|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Al-Monitor:
"Skeptics of the Obama administration's nuclear talks with Iran are
bringing maximum pressure to bear on negotiators ahead of the June 30
deadline for a deal. Key players both on and off Capitol Hill are raising
their voices in the hopes of preventing what they say would be
unacceptable concessions. Their statements suggest that a final agreement
may yet attract broad bipartisan support, even as more conservative
groups are already actively seeking to kill any deal. 'I think it would
be incredibly irresponsible for us not to be raising concerns now and
instead wait until a deal has hatched,' Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told Al-Monitor... Influential
outside groups are taking a similar stance. United Against Nuclear Iran,
under the presidency of former Obama administration arms control
coordinator Gary Samore, for example has begun a multimillion TV and
newspaper campaign ahead of the deadline. The nonprofit advocacy group is
critical of past concessions on uranium enrichment and the easing of many
restrictions after a decade but says it can get behind a final deal if it
avoids further concessions. 'The outstanding items could turn those
concerns into real catastrophic consequences for our national security if
they went the wrong way,' Mark Wallace, the group's CEO and an ambassador
to the UN under President George W. Bush, told Al-Monitor. 'That's why
you're seeing us and others out there saying you can't concede on
inspections, you can't concede on [possible military dimensions of past
nuclear research], you can't give away these last remaining items because
it's just too dangerous.' Wallace said the goal of the campaign was to provide
a 'backstop' for negotiators who might be too eager to reach a successful
deal after more than two years of negotiations. 'As a former diplomat I
feel like I have the moral authority to say that sometimes diplomats get
carried away in the pursuit of a deal rather than always focus on the
merits of a deal,' Wallace said. 'And our role is to remind them that the
merits count here.'" http://t.uani.com/1egpXGR
RFE/RL:
"A spot aired on national television by United Against Nuclear Iran
(UANI) -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan group whose founders include former
U.S. ambassadors and a former CIA director -- claims that concessions
made by the United States in the negotiations go 'too far' and that
'America can't risk more concessions.' UANI announced last week the
launch of 'a multimillion-dollar television, print, radio, digital, and
grassroots campaign' that pushes Washington to take a harder line on key
elements of the deal, including the inspections of nuclear sites, which
have been publicly ruled out by Iranian leaders. The group said the
campaign, which started on June 23, will continue throughout the
negotiation process, including the time allotted to the U.S. Congress to
weigh in on any final nuclear accord. Mark Wallace, UANI's CEO, who
served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under former President
George W. Bush, says Washington already made too many concessions to Iran
under the so-called framework agreement reached in Geneva in April. He
tells RFE/RL that 'further concessions' to Iran on critical issues
regarding its nuclear program could lead to a 'catastrophically bad
agreement.' 'We're trying to elevate the discourse to a level that is
deserved for a foreign policy issue of such great consequences,' Wallace
said. Wallace says his group is concerned that the tentative nuclear
agreement will leave Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact and it would
also allow the country to engage in research on advanced
centrifuges." http://t.uani.com/1LFBKwm
NYT:
"The United States warned Iran on Monday, in both English and
Persian, that a preliminary agreement reached two months ago in
Switzerland must remain the basis for a final nuclear deal. The warning
appeared to reflect concerns among American and European negotiators that
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been attempting to
backtrack on some crucial elements of the April agreement that was forged
in Lausanne, the lakeside resort near Geneva. 'We do see a path forward
to get a comprehensive agreement that meets our bottom lines,' said a senior
United States official, who could not be identified under the ground
rules for briefing reporters. 'This path forward has to be based on the
Lausanne parameters. Period.' ... The United States and its negotiating
partners are no longer trying to meet the original Tuesday deadline for
wrapping up a final accord. Yet American officials hope to conclude the
agreement so it can be submitted by July 9 to Congress, which would then
begin a 30-day review period. 'No one is talking about a long-term
