Iran relationship as both sides inch closer to a June 30 deadline
for a nuclear deal. 'We have made a variety [of efforts] to help
secure the release of the ship,' said Jeff Rathke, acting deputy State
Department spokesman, at a briefing on Monday... Rathke reaffirmed Monday
that 'basically we have a defense responsibility which also includes shipping,'
but so far, the U.S. is pursuing 'diplomatic communications' with the
shipping companies involved, as well as the Marshall Islands." http://t.uani.com/1ABSueU
Sanctions
Relief
Gulf News:
"Boeing Co is bullish on the Iranian market, believing that the
Islamic republic's self-assessment for new aircraft is accurate. 'We've
done a pretty good assessment on our side and we think the demand, should
things open up, would be very strong,' Marty Bentrott, vice president -
sales, Middle East, Russia & Central Asia at Boeing, told reporters
in Dubai on Monday at the Arabian Travel Market (ATM). Iran has been
barred by sanctions from buying western aircraft since the 1970s. But
negotiations over its nuclear programme with the United States and other
world powers that are set to come to close next month have raised hopes
that the sanctions will be lifted. Last year, Iran's top aviation
official said the country's airliners would need to order 400 aircraft
over the next 10 years to replace its depleting and ageing fleet.
Bentrott agreed that Iran's need for new aircraft 'would be in that
ballpark'. In April 2014, Boeing was granted a license by the US Treasury
Department to sells spare parts for commercial aircraft to Iran. The
license has been extended on a number of occasions as the negotiations
between Iran and the world powers progressed." http://t.uani.com/1c0UoPW
Reuters:
"India will push ahead this week with plans to build a port in
southeast Iran, two sources said, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi keen
to develop trade ties with Central Asia and prepared to fend off U.S.
pressure not to rush into any deals with Iran. India and Iran agreed in
2003 to develop a port at Chabahar on the Gulf of Oman, near Iran's
border with Pakistan, but the venture has made little progress because of
Western sanctions on Iran. Now, spurred on by Chinese President Xi
Jinping's signing of energy and infrastructure agreements with Pakistan
worth $46 billion, Modi wants to swiftly sign trade deals with Iran and
other Gulf countries. 'Shipping Minister Nitin Gadkari will travel on a
day-long tour to Iran to sign a memorandum of understanding for
development of Chabahar port,' a shipping ministry source with direct
knowledge of the matter told Reuters. The deal will be signed on Wednesday,
he said." http://t.uani.com/1dKmmkq
Tehran Times:
"Poland has proposed to enhance its economic relations with Iran,
especially in energy and transport areas. Poland's Deputy Foreign
Minister Katarzyna Kacperczyk met with Iran's Chamber of Commerce,
Industries, Mines, and Agriculture Chairman Gholamhossein Shafe'i in
Tehran, calling for a boost in bilateral trade and investment, the IRIB
reported on Monday. Kacperczyk, heading a 100-member business delegation,
arrived in Tehran on Sunday for a two-day visit to explore new avenues
for bilateral trade. The delegation is also comprised of top directors
from Poland's ministries of foreign affairs, agriculture, and economy, as
well as representatives from a wide range of companies that plan to look
for the opportunities to invest in Iran in different areas... Iranian
Ambassador to Poland Ramin Mehmanparast has said that the volume of trade
between Iran and Poland is currently around €100 million annually, but
the two countries plan to boost the figure to €1 billion in the short
term." http://t.uani.com/1dKrPaT
Reuters:
"Representatives of Italian oil and gas company Eni met recently
with the Iranian oil minister to discuss a series of issues including
contractual arrears, an Eni spokeswoman confirmed on Monday. Iranian news
agency Tasnim cited the managing director of Iran's Petroleum Engineering
and Development Company on Monday as saying Eni had held talks with
minister Bijan Zanganeh 'a few days ago'. Eni, which stopped investing in
Iran in 2001, is allowed to recoup previous investments by being paid in
oil. 'Eni reiterated its interest in Iran, providing sanctions are lifted
and contract terms are mutually favourable,' the spokeswoman said." http://t.uani.com/1KJtcRR
FT:
"The Tehran Stock Exchange has not received foreign investment for
several years because of sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme. But
behind the scenes, the bourse has been busily preparing for the moment
when a nuclear deal is agreed so it can throw open its doors to international
investors. 'We have worked intensely on the exchange infrastructure
during the past four or five years,' says Ali Saeedi, deputy head of
supervision of financial institutions at the Securities and Exchange
Organisation of Iran, the country's supervisory authority. 'Sanctions
gave us time to prepare for the day a nuclear deal is signed.' ... Since
the framework nuclear deal with the US and other western countries was
agreed in Switzerland in April, the number of foreign investors
requesting meetings with Iranian entrepreneurs has jumped, according to
businessmen. 'One of the biggest asset managers in the US had a meeting
with us in Tehran two weeks ago,' says Mr Saeedi, although he declined to
name the investor." http://t.uani.com/1buT33z
RFE/RL:
"The United States says Iran is not open for business yet. State
Department spokesman Jeff Rathke made the comments in reaction to a
widely cited report by an Iranian news agency claiming a U.S. oil
delegation is due to visit Tehran this week to review investment
opportunities. Speaking on May 5, Rathke said it is difficult to verify
the report since 'not a single individual or company is identified' in
it... The report by Mehr news agency quoted Iran's Deputy Oil Minister
Abbas Sheri-Moghadam as confirming the visit and predicting future
cooperation if sanctions are lifted." http://t.uani.com/1ABX3FW
Syrian Conflict
Bloomberg:
"Syria and Iran are discussing a second $1 billion credit line to
prop up the government of President Bashar al-Assad, a key regional ally
of the Islamic Republic who's fighting a four-year war civil war. Syrian
Central Bank Governor Adib Mayaleh said that the Iranian government has
given preliminary approval for the credit line, the second since 2013.
