|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"Following the playbook of their crusade against the Affordable Care
Act, congressional Republicans on Friday showed no sign of letting up in
their effort to pressure the White House over the Iran nuclear accord,
even after the Senate effectively settled the matter and blocked a
Republican resolution aimed at stopping the deal. The House, as expected,
rejected the Iran deal overwhelmingly, a vote that was sharply along
partisan lines. Some House Republicans also said they were contemplating
a lawsuit that would claim that the White House failed to disclose the
full details of the nuclear accord as required by a law adopted last
spring. And the Senate has scheduled a repeat vote on Tuesday, trying to
bait any wavering Democrats to switch their position... On Friday, House
Republicans began venting their rage by forcing Democrats to vote on a
resolution approving the Iran agreement rather than on the
long-anticipated measure disapproving the accord - a maneuver intended to
show how little support the deal had in the Republican-controlled
chamber, and to force Democrats to be on record in backing the
agreement... The measure in support of the Iran deal failed with 244
Republicans and 25 Democrats voting against it and 162 Democrats in
favor. While the vote certainly demonstrated Republican opposition, it
also showed the success of a concerted effort by Democratic leaders to
build support for the Iran deal. The 162 Democrats in favor was
comfortably above the 146 needed to sustain a presidential veto in the
event that Republicans had managed to pass legislation rejecting the
accord. In the Senate, Democrats also have a comfortable margin to
sustain a veto. House Republicans also approved a measure barring Mr.
Obama from easing sanctions against Iran, which is a core component of
the deal. The bill, which bars the easing of sanctions until the day
after Mr. Obama leaves office, was approved by a vote of 247 to 186, with
just two Democrats joining 245 Republicans in favor. All 186 opposed were
Democrats." http://t.uani.com/1gmi6rL
Sky News:
"Iran has released five senior al Qaeda operatives from detention
and will soon allow them to leave the country, prompting fears they will
join other terrorists in Syria planning attacks on the West. According to
intelligence sources, three of the five are members of al Qaeda's ruling
committee the Shura Council. They were released in exchange for an
Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Yemen earlier this year. The move comes not
long after the American-led coalition in Syria bombed and killed several
members of an organisation known as the Khorasan Group - an al Qaeda
network based in Syria but focusing on planning attacks in the West using
operatives with foreign passports. Among those killed was Mohsin al
Fadhli, who had also been based in Iran and was released by Tehran.
Intelligence sources said that while the Shi'a theocracy of Iran and the
Sunni extremist group al Qaeda were theoretical enemies, there has been
an 'understanding' that the two would avoid attacks on one another and
focus on battling the 'shared threat' of the West. Among those released
in exchange for the Iranian diplomat was Abu al Kheir al Masri - the
former head of al Qaeda's 'external relations' committee, who was once
seen as a possible replacement for Osama bin Laden at the top of the
organisation. Alongside him was Saif al Adel - considered Number Three in
the al Qaeda hierarchy, according to an intelligence report seen by Sky
News." http://t.uani.com/1OpY9hO
NYT:
"Having beaten back a congressional campaign to derail his nuclear
agreement with Iran, President Obama now faces a panoply of challenges
that may be just as daunting: making the deal actually work while
repairing relations with disaffected allies and constraining Tehran's
regional ambitions... Supporters and critics alike say Mr. Obama must go
much further by detailing how the United States and other world powers
intend to enforce and monitor the nuclear agreement as Iran begins to
dismantle centrifuges and open facilities to inspectors. And they say he needs
to develop a comprehensive approach to countering Iran's support for
terrorist and rebel groups in the Middle East. 'The deal has to now be
embedded in a larger Iran strategy, and that is key to re-engaging and
reinvigorating with allies and partners in the region,' said Michèle A.
Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense for Mr. Obama and now chief
executive of the Center for a New American Security in Washington... Gary
Samore, a former arms control adviser to Mr. Obama, said Iran had a
strong incentive to carry out the necessary steps in the next few months,
but it could be complicated by internal politics... Moreover, Mr. Samore
said, there are already signs that Iran is supporting Hezbollah as it
sets up a new position in southern Syria from which Israel fears new
rocket attacks. The president, he said, needs to find a way to counter
such actions... Mark Wallace, a former Bush administration diplomat who
is now chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran, an advocacy group
that opposed the nuclear deal, said Mr. Obama should still discourage
American companies from rushing into Iran just because some sanctions are
to be lifted. 'The United States and its allies need to send a message
that just because we're lifting sanctions in the nuclear area does not
mean that Iran is open for business,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1UPjCWl
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
Reuters:
"United Nations inspectors will be present with Iranian technicians
as they take samples from a key military site, two Western diplomats
said, undercutting an objection by U.S. Republicans to the nuclear deal
between Iran and world powers. The diplomats were familiar with details
of a confidential arrangement between Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog
for inspections at the Parchin site, where some countries suspect nuclear
weapons-related tests may have taken place... An August report by the
Associated Press, in its original version, said the agreement on Parchin
suggested that IAEA inspectors would be barred from the site and would have
to rely on information and environmental samples provided by Iranian
technicians... But the Western diplomats told Reuters that while Iranians
would be allowed to take the samples themselves, the agency's inspectors
would be physically present and would have full access to their activity.
'There was a compromise so the Iranians could save face and the IAEA
could ensure it carried out its inspections according to their strict
requirements,' said one of the diplomats. Inspections
at the Parchin site, which is about 30 km (19 miles) southeast of Tehran,
would by carried out by mixed IAEA and Iranian teams coupled with cameras
overlooking and recording the process, the other diplomat said. 'The IAEA
will be present when the Iranians take the samples (at Parchin). This
approach to managed access is something that's fairly standard in the
IAEA toolbox. Nothing to worry about really,' the diplomat said." http://t.uani.com/1MmAkIl
Reuters:
"Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and
will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the
head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said on Saturday. The comments
cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said
the country had a low supply and sooner or later would need to import
uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program. Any indication
Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world
powers... Some Western analysts have previously said that Iran was close
to exhausting its supply of yellowcake - or raw uranium - and that mining
it domestically was not cost-efficient. A report published in 2013 by
U.S. think-tanks Carnegie Endowment and the Federation of American
Scientists said the scarcity and low quality of Iran's uranium resources
compelled it 'to rely on external sources of natural and processed
uranium.'" http://t.uani.com/1FIg6kq
AP:
"The head of the U.N.'s nuclear test ban treaty organization says
Iran should follow up on its historic nuclear deal with world powers by
ratifying the treaty and assuring it will never conduct a nuclear test
explosion. Lassina Zerbo said in an interview Friday with The Associated
Press that if Iran doesn't ratify the treaty, 'it will leave room for the
doubt that people have put in this deal and the good intentions of Iran.'
Zerbo said Iran should have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty, known as the CTBT, before negotiations started on the deal to
rein in its nuclear program, in order to give assurances to critics that
it has no intention to develop nuclear weapons - and that there is a
religious prohibition, or 'fatwa,' against possessing them, issued in
2013 by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ratifying the
treaty now, he said, will assure doubters in the United States and
elsewhere that before or after the nuclear agreement ends in 15 years,
Iran will never conduct any nuclear test explosions in a search to
develop nuclear weapons." http://t.uani.com/1Oq6Zfx
AFP:
Iran's foreign minister said Sunday that Washington must honour a nuclear
deal between Tehran and major powers once implementation begins and block
any attempt by lawmakers to meddle with it... 'In our view, any measures
in violation of JCPOA by Congress should be stopped by the United States
government,' he said. 'This government, as well as future US governments,
is obliged to implement JCPOA, in case it is implemented.' http://t.uani.com/1Kau9mT
AFP:
"Iran's foreign ministry said on Friday that the United States had
no option but to strike a nuclear deal with Tehran... [Foreign ministry
spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham] said the United States 'was forced into
negotiating' the deal with Iran due do the 'failure of the US policy of
sanctions and threats', the agency reported... 'The US president, fruitlessly,
tries to claim the results of the nuclear negotiations, but the truth is
... the US had no alternative but giving up its excessive demands,'
Afkham said. 'The world would definitely be safer when the US
administration ends its authoritarian behaviour and prevents the
destabilising and warmongering actions by its allies,' she added." http://t.uani.com/1NrEQ73
AP:
"The head of Iran's nuclear agency says the deal his country struck
with six world powers over its nuclear program showed Iran's resistance to
pressure and threats. Ali Akbar Salehi also says the agreement is a move
to end a 'contrived and unnecessary crisis.' ... Salehi spoke Monday at
the opening session of the IAEA's 165-country annual General Assembly. He
said the deal shows the failure of sanctions and 'military
threats.'" http://t.uani.com/1LtNcq7
Congressional Vote
The Hill:
"Opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran may have lost round one,
but they're not giving up the fight yet. After this week's failure of
legislation to kill the agreement outright, GOP lawmakers in both
chambers are plotting additional attacks to either undercut the deal or
force Democrats to cast the same vote all over again. 'This debate is far
from over and, frankly, it's just beginning,' House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio) pledged this week. 'This is a bad deal with decades-long
consequences for the security of the American people and our allies,' he
added. 'And we'll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay
this agreement from being fully implemented.' In the Senate, the second
verse is going to look a lot like the first.Moments after Senate
Democrats successfully filibustered legislation opposing the deal,
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Thursday that lawmakers
will be back at it on Tuesday, voting again to take up the same exact
bill. 'We'll revisit the issue next week, and see if maybe any
folks want to change their minds,' McConnell said in a furious speech
from the Senate floor. The House's immediate game plan is more nuanced...