extension' of the negotiating deadline, the official said. 'No
one.'" http://t.uani.com/1LzQU5r
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AFP:
"A system has been reached in talks between Iran and major powers
towards a nuclear deal that will give the UN atomic watchdog access to
all suspect sites, a senior US official said Monday. 'The entry point
isn't we must be able to get into every military site, because the United
States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site,
so that's not appropriate,' the official said. 'But if in the context of
agreement... the IAEA believes it needs access and has a reason for that
access then we have a process that access is given,' the official said on
condition of anonymity. 'We have worked out a process that we believe
will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs.'" http://t.uani.com/1LFE32I
Reuters:
"Iran and six world powers ramped up negotiations on Tuesday after
accepting they would miss a June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal, with
both sides cautioning that major obstacles to a lasting agreement
remained. Diplomats said the Vienna talks would run on for as long as
necessary to reach a deal... 'There are real and tough issues that remain
which have to be resolved in order to get the comprehensive agreement,
and we still do not know yet whether we will be able to get there,' a
senior U.S. administration official told reporters. Zarif flew in on
Tuesday morning with Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, still
recovering from major surgery in May, and immediately went into almost
two hours of private discussions with Kerry. 'I am here to get a final
deal, and I think we can,' he told reporters." http://t.uani.com/1g6x31O
AP:
"Iran's chief diplomat insisted Tuesday he had a mandate to finalize
a nuclear agreement despite increased signs of backtracking by his
country's supreme leader, as talks with world powers were set to blow
past Tuesday's self-imposed deadline without a deal. Returning to the
negotiations in Vienna, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
said the diplomacy had reached a 'very sensitive stage' but that progress
was possible. Asked by a reporter about his meetings at home, he said: 'I
already had a mandate to negotiate and I am here to get a final deal and
I think we can.' He then continued his discussions with U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry." http://t.uani.com/1JupPkK
Reuters:
"The United States on Monday rejected criticism that world powers
negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran have been making too many
compromises, saying it hoped to get a good deal but was not certain that
was achievable... The U.S. official was asked to respond to public
criticism of the U.S. delegation in the talks and suggestions that the
administration of President Barack Obama had been making too many
concessions out of desperation to do a deal. 'We still do not know yet
whether we will be able to get there,' he said. 'We want to, we hope to,
but we do not know.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday
accused the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China of
retreating from tough positions in the talks. 'We see before our very
eyes a stark retreat from the red lines that the world powers set
themselves only recently, and publicly,' he said. 'There is no reason to
hasten into signing this bad deal, which is getting worse by the day.'
The U.S. official said the United States would not have spent endless time
on negotiations just to give in at the end. 'It's really absurd,' the
official said. 'If we were going to cave, I could be home already and I
would be a really happy person ... we would have done that a long time
ago,' the official said. 'Why would we be spending the hours doing this
in the way we are if, you know, we were just (going to say to Iran) well
whatever you want, you got.'" http://t.uani.com/1T0TmnD
AP:
"World powers and Iran prepared to move past Tuesday's deadline for
a comprehensive nuclear agreement, with officials suggesting significant
backtracking by Tehran's negotiators that may need several more days of
discussions to resolve... Several signs pointed toward Iranian
intransigence and perhaps even backsliding on a framework it reached with
world powers three months ago. At a briefing for some three dozen, mainly
American, reporters, a senior U.S. official repeated several times that
the final package must be based on the April parameters - 'period.'"
http://t.uani.com/1KqGmWU
AP:
"The Iranian nuclear talks are playing out in classic fashion: A
self-imposed deadline appears to have been extended due to stubborn
disputes, with the sides publicly sticking to positions and facing
internal pressure from opponents ready to pounce on any compromise.
Should the talks actually collapse, the alternatives are not appealing.