The governor said Syria still has money left from the first $1 billion
agreement, which helps finance imports. 'Iran remains an ally of Syria,'
Mayaleh said in a telephone interview from Damascus. Iranian military and
financial support has helped Assad's government survive Syria's
conflict." http://t.uani.com/1GMo7UY
Al-Monitor:
"An Iranian government-owned TV station recently aired a documentary
about the role of Shiite fighters from Afghanistan in the Syrian civil
war. The 23-minute video, 'Moalem' (Teacher), tells the story of a Shiite
fighter from Afghanistan who has been fighting in Syria for the past
three years. The documentary, aired by Ofogh TV - an unofficial media arm
of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - indirectly shows how
the IRGC established the Fatemion Brigade, made up of Shiite fighters
from Afghanistan, to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This is
probably the first time that the Iranian government has aired material
that clearly shows that paramilitary forces from other countries are in
Syria supporting Iran's ally Assad." http://t.uani.com/1zKcXTZ
Human Rights
NYT:
"Amir Hekmati, the Marine veteran imprisoned in Iran longer than any
other American inmate there, resumed a suspended hunger strike on Monday
out of despair over the apparent paralysis in his case, Mr. Hekmati's
sister said. In an interview on Fox News, the sister, Sarah, said that
Mr. Hekmati had informed his family in the United States by telephone of
his decision to stop eating. She said Mr. Hekmati had written to the
officials of Evin Prison, where he has been held for more than three and
a half years, declaring that 'he's going to start a hunger strike as of
today, he's already begun.'" http://t.uani.com/1chBchN
Al-Monitor:
"During his trip to New York to continue another round of nuclear
talks, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made controversial
remarks about political prisoners in Iran. An online backlash forced him
to respond on his Facebook page. In an April 28 interview with Charlie
Rose on PBS, Zarif said, 'We do not jail people for their opinions.' ...
His comments, especially those to Rose, angered many Iranians online.
Some shared memes and posters on their social media pages of Iranian
political prisoners accompanied with Zarif's comment, 'We do not jail
people for their opinions.' Others compared the popular foreign minister,
who was greeted as a hero at Mehrabad International Airport after the
signing of the Lausanne nuclear framework deal, to former President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said in an 2011 interview with Fareed Zakaria on
CNN, 'There are no political prisoners in Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1GKPgI5
Opinion &
Analysis
Will Inboden in
FP: "As the Obama administration enters into the
next round of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, with the
self-imposed June 30 deadline looming, a broad spectrum of expert opinion
has concluded that the White House is playing its hand poorly and
agreeing to terms that are bad for the United States and our regional
allies and partners. As much commentary has noted, thus far the P5+1, led
by the United States, has made virtually all of the concessions. Under
the positions announced so far, and contrary to numerous U.N. Security
Council resolutions, Iran: can keep virtually all of its nuclear
infrastructure intact, maintains the right of enrichment, maintains a
uranium stockpile, gets immediate relief from many sanctions, does not have
to disclose the 'possible military dimensions' of its program, does not
have to allow anytime and anyplace inspections, and in 10 years can
openly resume its quest for a nuclear weapon (if it hadn't already
exploited the deal's loopholes to produce one covertly by that time).
