|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Fars (Iran):
"Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar
Salehi announced that the country is compiling a 15-year-long plan to
further expand its peaceful nuclear know-how and capabilities. 'A
15-year-long plan is being compiled and the plan will be reviewed every 5
years,' Salehi said, addressing a ceremony at Fordo nuclear site near the
Central city of Qom on Monday. 'One of our plans is to move on the path
of commercialization and we hope to gain success in this arena,' he
added. Salehi also announced Iran's plans to construct a nuclear hospital
and two small nuclear power plants in the Southern province of Bushehr to
desalinate water. In relevant remarks on Tuesday, President Hassan
Rouhani announced that Iran would commercialize nuclear technology as
soon as the nuclear agreement comes into practice in near future. 'Our
nuclear program has been recognized in the Resolution 2231 and world
powers are eager to cooperate with us in this regard,' Rouhani told
reporters. The president added that the Islamic Republic plans to export
enriched UF6 and import yellow cake from abroad." http://t.uani.com/1igiB8m
Fars (Iran):
"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blasted Israel for its crimes
against the Palestinians and support for the terrorist groups, and said
the regime was created and continues its life based on terrorism.
'Certain governments are created based on terrorism and see their
survival in light of terrorism and its clear instance is the fake Zionist
regime in the Palestinian territories,' Rouhani said on Monday,
addressing a congress in Tehran to commemorate the Iranians martyred by
the terrorist groups. 'The (Israeli) government and regime basically started
its job based on intimidation, terrorism and occupation and today it is
continuing the same anti-human path,' he added. Elsewhere, Rouhani
blasted the western states' double-standard approach towards terrorism,
and said, 'Terrorism will not be annihilated as long as collective
determination and real resolve is not created in the world.' 'Today,
there are powers in Europe and the US which keep mum on a terrorist
grouplet and support a terrorist regime but are opposed to another
terrorist group,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1N7cSPf
AP:
"The head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard said Tuesday that the
U.S. is still the 'Great Satan,' regardless of the nuclear deal struck
with Americans and world powers over the Islamic Republic's contested
nuclear program. The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, reported by
the official Guard website, said that 'the enmity against Iranian nation
by the U.S. has not lessened and it has been increased.' 'We should not
be deceived by the U.S.,' Jafari reportedly said. 'It wants to infiltrate
into Iran, resorting to new instruments and method.' ... Earlier Tuesday,
Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, the head of powerful Iran's Experts Assembly,
which oversees the nation's Supreme Leader and institutions under his
supervision, also said the nuclear deal will not alter Iran's foreign
policy toward the United States. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran considers
the U.S. its No. 1 enemy,' Yazdi said. 'If you try to discover the root
of the sedition that is happening around us today, you will identify U.S.
as its main supporter.'" http://t.uani.com/1NKC9Ph
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
AFP:
"The United States remains Iran's 'number one enemy' despite a
recent nuclear deal with world powers, the chief of Tehran's top clerical
body said Tuesday, Iranian media reported. The Assembly of Experts is
among Iran's most influential institutions, comprising 86 elected clerics
who appoint and can dismiss the country's supreme leader, led by
ultraconservative Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi. The nuclear agreement should
not 'change our foreign policy' of opposition to the United States, 'our
number one enemy, whose crimes are uncountable', Yazdi said in a speech
opening the annual two-day assembly meeting. 'The US and Israel are the
source of the situation in the region and (their) goal is to protect the
Zionist regime in the Middle East,' he was quoted as saying, blaming the
two countries for the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen." http://t.uani.com/1UpdONP
Al-Monitor:
"The new Saudi king will use his first official visit to the White
House this week to make clear that his country's lukewarm support for the
nuclear deal with Iran comes with strings attached. King Salman bin
Abdul-Aziz Al Saud's three-day visit, strategically scheduled just days
before Congress votes on the agreement, offers the Saudi leader a
powerful platform to insist that the United States help combat Iranian
'mischief.' The king is seeking assurances in the fight against Iran's
proxies across the region, as well as with elements of the nuclear deal
itself... Despite deep reservations about the deal, sources close to the
Saudi government say that unlike Israel, the kingdom quickly concluded
that it could not be defeated in Congress and that no better alternatives
were likely to emerge. Riyadh, however, has repeatedly made clear that
its support is conditioned on a tough inspection regime and snapback
sanctions. Salman may seek further assurances on those aspects of the
deal in light of recent reports that allege that Iran will be allowed an
unusual amount of autonomy with regard to inspections of its military
installation at Parchin. 'The agreement must include a specific, strict