The war option that the United States has kept on the table has few fans,
and the world community does not seem willing to impose truly crippling
sanctions. A dangerous period of uncertainty looms. Which way it goes may
depend on which side needs a deal the most. Iran might seem the weaker
party, with sanctions harming its economy. But its authoritarian regime
puts up a convincingly brave front, and the Obama Administration, with its
legacy on the line, seems at least as determined to conclude a
deal." http://t.uani.com/1U3RPPh
Politico:
"As he meets with Iranian officials in search of a nuclear deal in
the coming days, John Kerry may sense another presence in Vienna's Palais
Coburg hotel: his legacy. Over his 30-year political career, Kerry has
long been knocked for delivering more talk than results. Achieving a
nuclear deal he first began pursuing even before he became secretary of
state could redefine his place in history. And that, Republican critics,
foreign officials, and even some ex-administration officials say, is a
big problem. Kerry's eagerness for a deal, they argue, risks that the
Iranians will seduce him into a bad one. 'I don't know how anyone who has
observed Kerry over the past two years would think differently,' says a
former administration official who worked on Iran issues... Dennis Ross,
another former senior Middle East aide under Obama with long experience
in diplomatic negotiations said the key to effective deal making is
'being able to show you have a genuine interest in a deal but can live
without one.'" http://t.uani.com/1Hs7W3E
JTA:
"In nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers, it's deadline
time, and skeptics on both sides are laying out red lines in a bid to
shape a final deal. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader who had
been wary of the talks, last week outlined his own expectations for the
deal - and where there would be no compromise. On the American side, a
five-point memo circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee has been influential in shaping how Congress and others are
pressing the Obama administration... Khamenei's June 23 broadside to
Iranian government officials and AIPAC's memo, 'Five Requirements for a
Good Deal,' circulating for about a month, are being treated by experts
on the talks as baselines for must-convince skeptics in both countries:
the religious establishment in Iran and Congress in the United States.
Under legislation passed in May, Congress gets an up or down vote on a
deal... Congressional insiders say the AIPAC memo features prominently in
conversations lawmakers from both parties are having with administration
officials. It has also influenced other American groups seeking a say in
the process. A letter last week organized by the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy setting out concerns about the emerging deal and signed
by 18 former government officials has a similar five-point format." http://t.uani.com/1egqb0B
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Asian imports of Iranian crude rose to the highest level this year
in May, although buyers may have to curb any further increases if
negotiators up against a deadline fail to reach a final deal on Tehran's
disputed nuclear programme... Imports by Iran's four biggest buyers -
China, India, Japan and South Korea - totalled 1.2 million bpd last
month, down 1.9 percent from a year ago and the highest since 1.21
million bpd in December, government and tanker-tracking data showed...
India's imports of Iranian crude oil rose 66 percent from a year earlier
in to their highest level since March 2014." http://t.uani.com/1BTMJPv
Reuters:
"India has asked refiners that owe about $6.5 billion to Iran for
oil imports to build up dollar and euro balances to avoid downward
pressure on the rupee if six world powers and Tehran reach a final
nuclear deal. Local refiners still owe Iran about 55 percent of the bill
for crude bought since February 2013, when a route to pay for Iranian oil
through Turkey's Halkbank was stopped under pressure from U.S. and
European sanctions... Once an agreement is reached, Iran would likely ask
for payment of its oil dues, India's oil ministry said in a June 11
letter to refiners that was seen by Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1GWIaDe
Human Rights
CBS:
"Kerry and President Obama are keen to see the deal finalized as a
major credit to the administration's foreign policy credentials, but as
CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports, no one has a more
personal stake in the negotiations than the four Americans currently
imprisoned or missing in Iran. With the U.S. and Iran talking for the
first time in more than 30 years, their families believe that this is the
best chance to bring their loved ones home, and they've come to Vienna to
lobby for their release. For Sara Hekmati, a breakthrough in Vienna isn't
a landmark nuclear accord with Iran -- it's getting her 31-year-old
brother out of one of the country's most notorious prisons... U.S.