In particular, the House created the grounds to sue the Obama
administration this week, members claim, by voting 245-186 to accuse the
White House of breaking the law by failing to hand over secret bilateral
agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Speaking with reporters this week, Boehner said that a lawsuit 'is an
option that is very possible.'" http://t.uani.com/1VXJtIX
CNN:
"President Barack Obama's big policy win this week -- preventing
Congress from blocking the nuclear agreement with Iran -- may do little
to improve his sagging approval ratings. A new CNN/ORC poll finds 59%
disapprove of the way Obama is handling the U.S. relationship with Iran,
and about half would have preferred Congress reject the deal. Few believe
Iran will abide by its terms, and a growing number consider the country a
serious threat to the U.S. Most Americans think Iran will ultimately
violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that extremely
likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it's not at all likely
that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and
independents (58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would violate the
agreement than are Democrats (44% likely). If Iran did violate the deal,
64% of all adults say the United States should respond with military
action, including majorities across party lines (57% of Democrats, 64% of
independents and 72% of Republicans). About a third, 34%, say the United
States should not take military action if the deal is broken. Perceptions
of threats from North Korea, Russia and Iran have all grown since April,
but the biggest increase lies with Iran. Nearly half (49%) now say they
consider Iran a 'very serious' threat to the United States, up 10 points
since April. That shift came across party lines with double-digit
increases in the percentage viewing Iran as a very serious threat among
both Democrats (up 14 points to 43%) and Republicans (up 15 points to
68%)." http://t.uani.com/1NzhKNp
Reuters:
"President Barack Obama will likely hold talks with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early November, the White House said on
Friday, their first meeting since U.S.-led diplomacy resulted in an Iran
nuclear deal that Israel fiercely opposed. Efforts to arrange a White House
visit by Netanyahu appear aimed at easing tensions between Washington and
its closest Middle East ally now that Obama's Democrats in the U.S.
Senate have blocked a Republican bid to derail the landmark Iran
agreement... White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the exact date for
the meeting was still being finalized but that it was likely to be in
early November. 'It's an indication that despite our well-known
differences on even some key issues, the bond between the United States
and Israel when it comes to our security relationship is unshakeable,' he
told reporters at the daily White House briefing. Earnest said the talks
with Netanyahu would include a discussion on deepening U.S.-Israeli
security cooperation." http://t.uani.com/1FIbISD
AP:
"A lame-duck president, an empowered opposition, a looming election:
They're hardly the ingredients for a resounding White House triumph. Yet
President Barack Obama clinched a huge victory on the Iran nuclear deal
in Congress this past week when Senate Democrats blocked GOP attempts to
get a disapproval resolution to his desk and frustrated House Republicans
settled for passing two related measures destined to go nowhere. The
outcome was especially notable for a White House with a history of
bungling legislative initiatives on Capitol Hill, and a president known
for a hands-off relationship with lawmakers, even his own Democrats. This
time was different, according to administration officials and lawmakers
of both parties. The reasons involved policy, politics and a president
looking for one last big success to burnish his foreign policy legacy.