and sustainable inspection regime of all Iranian sites, including
military sites, as well as a mechanism to swiftly re-impose effective
sanctions in the event that Iran violates the agreement,' the Saudi
Embassy in Washington said after the deal was announced." http://t.uani.com/1JveA6S
Congressional Vote
Algemeiner:
"'Tomorrow's rally is important, because next week Congress returns
to Washington and actual debate on the Iran nuclear agreement begins,'
retired Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman told The Algemeiner on
Monday. He was referring to the 'Stop Iran Rally,' organized by the same
grassroots movement that brought 15,000 people to protest the nuclear
deal in New York City's Times Square last month, being held on Tuesday
outside the office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). 'There is little
time left for people who oppose this terrible agreement to speak the truth
of why it threatens America's security and the security of our allies in
Israel and the Arab world to people in power in Washington,' Lieberman
said. 'Tomorrow we can directly thank Senator [Chuck] Schumer [D-NY] for
his principle and courage in opposing this bad deal and express our
disappointment to Senator Gillibrand that she is supporting it, and ask
her to reconsider based on information about the secret side deals that
has come out since she announced her support. ' Coincidentally,
Gillibrand's office is located in the same Manhattan building (780 Third
Avenue) as that of Schumer, among the few Democrats in Congress who have
come out publicly against the deal. The purpose of the self-described
'bipartisan' demonstration is to persuade Gillibrand to change her
position on the deal... Lieberman was just named chairman of United
Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), a nonprofit advocacy organization that
opposes the nuclear deal." http://t.uani.com/1igliXz
Free Beacon:
"A majority of voters oppose the Iran Deal and said they think that
it would make the world a less safe place, according to a Quinnipiac
University National poll conducted last week. Fifty-five percent of
Americans said that they oppose the nuclear deal with Iran, while only 25
percent said that they support the deal. The poll also shows that 56
percent of Americans think that the deal would make the world less safe,
compared to 28 percent who think that the deal would make the world
safer." http://t.uani.com/1hRbZgM
Morning Consult:
"Voters are skeptical of a proposed nuclear deal between the United
States, its allies and Iran, a new survey shows, even as the White House
and Democratic allies inch closer to reaching the legislative threshold
necessary to allow the deal to survive. The Morning Consult poll shows
about seven in ten voters have seen, read about or heard about the
proposed deal. Among those voters, only 27 percent say they support the
deal, while 56 percent say they are opposed. More than three quarters of
self-identified Republicans and almost six in ten independents are
opposed. Even among members of President Obama's own party, support for
his signature foreign policy initiative is soft, at best. Just 44 percent
of self-identified Democrats say they support the deal, while 36 percent
are opposed. " http://t.uani.com/1JK3I4h
Free Beacon:
"Over 200 retired generals and admirals called on Congress to reject
the Iranian nuclear deal in a full-page New York Times ad on Sunday,
calling the agreement a threat to U.S. national security. The ad, which
was placed by the Warrior Legacy Foundation, followed a letter to
congressional leaders from retired military officials last week warning
of the national security risks of the Iran deal. After the letter was
published last Wednesday, nearly 20 additional flag officers signed onto
it. 'This agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous and
render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to
American interests as well as our allies,' said the ad. 'In our
professional opinion, far from being an alternative to war, the Join
Comprehensive Plan of Action makes it likely that the war the Iranian
regime has waged us since 1979 will continue, with far higher risks to
our national security interests.'" http://t.uani.com/1Uk3FYe
WashPost:
"American opinions on the Iran nuclear agreement have grown sharply
polarized along party lines, according to a new poll released Tuesday as
the White House closes in on support needed in the Senate to block
Republican opposition to the deal. A survey by the University of
Maryland's Program for Public Consultation finds that Americans narrowly
support the deal, with 52 percent wanting Congress to approve it and 47
percent wanting the pact rejected... The new survey and other polls
suggest that a massive campaign to stop the deal has gained traction with
the public. Other recent polls, providing few details or specifics of the
deal, have generally found Americans tenuous about the agreement and
tilting toward opposition. For example, 55 percent of voters opposed the
deal in a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday - more than double
the 25 percent who supported it... While the University of Maryland poll
found a slight majority supporting the deal, large majorities of
respondents said core criticisms of the deal were compelling. Nearly 8 in
10 said the decision to provide negotiated access to any suspicious,
undeclared sites instead of 'anytime, anywhere' inspections throughout
Iran was a convincing reason to reject the deal. Almost as many said
another compelling reason was the estimated $100 billion Iran will
receive of its own money currently frozen in accounts under sanctions.