officials say that at every meeting with the Iranians, they implore them
to release these Americans but, so far, that has not been enough to bring
them home." http://t.uani.com/1LzXglq
IHR:
"According to official reports, Iranian authorities carried out two
amputation sentences in the Central Prison of Mashhad on Sunday (during
the Muslim holy month of Ramadan). One of the prisoners was identified by
Khorassan newspaper as M.A., 26 years old, accused of theft by breaking
into a residential home and stealing money... The other prisoner,
reportedly charged with ten counts of theft, was transferred to the
Central Prison of Mashhad for the execution of his sentence.'" http://t.uani.com/1R1BOKA
Foreign Affairs
Reuters:
"France has asked its firms to prepare a return to Iran ahead of a
likely deal with powers to curb Tehran's nuclear program, but Paris'
tough stance in talks and ties with Sunni Arab states means its
'love-hate' relationship with Iran will continue... 'Everyone is looking
at Iran with greed,' said a senior French official. 'It's an important
market, but it's not the only one. There was a strategic decision to be
made on who could face Iran as it pushes its pawns in the region. That's
Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That's the choice we've made.'" http://t.uani.com/1R1ypvd
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Advisory
Board Member Michael Singh in WSJ: "With reports
suggesting that the June 30 deadline for a deal on Iran's nuclear will be
missed, just as previous negotiating deadlines were, we're on the brink
of not an end but a new phase in this diplomatic saga. After July 9, the
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act-which President Barack Obama signed
into law last month-mandates that Congress gets an additional 30 days to
review the accord, or 60 total. During this period, the president would
not be permitted to extend Iran any sanctions relief beyond that
stipulated by the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action. By the standards of
the Middle East today, two months is an eternity-and the Obama
administration is surely wary of leaving an accord in diplomatic limbo
for that long. Such a period would give Iranian opponents of a deal time
to appeal to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; give time for
events in Syria, Iraq, or elsewhere to disrupt diplomacy; and/or allow
critics in the U.S. to organize opposition to an agreement. Such fears
could tempt negotiators on both sides to consider a diplomatic gambit
that would lock the accord in place before Congress has its say. Per the
framework parameters the U.S. announced April 2, the U.N. Security
Council resolutions penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities will be
replaced as part of a final deal. This new resolution would formally
endorse the agreement and establish mechanisms such as a new
International Atomic Energy Agency inspection regime and a 'procurement
channel' governing Iranian imports of sensitive technology. It would also
re-impose sanctions on 'conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well
as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset
freezes.' Taking such action at the U.N. before or during the
congressional review period could, however, render Congress moot. Even if
lawmakers disapproved of the deal, it will have been granted legitimacy
by the U.N. Security Council's action and international sanctions against
Iran will have been lifted. Other countries would judge that they had
sufficient basis to proceed according to the deal's provisions with or
without U.S. participation, though some might hesitate if the
administration declared its intention to abide by Congress's decision and
continue enforcing U.S. sanctions. Whatever the administration's
preference, the president signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
into law; accordingly, he should not cast a vote at the Security Council
until Congress has had its chance to weigh in... All this means that the
best course of action for the U.S. and its European allies would be to
present Iran with a take-it-or-leave-it offer, walk away without
committing to renew negotiations, and continue unilaterally adhering to
the Joint Plan's limits, as long as the Iranians do likewise. At the same
time, Washington should visibly prepare its backup options-new and
resumed sanctions or even a military strike-in coordination with allies
to convey to Tehran that the status quo can only deteriorate, not
improve, should its intransigence continue." http://t.uani.com/1RPO5wW
Ahmad El-Assaad in
WSJ: "Ever since it entered the Syrian civil war,
the Iranian-funded Lebanese-Shiite terror outfit Hezbollah has suffered
tremendously and in many different ways. Over the past two years, more
than 1,000 Hezbollah fighters have died in that war, and the Lebanese
people's resentment toward the group has increased. Lebanese Shiites who
don't belong to Hezbollah have also been targeted for scorn by the rest
of the country, even though many of us oppose its vicious ways. Long gone
are the days when a large portion of the Lebanese population believed
that Hezbollah is there to protect them and Lebanon. The mask has fallen
off. Most Lebanese now see Hezbollah for what it is: a militia that works
for the Iranian regime and must therefore obey Tehran's orders. And to
quiet the disenchanted voices, to make them dare not speak out,
especially in the Shiite areas, Hezbollah has become more oppressive than
ever. The war in Syria has been a big financial burden on Hezbollah as
well. The cash coming from Tehran is not what it used to be. In many
Shiite neighborhoods, Hezbollah is asking people for donations. This has
weakened the image of Hezbollah, as people see that its coffers are no
longer filled as they once were. Most young men join Hezbollah not
because they believe in its talk about 'resistance,' but simply because
it's the only option for the poor, unemployed and uneducated Shiites to
earn a few hundred dollars a month. The source of Hezbollah's financial
troubles is obvious: The Iranian regime has spent exorbitant sums trying
to support and sustain the Assad regime in Damascus. With a population of
approximately 80 million, Iran's gross domestic product is only $369
billion. The United Arab Emirates, by comparison, with a population of
nine million, has a GDP of $402 billion. Yet despite its penurious
position, Iran continues to ignore its domestic and social problems.