Obama threw everything into uniting Democrats behind the accord, writing
letters and flying lawmakers on Air Force One with him to Africa. House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave the White House the names of
57 House Democrats to call in August; Obama called each one... In the
days after the agreement was finalized in July, the White House set up a
command center in the West Wing basement to oversee outreach efforts to Congress."
http://t.uani.com/1KO0pzK
WSJ:
"Six days after reaching the nuclear deal with Iran, the White House
in July set up what aides dubbed an 'anti-war room' in the basement of
the West Wing. The windowless hub became the seat of the administration's
aggressive campaign to push back against critics of the deal. Whiteboards
listed lawmakers' positions. Computer screens logged onto Twitter to
monitor commentary from opponents, and a small television helped staffers
keep tabs on the cable-news debate. For weeks, the operation buzzed with
senior White House officials, digital gurus and rank-and-file aides
running a rapid-response operation. The 'anti-war' name of the room
underscored the White House's realization earlier this year that the
nuclear deal was unlikely to win any Republican votes in Congress and
would require a battle plan focused on mustering support among Democrats
skeptical of the deal. It also reflected a chief White House message:
Those who supported the nuclear deal favored diplomacy; opponents favored
war with Iran... 'The primary focus was securing the support of
Democrats,' said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. The
resulting narrow, partisan victory this week leaves President Barack
Obama's top foreign-policy initiative vulnerable to challenges and
vigorous debate in the 2016 campaigns, much like his signature domestic
achievement, the Affordable Care Act, which defined elections and shaped
congressional deliberations over the past five years." http://t.uani.com/1FIizv7
WashPost:
"President Obama's legislative victory this week on the Iran nuclear
deal may not have occurred without a phone call in mid-July from Sen.
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), shortly after international negotiators in
Vienna had signed the historic agreement. Details of the pact had barely
begun coursing through Washington, and few Democratic lawmakers had yet
taken an explicit position ahead of what promised to be an intense
congressional debate - including Durbin, the Senate minority whip. But
with that call, he quietly started the most consequential effort in his
decade-long tenure as the Senate Democrats' chief vote counter. 'I want
to do this,' he recalled telling White House Chief of Staff Denis
McDonough. 'Let me start finding out where members are and let you
know.'" http://t.uani.com/1MmHoEJ
AP:
"Two senators who grew up hearing stories of the Holocaust say the
memories of their relatives provided strong lessons about why they should
support the nuclear accord with Iran. Some of the most strident opponents
of the agreement have invoked the Holocaust in an effort to defeat the
agreement, arguing the deal could enhance Iran's ability to build a bomb,
leading to the destruction of Israel. But those arguments failed to sway
Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Michael Bennet of Colorado, both Democrats.
Wyden and Bennet both grew up hearing the horror stories firsthand."
http://t.uani.com/1UPstY8
Sanctions
Relief
WSJ:
"Iran could become a major supplier of natural gas to the European
Union by the end of the next decade, according to new estimates from the
bloc's executive following the nuclear deal reached with Tehran this
summer. The European Commission now believes that the bloc could import
between 25 billion and 35 billion cubic meters of gas a year from Iran by
2030, according to a European official and a representative of a European
energy company... Western governments and energy companies have been
positioning themselves to once again tap Iran's rich oil and gas reserves
since the prospects of a nuclear deal-and a resulting easing of sanctions
on Tehran-improved earlier this year. Earlier this month, the EU's energy
and climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, held a lunch meeting with
delegates from European energy companies, including RWE AG , E.On AG , BP
PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Repsol SA, Total SA, Engie SA and Statoil AS
A-to discuss possibilities in Iran. The get-together followed contacts
between commission staff and officials in Tehran, the European official
said, as well as recent visits to Iran by ministers from the U.K.,
France, Italy, Poland, Germany and Spain, among others... A
representative from a European energy company also said the meeting on
Sept. 4 was meant to encourage European firms to actively pursue ties in
Iran. 'They were trying to make sure that European companies aren't
feeling constrained to go along,' the representative said." http://t.uani.com/1M6yLv2
Reuters:
"Kuwait and Iran have cut their crude oil prices to Asia to
multi-year lows against top exporter Saudi Arabia as the battle for
market share among producers pits member of Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) against each other. Kuwait, one of the
lowest-cost producers, cut its October price to Asia by 60 cents compared
with the previous month, undercutting a reduction for a similar Saudi
grade. This pulled Kuwaiti oil to its biggest discount to Saudi crude in
over a decade, at 65 cents a barrel. Last week, Iran cut the quarterly
price differential for its flagship light crude against Saudi's Arab
Light to the lowest in three years. The price cuts come as Asia's
economies slow and amid discussions for next year's supplies between
producers and refiners. Also, Iran is looking to elbow its way back into
its previous market share once sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme
are lifted, expected by the middle of next year." http://t.uani.com/1QAhYCl
AFP:
"A campaign to boycott 'substandard and expensive' Iranian-made cars
has fired up social media in the Islamic republic, where its supporters
have been accused of anti-revolutionary treason. Iranians are turning to
the Internet to vent long-simmering dissatisfaction with a domestic car
industry dominated by producers Iran Khodro and Saipa, following years of
sanctions that led to the exit of foreign makers. Iran's automakers 'have
put profit before their conscience', wrote Vali, a user of the messaging
service Telegram. 'The lives of many have been lost to technical faults.'