Critics call the money's release a windfall and say it will fuel Iran's
expansionist ambitions throughout the region. Those worries mirror a
strong vein of distrust toward Iran captured in polls before and after
the deal was announced. Most Americans lack confidence that the agreement
will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and expect it to
cheat." http://t.uani.com/1Kp97nM
NYT:
"Three House Democrats from New York and a House Democrat from
Florida who is running for a Senate seat endorsed President Obama's
nuclear deal with Iran on Monday, lending fresh momentum to the pact from
political quarters that once appeared most leery of it. In rapid
succession, Representatives Nydia M. Velázquez, Gregory W. Meeks and
Yvette Clarke of New York backed the deal, as did Representative Patrick
Murphy, the Democratic establishment's choice to compete for the Senate
seat being vacated by the Republican presidential candidate Marco
Rubio... The decisions by all four House members speak to the shifting
politics of the Iran deal. For Democrats, especially those with potential
primary competition, opposing the accord now appears to be a greater
political risk than supporting it." http://t.uani.com/1IDWG09
AFP:
"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tuesday he hoped
the US Congress would not be swayed by 'warmongers' propaganda' over the
nuclear deal struck between Tehran and world powers. 'What happens in the
US Congress, that's certainly a US issue,' he told a news conference in
Tunisia. 'We believe it's a mutually beneficial agreement,' Zarif said of
the July 14 accord on scaling down Iran's controversial nuclear programme
in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions. 'And if people are
not too much concerned with the propaganda being raged by warmongers in
our region and outside our region, there's no reason for the deal to face
any impediments in the United States,' said the minister who negotiated
the deal." http://t.uani.com/1O5J2HY
Terrorism
AFP:
"Kuwait on Tuesday charged 24 people suspected of links to Iran and
Shiite militia group Hezbollah with plotting attacks against the Gulf
state, a statement by the public prosecutor said. The men were charged
with 'spying for the Islamic republic of Iran and Hezbollah to carry out
aggressive acts against the State of Kuwait' by smuggling in and
assembling explosives, as well as possessing firearms and ammunition, the
statement said. They were also charged with 'carrying out acts that would
undermine the unity and territorial integrity' of Kuwait, and of
possessing eavesdropping devices, it said... Prosecutors said the
suspects were linked with a 'terror cell' the interior ministry said it
had busted last month while seizing large amounts of weapons, ammunition
and explosives. Officials said at the time that three men had been
arrested and confessed to joining an illegal group that local media
reported was Hezbollah. Media had reported that more arrests followed and
the prosecutor said 22 of the suspects charged on Tuesday had received
explosives and weapon training to 'achieve illegal goals.'" http://t.uani.com/1UpdBKD
Extremism
Fars (Iran):
"Iranian Supreme Leader's top adviser for international affairs Ali
Akbar Velayati blasted western officials' remarks that Tehran has changed
its policy on Israel, and underscored that Iran will never recognize the
usurper regime. 'Iran will not recognize Israel. We still emphasize that
Israel is a usurper and occupying regime and we will not come along with
it,' Velayati said in a meeting with a religious delegation from Pakistan
in Tehran on Saturday. He expressed pleasure that the western states'
plots to make the Muslim states recognize Israel have failed, and said,
'The Islamic countries have not recognized it and the Palestinian
people's fight should continue until they regain their territories.'