Instead, just like the old Soviet Union, it is stretching its influence
throughout the Middle East as if it were an economic powerhouse, not an
economic disaster. Furthermore, Tehran views Hezbollah's results over the
past 33 years as such a success that it is now franchising it. From Hamas
in the Palestinian territories to the Sadrists in Iraq to the Houthis in
Yemen, these proxy terrorist organizations are an exact replica of
Hezbollah. Now the Obama administration is negotiating a flawed nuclear
deal with the Iranian regime that will see Tehran get a windfall of up to
$150 billion. With so much cash on hand, Tehran would surely create new
Hezbollah franchises elsewhere in the Middle East and order all these
radical proxy groups to wage even more wars in the region. At the very
least, Tehran would be eager to give a good boost to its pride and
joy-Hezbollah-and help it buy its way out of the problems it is facing in
Lebanon now. I recently met in Washington D.C. with senators, members of
Congress and think-tank analysts. When I shared my worries with those
close to the Obama administration, the response was, 'Let's get a deal
now on the nuclear issue and then we'll work out a plan on how to stand
up to this Iranian invasion of the Middle East.' When I pressed them
further on the matter, I got no answers... It has become clear to me that
there is no plan. At best, if there will ever be a plan, it will be as
successful as the one we see unfolding today against Islamic State. There
is no doubt that a nuclear deal with Iran would be a nightmare for my
beloved Lebanon and for all the other countries in the Middle East that
are controlled, or could be controlled, by Iranian proxy groups... To
those who say that this nuclear deal is a recipe for peace, I say that
this deal is an invitation for more wars in the Middle East." http://t.uani.com/1Ns7Slh
Rep. Ted Deutch
(D-FL) in the Sun Sentinel: "The objective of the
United States in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran is not to reach an
agreement by June 30; it is to reach an agreement that verifiably
prevents Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons capability. When
negotiators announced that they had arrived at a framework for a deal
back in April, we were told that the purpose of the next June 30th
deadline was to have a timeline for working out the mere 'technical
details' that remained. What we have learned since then, however, is that
the unresolved issues are not small technical details but actually
matters of great consequence. Chief among them is the possibility,
recently floated by Secretary John Kerry, of a final deal that fails to
require the Iranian regime to fully disclose the possible military
dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear program. Failing to require such
transparency from Iran would undermine the enforceability of any deal.
That's because the weapons inspectors who will be charged with monitoring
Iran's compliance with an agreement are the same weapons inspectors that
Iran has blatantly ignored, obstructed, and disrespected for the past
decade. For years, weapons inspectors at the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) have documented Iran's repeated violations of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, from building an illicit underground nuclear
procurement network to conducting warhead research in secret facilities.
Indeed, it was the IAEA's referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council
in 2006 that spurred the passage of numerous resolutions calling for Iran
to suspend enrichment and give inspectors greater access to Iran's
nuclear facilities, scientists, and suspected military sites. And since
Iran entered into an agreement with the IAEA to resolve outstanding
concerns in November 2013, the regime has continued to stonewall the
efforts of inspectors to determine the extent of Iran's nuclear weapons
program... After years of calling for compliance with the IAEA, for the
United States and our P5+1 partners to adopt an agreement that allows
Iran to retain a nuclear enrichment program without first answering for
its past behavior, sends the regime the dangerous message that ignoring
the IAEA has no repercussions. We cannot have confidence in a deal that
provides Iran, the world's number one state sponsor of terror, with
access to over $100 billion in frozen assets without demanding it
recognize the authority of international weapons inspectors charged with
verifying Iran's satisfaction of what must be an extensive set of
preconditions to sanctions relief. Given Iran's long history of
deception, there is no accountability without robust transparency... We
hope that diplomacy with Iran succeeds. Yet giving Iran a pass on these
issues from the beginning not only neuters the IAEA, but undermines our
chances of reaching any deal that could be worthy of support. With so
many nations around the world invested in a diplomatic solution that
prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there is no value in
meeting a deadline if the majority in Congress views it as a bad deal. As
Senator Bob Corker recently said to Secretary of State John Kerry, 'If it
takes longer to get the right deal, take longer, please.' The Senator is