Almost 20,000 people die on Iran's roads each year, and police say faulty
cars are partly to blame... 'Creating and supporting campaigns not to buy
cars is treason to the national interests,' the trade, mining and
industry minister Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh said recently, quoted by the
Fars news agency. 'This campaign is wrong and sinful and
anti-revolutionary, and it would inflict damage on the domestic economy,'
he said, in remarks that sparked an online backlash. 'Imposing
substandard, expensive and unexportable cars on the nation is treason to
the people and Iran's industry,' retorted Twitter user Hassan
Mostafavi." http://t.uani.com/1FIcfnz
Syria Conflict
NYT:
"Russia is using an air corridor over Iraq and Iran to fly military
equipment and personnel to a new air hub in Syria, openly defying
American efforts to block the shipments and significantly increasing
tensions with Washington. American officials disclosed Sunday that at
least seven giant Russian Condor transport planes had taken off from a
base in southern Russia during the past week to ferry equipment to Syria,
all passing through Iranian and Iraqi airspace. Their destination was an
airfield south of Latakia, Syria, which could become the most significant
new Russian military foothold in the Middle East in decades, American
officials said... The Russian move could serve multiple purposes,
according to analysts. In addition to strengthening Mr. Assad and
buttressing the Kremlin's plan to create a new anti-ISIL coalition that
includes Iran and the Syrian government, it positions Russia to have
major influence in Syria's future and draws attention away from Russia's
intervention in Ukraine." http://t.uani.com/1QcArUA
Iraq Crisis
NYT:
"American troops advising Iraqi security forces in restive Anbar
Province are sharing a base with odd bedfellows: an Iranian-backed
militia that once killed United States soldiers. Both are fighting the
militants of the Islamic State. Here in the capital, though, Tehran and
Washington still line up on opposite sides. The United States is urging
the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government to do more to enlist members of the
Sunni minority against the Islamic State. Shiite-led Iran and its proxies
are thwarting that effort. The dichotomy illustrates the complexities of
the relationship between the United States and Iran in places like Iraq,
where the interests of the two rivals clash and converge. Now, after a
deal to limit Iran's nuclear program cleared its biggest congressional
hurdle last week, the United States will have to navigate an increasingly
complicated regional maze with an Iran newly empowered by international
legitimacy and relief from economic sanctions... Iraq has been the
bloodiest arena of the American-Iranian rivalry. During the long American
war, Iranian-backed militias like Kataib Hezbollah - the one that now
shares a base in Anbar - killed more than a thousand American soldiers.
But now the Americans communicate with the Iranians through an Iraqi
military official to be sure that American-led airstrikes against the
Islamic State do not hit the Iranian-backed militias fighting the same
enemy. Yet it is still a deeply uncomfortable situation for the United
States. American officials acknowledge that the militias are essential to
fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. But they worry
that the groups, especially in Anbar, are collecting intelligence on them
on behalf of Iran and have pressed the Iraqis - so far unsuccessfully -
to remove Kataib from the base." http://t.uani.com/1FI5K49
Anti-Americanism
U.S. News &
World Report: "Iran wants you to stop commemorating
the Sept. 11 attacks. That's the directive from a new op-ed published
Friday in Iran's state-run news service, claiming the U.S. response to
the 2001 terror attacks, the subsequent global war on terror and the
continuation of U.S.-led military action today account for widespread
domestic unrest within the U.S. as well as most problems in the Middle
East. 'The tragedy of 9/11 should no longer be allowed to haunt the
world's collective memory and define its sense of purpose and
orientation,' the column begins, adding America and its war allies
continue to 'spread sectarian poison and bring pain and suffering to many
others.'" http://t.uani.com/1KNNpKm
Human Rights
ICHRI:
"Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has announced that authority
for Internet policy will be exclusively centered in the country's Supreme
Cyberspace Council, a move that will consolidate decision-making power
over the Internet into an organization the hardline cleric controls.