After reopening the British embassy in Tehran on Sunday following four
years of strained relations between the two countries, British Foreign
Secretary Phillip Hammond claimed in an interview with the British media
that the current Iranian government had displayed a more nuanced approach
than its predecessor to a long-running conflict with Israel." http://t.uani.com/1Kp7iY6
Human Rights
NYT:
"Iranian security forces arrested a prominent reformist politician
on Monday, hours after he held a news conference thanking President
Hassan Rouhani for a more open political atmosphere, several Iranian news
agencies reported. The arrest of the politician, Ali Shakorirad, put a
damper on the hopes of Iran's reformists. Just last week they started the
Islamic Iranian National Union Party, filling a void after the two
original reformist parties were banned by Iran's judiciary after
antigovernment protests in 2009. The arrest illustrates the uphill
political battle Mr. Rouhani faces in executing his agenda of more
political and personal freedoms. Mr. Shakorirad has long played a central
role in a movement calling for democratic political reforms in the
Islamic republic... 'Released or not, we can expect more of these cases
in the coming months, as hard-liners do not want the reformists to gain
power,' said Saeed Laylaz, an economist close to the government. 'This is
a warning for all of us.'" http://t.uani.com/1N06t6X
Opinion &
Analysis
Nicholas Burns in
NYT: "Republicans have been right to highlight the
deal's principal weakness - it could permit Iran to emerge stronger 10 to
15 years from now as restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse.
Specifically, an unfettered Iran in 2030 would be free to reconstitute an
expanded civil nuclear program. It could possibly use that program, as it
has in the past, to build a covert nuclear arms effort. This is one of
the deal's major downside risks that the Obama team has struggled to
counter. Whether Iran gets that far will depend ultimately on the
leadership and will of the United States to stop it. That is why Mr.
Obama needs to affirm what has been missing in the Iran debate: a
comprehensive United States strategy to contain Iran's support for
terrorism and to prevent it from becoming a nuclear weapons power. As
with the Truman Doctrine, where the United States vowed not to let Greece
and Turkey go Communist in the late 1940s, Mr. Obama should declare that
he and his successors will not permit Iran to go nuclear. This won't win
him many Republican votes in the short term, but it will be a serious
response to their concerns and reassure wavering Democrats. More
important, it is the right response to an assertive Iran and will recoup
some of our diminished credibility in the region. Mr. Obama should not be
content to have his veto sustained in Congress. His more important aim,
looking beyond the vote, is to win the long-term struggle with Iran for
power in the Middle East. To begin this effort, the administration should
commit to a policy of coercive diplomacy - major steps to keep Iran on
the defensive and push back against its growing power in the Middle East.
The president should suggest that Republicans and Democrats agree on a separate
resolution to support this more tough-minded approach. Such a resolution
could begin to heal the wounds from the bruising Iran debate and to chart
a more assertive American posture in the region. A new, bipartisan policy
should include the following elements. First, Mr. Obama could reaffirm
President Jimmy Carter's doctrine from the 1970s that the United States
will defend its vital interests in the security of the Persian Gulf
region against any aggressor. This would bolster the recent efforts of Secretary
of State John Kerry to strengthen the defense of Saudi Arabia and the
gulf states. Second, Mr. Obama could state in unmistakably clear terms
that the United States would use military force to strike Iran should it
violate the nuclear agreement and drive toward a nuclear weapon. This
would be an important reassurance to the many members of Congress in both
parties who want to see the nuclear deal not as an isolated initiative
but as an integral part of a larger and more assertive American regional policy.