right. Our ability to maintain intense economic pressure on Iran gives us
no reason to stop negotiating until we are satisfied that all paths to
nuclear weapons capability are cut off. That means a deal that empowers
instead of delegitimizes the IAEA." http://t.uani.com/1GK3Xuv
Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-TX) in the Washington Examiner: "We are on the
cusp of the latest deadline for a final agreement over Iran's nuclear
weapons program. In the next few days, we may see a signed deal that
reflects the framework announced by the Obama administration and Iranian
negotiators back in April. It is an emerging agreement that almost no
one, including former advisers to President Obama, believes would be a
strong deal that sufficiently advances U.S. interests and bolsters our
national security. Indeed, the ayatollahs would have good reason to
celebrate. They will likely be able to trumpet an internationally
recognized right to enrich nuclear material, Iran's reentry into the
global economy, the right to maintain a hardened underground research
facility, the ability to stiff-arm international inspections and a 10 to
15-year glide path toward an unfettered nuclear program. Such a deal
would satisfy the ayatollahs' dual strategic goals of eliminating the
international sanctions regime that has hampered Iran's economy and
maintaining nuclear weapons breakout capability. The achievement of both
goals would significantly enhance Iran's regional influence, insulate it
from outside pressure and more deeply entrench the revolutionary regime
of the ayatollahs... The core reasons the U.S. has long sought the
dismantlement of Iran's nuclear weapons program are simple. First, a
theocratic revolutionary regime that is the top state sponsor of
terrorism would pose an unacceptable risk should it obtain nuclear weapons
capability. Iran's ayatollahs have already been killing Americans for
more than three decades. They are the lead financier and arms supplier of
Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, terrorist organizations
dedicated to destroying Israel, and they've murdered Jews around the
world. If Iran commits these crimes against the West now, imagine what
Iran would do with a nuclear umbrella. Second, if Shiite Iran possesses
breakout capability, its Sunni Arab rivals will also seek to obtain it,
sparking a cascade of proliferation across the region. The Middle East is
turbulent, with intersecting tensions and high probabilities for military
miscalculation. Turning the region into a nuclear tinderbox could portend
global catastrophe. It is difficult to see how either of these outcomes
would be foreclosed by the agreement likely to be signed by the Obama
administration. The pending accord would not deny Iran nuclear weapons
capability. Instead - and by design - it affords Iran that capability and
only seeks to persuade the ayatollahs not to order the actual
construction of a nuclear weapon. This is folly. Allowing Iran to keep a
significant nuclear infrastructure will enable the regime to continue
research on advanced centrifuge technology and shorten the time it will
take to make a dash for nuclear breakout. And Iran may use the veneer of
a legitimized supply chain to mask illicit work on nuclear weapons... To
prevent the nuclearization of the Mideast, we need an agreement that
verifiably denies Iran nuclear weapons capability. Administration
officials may deride this position as a 'pie-in-the-sky' proposal that
the Iranians will never accept. But this obscures the fact that it had
been the consensus U.S. position for years until the Obama administration
backed away from it in the current negotiations... But it is not too late
to reverse course. President Obama has said on numerous occasions that no
deal is better than a bad deal. And make no mistake: The deal currently
envisioned is a bad deal. That is not only my opinion. A consensus is
building among national security experts - including former inner-circle
advisers to President Obama on Iran - that the pending accord gives away
the store to the Iranians. The president should take his own counsel
regarding a bad deal. He should continue talks past tomorrow's artificial
deadline for however long it takes to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons
capability. That would be a strategic gain for which lifting sanctions
would be justified. Failing that, the president should cite Iranian
intransigence, break off talks, reinstate the full spectrum of economic
sanctions and fortify the credible threat of military force. What the
ayatollahs respect is strength. And this is a moment - perhaps more than
any other time of his presidency - for President Obama to be
strong." http://t.uani.com/1T10noF
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
It is
cocktail hour on an April afternoon in 2004.. The sun is hot on Amsterdam's
canals, and I am sitting at Café den Leeuw on the Herengracht with Ayaan
Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is still a member of the Dutch Parliament, and we talk
about Islam. Specifically, we talk about the concept of "moderate
Islam," or what she calls "liberal Islam." And she has one
word for it.
Posts
