|
|
Top Stories
AP:
"Iranian officials have been keen on portraying the pact as
advantageous to their country in easing sanctions in return for what they
say are minimal nuclear concessions. President Hassan Rouhani's remarks
Tuesday appeared to be part of efforts to bring around hard-liners who
have denounced the deal, claiming it tramples on Iran's enrichment
rights. 'Do you know what the Geneva agreement means? It means the
surrender of the big powers before the great Iranian nation,' Rouhani
told a crowd in the oil-rich province of Khuzestan. 'The Geneva agreement
means the wall of sanctions has broken. The unfair sanctions were imposed
on the revered and peace-loving Iranian nation,' he said. 'It means an
admission by the world of Iran's peaceful nuclear program.'" http://t.uani.com/KZF2Oo
LAT:
"Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world
powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly
acknowledged by Western officials, Iran's chief negotiator said Monday.
Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a
Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News
Agency. In the interview, Araqchi referred to the side agreement using
the English word 'nonpaper,' a diplomatic term used for an informal side
agreement that doesn't have to be disclosed publicly. The nonpaper deals
with such important details as the operation of a joint commission to
oversee how the deal is implemented and Iran's right to continue nuclear
research and development during the next several months, he said. Araqchi
described the joint commission as an influential body that will have
authority to decide disputes. U.S. officials have described it as a
discussion forum rather than a venue for arbitrating major disputes.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the text of the
implementing agreement would be released to lawmakers. He said the six
parties were weighing how much of the text they could release publicly...
A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that
there was any secret agreement... In his interview, Araqchi touched on
the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its
nuclear research and development. U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran
would be allowed to continue existing research and development projects
and with pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with
new projects. Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide
latitude. 'No facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative
and nuclear research will be expanded,' he said. 'All research into a new
generation of centrifuges will continue.'" http://t.uani.com/19rRS31
NYT:
"With the United States and Iran about to embark on a critical phase
of nuclear talks, President Obama is waging an intense rear-guard action
to prevent Senate Democrats from supporting strict new sanctions that
could upend his diplomatic efforts... The White House has cast the issue
in stark terms, saying that a vote for new sanctions would be, in effect,
a 'march toward war' and challenging those lawmakers who support the bill
to acknowledge publicly that they favor military action against Iran. 'It
just stands to reason if you close the diplomatic option, you're left
with a difficult choice of waiting to see if sanctions cause Iran to
capitulate, which we don't think will happen, or considering military
action,' said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. Yet
senators from both parties angrily reject that characterization, saying
that congressional pressure to impose sanctions is what brought Iran to
the negotiating table to begin with. If anything, they said, the West
needs the specter of more sanctions as a 'diplomatic insurance policy,'
in case Iran reneges on the interim deal or the talks ultimately fail.
... As the debate has intensified, some Democrats are taking umbrage at
the White House's tone, pointing to a statement last week from a National
Security Council official that said, 'If certain members of Congress want
the United States to take military action, they should be up front with
the American public and say so.' Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of
Maryland and a strong supporter of the legislation, bristled at the White
House's pressure, especially its 'march to war' language. 'I think they
should regret using that language,' he said. 'The bad actor is
Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1d05Yak
Geneva Interim Agreement Implementation
CNN:
"Iran has pledged to start eliminating some of its uranium stockpile
on January 20, the White House said Sunday. That gives an official start
time for the six-month interim deal with Iran, which was first announced
in November. But there are still hurdles ahead for this deal. 'Congress
could certainly blow it up. If the Iranians don't comply with any of the
major provisions, it could blow it up. (And) if there was a discovery a
new facility, something we didn't know about,' said New York Times
national security correspondent David Sanger. 'But it's in the Iranians'
interest right now to let that six months play out, and maybe let another
six months after that play out,' said Sanger. The agreement allows for
negotiation that could go on for as long as a year. 'That's important,
because this interim agreement rolls back very little,' said Sanger. 'All
it does is keep Iran from making more use of the fuel that is closest to
bomb grade. But what it doesn't do is take back any of the centrifuges,
the equipment that enriches uranium, and make them disassemble that.
That's what the bigger disagreement is about.'" http://t.uani.com/1gEKKjb
LAT:
"Word that the interim nuclear deal between Iran and world powers
will go into effect this month for the most part was met positively in
the Iranian capital, though some hard-liners reiterated their opposition.