Third, Mr. Obama could announce the expedited renewal this autumn of the
United States-Israel military assistance agreement, set to expire in
2017. This would counter Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas in
challenging Israel's security on its northern and southern borders. Mr.
Obama could commit to ensuring Israel's qualitative military edge over
Iran and other regional rivals. He should close the glaring public gap
between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A strong symbolic step
would be for Mr. Obama to travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr.
Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran. Finally, the administration could
reaffirm America's commitment to form a strong regional coalition with
moderate Arab states, Turkey, the European allies and our Asian allies to
reimpose sanctions on Iran, should that be necessary. This United
States-led coalition could also be useful in pressuring Iran politically
to end its support for the bloody regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As
Mr. Obama and congressional leaders look beyond the Iran vote, the
reassertion of a stronger American presence in the Middle East could earn
bipartisan support. An Obama pivot back to American leadership in the
Middle East is not only good politics in a divided Washington, but also
the right diplomatic response to reaffirm United States power and purpose
on Iran and in a violent, turbulent but still vital Middle East." http://t.uani.com/1Uk4L67
Sean Naylor in The
Daily Beast: "It was July 25, 2004. Violence was
escalating in Iraq, the Taliban were reasserting themselves in
Afghanistan, and Joint Special Operations Command - the U.S. military's
cadre of elite special operations forces -- was already deploying
operators to the Horn of Africa and Yemen. But for the first day of the three-day
JSOC commanders' conference at Fort Bragg, the country under discussion
was Iran. In the days after September 11, JSOC was running at least two
undercover agents into Iran. But the command wanted to know more - much
more - about the would-be regional superpower it seemed to confront at
every turn. Today, the U.S. and Iranian governments are in a period of
political détente, with the nuclear deal signed in Vienna. Tehran and
Washington's militaries are even cooperating - if at arm's length - in the
fight against ISIS. But this is hardly a friendship, especially not with
Iran's long, long history of supporting terror - and JSOC's history of
trying to kill those Iranian-backed terrorists. After 9/11, about 10
leading al Qaeda figures, including bin Laden's son Saad, had fled
Afghanistan for Iran... The U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of
Iraq gave JSOC more opportunities to penetrate Iran. After the invasion,
the U.S. Army's Delta Force and a secret human and signals intelligence
unit nicknamed Task Force Orange did quiet work along the Iranian border,
particularly in Kurdistan, where Delta quickly made connections with the
Asayish-the Kurdish intelligence organization that had one or more spies
reporting on the Iranian nuclear program. Delta enlisted the help of
other Iraqis as well in its twin campaigns against al Qaeda in Iraq and
Iran's covert operatives, but 'the guys with the greatest access and
placement were the Kurds,' said a task force officer. 'They delivered
some fucking huge targets to us.' Delta wasn't the only unit working with
the Asayish. 'There's a long history between Orange and the Kurds going
back to at least the early 1990s,' said a special mission unit officer...
In 2003, tantalizing information reached the command that JSOC chief Maj.
Gen. Stan McChrystal to direct the advance force operations cell to
examine ways to infiltrate Iran. JSOC heard that Iran had moved Saad bin
Laden and the other al Qaeda exiles from Afghanistan to a comfortable
'country club'-like facility in downtown Tehran, according to a JSOC
staff officer." http://t.uani.com/1UpivHo
Michael Eisenstadt
in War on the Rocks: "President Obama has often
stated, regarding Iran's potential nuclear weapons ambitions, that 'all
options are and will remain on the table' and that the United States
would be able to deal with such an eventuality because 'we preserve all
our capabilities ... our military superiority stays in place.'
Administration officials have likewise claimed that the inspection regime
agreed to in the nuclear deal with Iran would increase America's insight
into Iran's declared nuclear infrastructure, greatly enhancing the
effectiveness of a military strike should it someday be deemed necessary.
Further scrutiny, however, raises questions regarding whether political
and military dynamics set in train by the nuclear deal with Iran will in
fact make preventive military action an even more problematic, and
therefore unlikely, option for the United States. This could influence
Iran's future proliferation calculus. The nuclear deal, if implemented
fully, could place major constraints on Iran's ability to undertake a
breakout from declared, or possible covert, facilities for 10 to 15
years. But as these constraints are lifted (or circumvented before then
by Iran), the temptation to pursue a breakout could be strengthened.