Previously there were multiple state bodies involved in Internet policy,
allowing for diverse power centers-including those controlled by the more
moderate Rouhani administration-to weigh in on Internet decisions. If
implemented, the decision bodes poorly for Internet freedom in Iran: the
Council, while chaired by President Rouhani, reports directly to Khamenei
and a majority of its members are appointed by the Supreme Leader, who
believes the Internet is 'used by the enemy to target Islamic thinking.'
'This decision will give a free pass to security agencies to block any
site-or go after any individual-that challenges the official line,' said
Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the International Campaign for Human
Rights in Iran." http://t.uani.com/1NzgGsW
RFE/RL:
"A jailed Iranian union activist has reportedly died in prison. The
opposition website Kalame said on September 13 that Shahrokh Zamani, 51,
had died from a stroke. It described his death as 'sudden.' Zamani was
serving an 11-year term in the Rajayishahr prison in Karaj, northwest of
the capital, Tehran. He was arrested in June 2011 and sentenced after
being convicted on charges that included 'acting against national
security' and 'spreading propaganda against the regime.' The charges were
brought against him over his efforts to create a union for paint
workers." http://t.uani.com/1UPuovP
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost
Editorial: "The debate in Congress over the most
consequential U.S. diplomatic agreement in decades is headed for a weak
and unsatisfactory ending. The Senate has ensured that the nuclear deal
with Iran will not be overturned by Congress; while we supported that
outcome, the preemption of a full debate through the use of a filibuster
was disappointing... The bottom line is that an agreement that will
reshape U.S. policy in the Middle East, and could determine whether
nuclear proliferation can be controlled in this century, stands to go
forward without ratification or any other significant action by the
legislative branch. That's a particularly disturbing result in view of
the bipartisan legislation on Iran passed earlier this year, which set up
the review process that has now been curtailed or diverted. Congress, however,
still has an opportunity to shape how the nuclear deal is implemented. It
can do so by taking up some of the proposals for supplementary
legislation that are being advanced by both supporters and opponents of
the agreement. Among others, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), an
opponent, has drawn up a bill mandating follow-up steps, while Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.), a supporter, has been among those seeking to forge a
bipartisan group like that which supported the review legislation. To his
credit, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, has expressed interest. The measures that could be included in
a post-deal package start with a clarification of U.S. intent regarding
Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Congress can make clear that Mr.
Obama or his successor will have support for immediate U.S. military
action if an Iranian attempt to build a bomb is detected. One trigger
could be verification that Tehran is producing highly enriched uranium;
another would be the resumption of work on warhead designs and materials.
Such a statement by Congress could not be binding, but it would tell Iran
and U.S. allies in the region that the nuclear deal has not taken the
U.S. military option off the table. Other steps could be aimed at deterring
Iran from using the billions it will gain from the lifting of sanctions
to step up its support for Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria and other
proxies. Tehran is claiming that the accord prevents the United States
from reimposing sanctions in the future. But Congress can make clear that
new sanctions can and will be adopted for non-nuclear offenses, such as
weapons deliveries to Hezbollah or sponsorship of a terrorist attack on a
U.S. target. Legislation can also mandate new U.S. support for Israel. A
10-year security agreement, due to expire within three years, could be
renewed and expanded; Congress could support the delivery to Israel of
the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bomb developed to destroy an Iranian
nuclear facility buried under a mountain. The greatest risks of the
nuclear accord are that Iran will seek a bomb in spite of the constraints
it accepted and that it will escalate its attempt to establish hegemony
over the Middle East by force. While Congress can't now overturn the
deal, it can pragmatically address both of these threats." http://t.uani.com/1OaETFU
Michael Mukasey in
WSJ: "'We couldn't have negotiated a better deal.'