Admittedly, some experts support the terms of the negotiations as
revealed thus far, and regard it as the least bad of a bad set of
options. But most thoughtful and informed observers do not. One of the
most articulate indictments came from Henry Kissinger and George Shultz's
Wall Street Journal op-ed last month. In detailing a bill of particulars
against the emerging deal, Shultz and Kissinger conclude that
'negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent
an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an
agreement that concedes this very capability.' The real puzzle is why the
Obama administration fails to see this, and persists in its desperation
to conclude a deal that seems to worsen by the week. It is riddle that
can't be explained by simple incompetence - after all, the Obama
negotiating team is comprised of intelligent and well-intentioned
professionals. Why, then, do they seemingly fail to see what is obvious
to most outside observers: that this is a very bad deal they are
pursuing? I suspect the reasons for this White House myopia are several,
which in combination help explain this emerging diplomatic
disappointment." http://t.uani.com/1IJOIH6
Peter Feaver in
FP: "Sen. Rubio has recently proposed yet another
line of critique, and I wonder if this third basket could prove the
administration's undoing: insisting that the eventual deal stick to the
particulars the Obama administration outlined in the famous 'State
Department factsheet.' The Achilles heel of the Obama administration's
Iran policy may very well be that the administration has already publicly
described a deal that is better than the actual deal they will get by the
end of June. This flaw was evident from the very start. What the Obama
administration outlined in the State Department fact sheet was not a
final deal, but rather more like the latest in a series of serious offers
from the administration, but one that had elicited an especially hopeful
response from the Iranian negotiators. Within hours of celebrating the
release of the State Department fact sheet, key Iranian leaders were
challenging various terms and conditions. And what the Iranians left
unchallenged, other experts raised serious doubts about, especially the
plausibility of 'snap back' sanctions. In all likelihood, unless the
administration does a better job of preparing for alternative outcomes,
the Iranians will insist that the Obama administration sweeten the terms
a bit before signing on the dotted line - and Obama, because he has said
there is no viable alternative to signing a deal, will be forced to make
additional compromises. Which is where the latest Rubio 'poison pill'
comes in. Senator Rubio's measure does not demand that Obama sweeten the
deal beyond what Obama has already described as the 'best deal possible.'
Rather, it demands that Obama deliver precisely on what he has already
described as 'his deal.' The administration could have a much harder time
retreating from deal it has already boasted about so publicly. Hoisting
President Obama on his own petard in this way could well prove to be the
most effective line of critique. Even if it does not ultimately derail
the administration, it underscores how far the administration is prepared
to go in order to secure what White House handlers believe will be a
major foreign policy legacy for the president." http://t.uani.com/1FN1x2q
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "As the Senate wraps up debate this week
on Iran legislation, expect to hear a lot about 'hardliners.' The
Senate's alleged hardliners have tried to add conditions to a nuclear
deal the U.S. is currently negotiating with Iranian moderates, but there
is little chance the senators will succeed. The majority leader, Mitch
McConnell, is expected to call for an end to debate on their meddling
amendments. According to a certain school of thought, all of this is a
good thing. Our hardliners, say cheerleaders for the Iran negotiations,
empower Iran's hardliners, who are also wary of a deal. President Obama
views the politics of the Iran deal in these terms himself. Back in March
when Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans sent a letter to Iran's
leaders, reminding them that any deal signed with Obama could be reversed
by Congress or future presidents, the president played the hardliner
card: 'I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress
wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.' There is
definitely a political logic to pinning this 'hardliner' label on the
senators. The White House can artfully shift the conversation away from
the contents of the deal it is negotiating. Instead the debate is framed
as the Americans and Iranians who seek peace (moderates) versus those in
both nations who want war (hardliners). It's simple, but deceptive. This
tactic understates the power of Iran's hardliners and dramatically
overstates the power of U.S. hardliners. In Iran, the people inside the
system who are negotiating a deal, such as Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,
must take the agreement to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
for approval. In Iran, the hardliner approves the deal. In the U.S.
system it's the other way around. Senators like Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton
and Ted Cruz support amendments that would set new conditions before lifting
Congressional sanctions on Iran. But there are not enough votes in the
Senate to overturn an Obama veto on the legislation if these amendments
are attached. In other words, Obama frames the conversation in the U.S.,
because he has the power to ignore his hardliners whereas Zarif is
obliged to placate his... The most important distinction between Iran's
hardliners and America's hardliners however is their political
legitimacy. Iran's people have supported reform, but nonetheless the
country's Revolutionary Guard Corps and domestic spy agency have
tightened the grip on power despite elections when reformers won the
presidency. Contrast their ascent with the plight of Iran's moderates: In
1997, Iranians elected a reformer president, Mohammed Khatami, who
promised to open up Iran's political system. But throughout his
presidency he was unable to stop the arrests of student activists or the
shuttering of opposition newspapers. By the end of Khatami's presidency,
some of his closest advisers were tried in public for charges tantamount
to treason. In 2013, Iranians elected Hassan Rouhani, who ran as a
reformer even though under Khatami he had overseen crackdowns on
reformers. Rouhani has not freed the leaders of the 2009 green movement
from house arrest or most of the activists who protested elections in
2009. When Obama talks about his Iran negotiations, he glosses over all
of this. He emphasizes instead that Rouhani has a mandate to negotiate
and that he is taking advantage of this diplomatic window. Obama had
threatened to veto legislation that would give Congress a chance to
review, but not modify, any agreement the administration reaches with
Iran and five other world powers. Now the president says he will sign the
legislation, but only if it doesn't include the kinds of amendments
favored by the so-called hardliners. After all, those amendments are
unacceptable to the hardliners who actually have sway -- in Iran." http://t.uani.com/1F3Y3dk
|
|
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