Several factors will influence Iran's decision-making on this matter;
foremost among these is Iran's assessment of the risk of attempting a
breakout... The political context created by the nuclear accord will have
a decisive impact on any future debates regarding preventive action and
would likely deter the U.S. from undertaking military action, though
military-technical trends are also likely to greatly influence the U.S.
decision calculus, if Iran were ever to move toward or attempt a nuclear
breakout. The foregoing assessment shows, however, that in the military
arena, as in other competitive domains, nothing ever 'stays in place.'
Thanks in part to the nuclear accord, 10 to 20 years from now, America's
ability to detect and ferret out a clandestine Iranian weapons program
may be improved in some areas, but diminished in others. Preventive
action will likely be more complicated, risky, and costly. And future
Iranian covert underground facilities may be beyond the reach of the
current generation of conventional penetrator munitions such as the MOP,
though new means of defeating deep buried facilities are undoubtedly
being developed. Whether these will be game changers, remains to be seen.
The nuclear deal with Iran could therefore complicate U.S. efforts to
deter, detect, and prevent a future Iranian nuclear breakout, while
buying Iran time to counter some of America's most potent capabilities.
This could have a decisive impact on Iran's nuclear decision calculus,
and affect America's ability to deter a future Iranian nuclear breakout.
The Obama administration should be concerned about this, though in its
zeal to sell the nuclear deal with Iran, it shows no sign of
acknowledging the significant risk inherent in its Iran policy, which
future administrations and future generations of Americans may have to
live with." http://t.uani.com/1EzfYsw
WashPost Editorial
Board: "The absurdities in Iran's prosecution of
Post reporter Jason Rezaian on bogus espionage charges continue to pile
up. The last of four sessions of his trial was held on Aug. 10, and a
spokesman for the judiciary said Sunday it was the final session. Iranian
law says a verdict must be issued within a week of a trial's conclusion.
It also says no suspect may be held for more than one year without
conviction. Yet Mr. Rezaian remained in Tehran's notorious Evin prison on
Monday, 405 days after his arrest, and no verdict in his case has been
announced. His lawyer says she does not know why; she speculates that a
verdict may have been issued but not revealed even to her. The delay,
secrecy and blatant violation of Iran's own laws betray both the weakness
of the charges against Mr. Rezaian and the use of the case for political
purposes. The purported evidence in the case is a disgrace to the Iranian
judiciary: It reportedly includes an unsuccessful 2008 online job
application by Mr. Rezaian to President-elect Obama's transition team and
a visa application submitted to a U.S. consulate for his Iranian wife.
Several of the developments in the case occurred in concert with the
international negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, prompting many
analysts to conclude that hard-liners in the regime were persecuting Mr.
Rezaian in an attempt to undermine Tehran's chief negotiator, Mohammad
Javad Zarif, who has called the Post journalist a 'friend.' If that is
true, then the fact that Mr. Rezaian remains imprisoned, in violation of
Iran's laws, suggests that Mr. Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani have
been unable to gain control over factions whose cooperation will be
essential if the nuclear deal is to be successfully implemented. That
ought to be a red flag for the Obama administration as well as for the
five other governments that are parties to the deal, and it should be
given some weight by those in Congress still considering whether to
support the accord. We concluded in July that the deal is preferable to
the alternatives - but the failure to release Mr. Rezaian since then is
deeply troubling. The Rouhani government has a clear opportunity in the
next two weeks to rectify the injustice done to Mr. Rezaian and to
reassure the international community of its readiness to honor the
nuclear accord. The annual United Nations General Assembly session begins
on Sept. 15, and the deadline for a congressional vote on a nuclear deal
is days later. Tehran can send a clear signal to both bodies by releasing
Mr. Rezaian and the other Americans it is holding before those
events." http://t.uani.com/1IE4ajv
|
|
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