That is one of the two pillars of the Obama administration's argument in
favor of its nuclear arrangement with Iran, the other being, 'there's no
alternative but war.' Those two propositions appear to have won the
day-at least with enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a vote
disapproving of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Iran deal
remains deeply unpopular with the American public and with the Republican
majority in Congress. Over the past few months, the two propositions
regarding the deal left opponents sputtering a catalog of its numerous
defects. But it must be admitted that the first proposition-'we couldn't
have negotiated a better deal'-is plainly true. Consider who the 'we'
are. President Obama, the deal's principal proponent, has repeatedly
refused to recognize the existence of Islamist radicalism and failed to
enforce even his own red line against Bashar Assad's use of poison gas in
Syria. The leader of the U.S. delegation, Secretary of State John Kerry,
airily endorsed an inspections regimen agreed to between Iran and the
International Atomic Energy Agency-an agreement whose wording he concedes
the U.S. doesn't have, although he thinks one member of the U.S.
delegation may have seen it. Not providing the text of this side deal to
Congress violates directly the statutory requirement that the
administration supply 'annexes, appendices, side agreements' and 'any
related agreements.' ... Which leaves the claim that the only alternative
to the nuclear deal is war. That is a half-truth. It is true that unless
the U.S. presents a credible threat that at some point force will be used
if the deal is violated, no arrangement with Iran means anything. It is
not true that the deal sets out the only alternatives to the immediate
use of force against Iran's nuclear program, or that the deal threatens
the use of force at all. The only downside for Iran in the deal is that
after a lengthy process, the regime might be found to have cheated, and
economic sanctions would 'snap back' into place. Even if that actually
happens, whatever contracts Iran negotiates before such a finding-whether
for the sale of oil, for instance, or for the purchase of 'dual use'
materials suitable for nuclear applications-the contracts are given
immunity from sanctions under the deal, and would help the regime
continue its quest for a bomb. What alternatives are available that might
convince Iran that it may not be able to keep what it won at the gaming
tables in Vienna, and that force is a possibility if it cheats? One is
that a later U.S. president could repudiate the deal. Against this is set
the bogus claim that if the U.S. were to do so, the world would lose
confidence that this country will live up to its word. The Iran deal is
not a treaty and has no constitutional status. Congress should declare,
and try to get a court to declare, that President Obama has no authority
to lift sanctions in Iran because he failed to comply with the Iran
Nuclear Review Act he signed earlier this year-specifically, the legal
requirement that he show to Congress the entire agreement including 'side
agreements' like the one between Iran and the IAEA. There are other steps
to take. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, has suggested an
immediate congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran
violates the deal; beefing up U.S. defenses in a meaningful way; and
perhaps providing Israel with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This
'bunker buster' could penetrate even the underground Iranian enrichment
facility at Fordow, which is suitable principally for creating an atomic
weapon." http://t.uani.com/1OawZfC
Glenn Kessler in
WashPost: "On Thursday, the Senate handed a victory
to Obama when Senate Democrats blocked a final vote on a resolution of
disapproval concerning the international agreement to restrain Iran's
nuclear ambitions. Under the rules of the Senate, opponents needed 60
votes to end debate, but they could muster only 58; 42 Democrats joined
together to oppose ending debate. Nevertheless, that meant 58 senators
signaled they would vote against the Iran deal. A reader questioned the
language in the president's statement about the 'strong support' by
lawmakers and citizens that the president claimed for the deal. The
statement is carefully crafted. The president refers to senators studying
the details of the deal and coming out in support, as opposed to
reflexive opposition. For many weeks, the key question in Washington was
whether Obama would win enough support to sustain a veto of the
resolution, so the fact that he secured enough votes to block a final
vote was a bit of a surprise. Still, what evidence is that there was
'strong support of lawmakers and citizens?' On the face of it, support by
42 members of the Senate out of 100 indicates minority support... Still,
the president's statement, as framed, appears to suggest the 'strong
support' refers to the number of Democrats in the Senate who decided to
support the deal in the final days, thus thwarting an actual vote on the
resolution. But does the same hold true for U.S. citizens? ... So because
the president appears to be claiming strong support based on the surge of
support by lawmakers at the end of the process, let's see what happened
to public support as the debate unfolded. We've focused on reputable
polls that asked the same question at least twice over the summer so that
we could get a feel for the trend line... As you can see, support for the
agreement consistently dropped over the summer, even as the White House
was picking up enough votes from Democratic lawmakers to thwart a
resolution nullifying the agreement. In large part, the shift is because
the debate became hyper-partisan. As Republican lawmakers unified in
opposition, sentiment among Republican voters also turned against the
deal. But the polls also reflect declining support among Democrats. By
the beginning of September, there was barely a poll that, outside the
margin of error, indicated majority support for the deal, let alone
'strong' support... Anyway you slice it, it is difficult to support the
claim that there is 'strong support' for the Iran deal among lawmakers
and citizens. This is clearly a case of winning ugly, in the face of
minority support among lawmakers and increasing opposition among American
citizens. The White House certainly did better than many analysts
expected, since enough Democrats supported the agreement to prevent a
final Senate vote on the merits. And Obama avoided a veto fight. But
that's a different than having 'strong support' for the deal." http://t.uani.com/1OQikDs
Eugene Kontorovich
in WashPost: "Previous posts have discussed the
jurisdictional and statutory questions involved in possible judicial
challenges to sanctions relief pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action. Here I will sketch what seems to me the most effective way of
ensuring prompt judicial review of these issues - a two-pronged
litigation strategy involving both Congress and the several states. At
the end, I'll return to some questions about congressional standing in
response to insightful comments by Prof. Josh Blackman. The first step
would be for the House to challenge any sanctions relief declared by the
President. Such a case raises novel and complex standing questions. While
a recent D.C. Federal court decision opens the door to such suits, it is
not clear how wide, and the House may be found to not have standing. Yet
even in such a situation, the suit could be important. Even if a House
suit fails on standing grounds - and there is no disgrace in a case not
being judicially reviewable - it would help shape judicial perceptions of
the equities of subsequent suits involving states, where standing will
not be in question. That is, the House's vigorous assertion in court of a
separation of powers violation, even if not ruled on, could give added
credibility to subsequent separation of powers claims in litigation
involving the states. If Congress tried but failed on a jurisdictional
issue, it still gives the substantive issue the dimension of a major
dispute between co-equal branches about federal statutes and foreign
trade legislation, rather than states questioning Executive decisions...
Dozens of states currently have Iran sanctions in place. Many of these
are tied to the federal sanctions scheme, such that the state sanctions
automatically terminate when the federal ones do. The simplest strategy
for states is to insist on the ongoing validity of their sanctions even after
President Obama purports to order sanctions relief. The states can follow
the House's lead, and say they do not regard Corker-Cardin as having been
complied with, and thus their sanctions remain in place. Indeed, the
non-compliance with Corker-Cardin will protect state laws from
preemption, as even the robust version of 'executive policy' preemption
in Giaramedi does not apply when the executive policy is blocked by
express legislation... State sanctions offer many routes to judicial
review. First, the state can itself bring enforcement actions. State and
lower federal court rulings in enforcement suits would also give courts
an opportunity to rule on the legality of sanctions relief, but would not
immediately bind the federal government. However, the ongoing enforcement
of such sanctions will put the Administration in a bind. On one hand, it
will want the Justice Department to bring a prompt preemption challenge
against the state laws. On the other hand, that would squarely expose the
Administration's Corker-Cardin compliance to judicial review, and a
judgement would be fully and generally binding on the Executive. Even if
the odds were against such a ruling, that would be a huge risk for the
Administration to take with one of its signature accomplishments,
especially right before an election." http://t.uani.com/1ib4lNU
Washington
Examiner Editorial: "With the Senate lacking the
two-thirds majority it would need to stop him, President Obama will
succeed in implementing his nuclear deal with Iran. At this point,
barring a miracle, Obama has outmaneuvered the Congress and won that
fight. He has also lost the argument. For all the millions of dollars
they promised to spend influencing public opinion, his allies failed to
put a dent in the overwhelming opposition among the American public. The
demeaning videos they trotted out featuring vapid celebrities failed to
convince the undecided to embrace this deal. Nor could they assuage the
glaring problems in its terms for those following closely enough to feel confident
expressing an opinion. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that
support for the Iran deal has significantly ebbed over the last two
months. Meanwhile, opposition has hardened and the ranks of the uncertain
have grown... The bottom line is that Obama and his Democratic supporters
in this matter - including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -
own this deal. Before its terms were even known, they were already
preparing to wield what partisan power they had in order to wiggle it
through without the support of Congress or the public. They thus own all
of the negative consequences it brings... Hopefully, this deal's
consequences will not be as dire as expected. But even the deal's backers
understand that they have made enormous concessions and given billions to
Iran that will be used for terrorism, in exchange for - at best - a
temporary slowdown in Iran developing nuclear weapons. For an
administration and a party that likes to denigrate opponents as being on
'the wrong side of history,' it's quite a wake-up call." http://t.uani.com/1Oawy51
|
|
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