'Maybe our business will be better in six months or so,' said Amir
Mosavi, 30, a downtown vendor of wrist watches and clocks, who, like many
others, views the accord as a possible prelude to improvement for the
nation's sluggish, sanctions-battered economy. In the money exchange
market near the British Embassy, the Iranian rial rose slightly against
the U.S. dollar, a sign of confidence for a currency pummeled in the past
year by Western-led sanctions... However, hard-liners and conservatives
remain suspect about the motivations of the United States and other
nations demanding limits on Iran's nuclear efforts. Opponents argue that
Tehran has conceded too much in limiting its nuclear program and received
too little in return. 'All of the points of the agreement are against
Iran's interest,' wrote Husian Shariatmadari, chief editor of Kayhan, a
hard-line opposition daily." http://t.uani.com/1kzPBaX
AFP:
"Unblocking billions of dollars in funds to Iran under a landmark
six-month nuclear deal with the West will have a significant economic and
psychological impact on the Islamic republic, experts said Monday... 'The
political and psychological effect will be (more) considerable,' than the
amount of funds involved, economic expert Saeed Leylaz said. 'It will be
easier to sell our oil, our petrochemical products and recover our
petrodollars. And all the products we buy abroad will cost 10 percent
less,' Leylaz told AFP... Leylaz says sanctions relief could bolster
state coffers in the long run, and estimates that annual revenues will
rise by $20-25 billion dollars... The head of international relations at
Iran's national oil company, Mohsen Ghamsari, expects oil exports will
grow if sanctions relief becomes a long-term exercise. Ghamsari, in
comments published by Iranian newspapers, said oil exports had already
increased in recent months to 1.3-1.4 million barrels per day compared to
1.2 mbpd. According to Leylaz, Iran has sold $34 billion worth of oil and
byproducts during the past nine months, earning $32 billion." http://t.uani.com/1cZZtEp
WSJ:
"Executives from some of France's biggest companies, including
energy giants GDF Suez SA and Alstom SA, are slated to fly to Tehran next
month-signaling a fresh wave of corporate interest in Iran as the West
eases sanctions. Details of the high-level business trip are emerging
after Iran and Western powers completed terms of an interim nuclear deal
on Sunday, with Tehran agreeing to closer international monitoring of its
nuclear program in exchange for limited, temporary sanctions relief. The
deal specifically eases restrictions related to Iran's aviation, auto and
petrochemicals industries... Officials from several European automotive
and oil firms have already traveled to Tehran amid months of diplomatic
thaw. But the French delegation-organized by the country's biggest
employer association-is shaping up to be one of the highest-profile
visits by European corporate executives since Iranian and Western
diplomats started to make progress in talks last year. Executives from
nine of France's CAC-40 blue-chip firms are listed as planning to
participate in the delegation, according to a preliminary roster drawn up
by Medef International, the group organizing the visit, and seen by The
Wall Street Journal... Veolia Environnement SA said Didier Authier, a
vice president for a subsidiary specializing in desalination projects, is
joining the delegation. A spokesperson for Safran SA, which makes propulsion
engines and other aircraft spare parts, said that it was considering
sending a representative on the trip but that no final decision had been
made." http://t.uani.com/1eG0Olf
Nuclear Program
& Negotiations
Reuters:
"The U.N. nuclear watchdog's increased access in Iran to monitor a
landmark agreement with world powers still falls short of what it says it
needs to investigate suspicions that Tehran may have worked on designing
an atomic bomb. It is also a far cry from the wide-ranging inspection
powers the International Atomic Energy Agency had in Iraq in the 1990s to
help unearth and dismantle Saddam Hussein's clandestine nuclear program
after the first Gulf war. Nevertheless, the IAEA will see its role in
Iran expand significantly under the November 24 interim accord between
the country and the six major powers, the implementation of which will
start next Monday. Since the deal is only preliminary, the IAEA and its
investigation may gain more prominence in later talks on a final
settlement of the decade-old dispute over Iran's nuclear program, but it
remains to be seen how far it will go. 'This is just an appetizer, I
guess ... a starter,' former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Herman
Nackaerts said... But, he told Reuters, 'more has to come to be able to resolve
all the outstanding issues, that is quite clear.' To check that Iran
meets its side of the six-month accord to curb sensitive nuclear activity
in return for some sanctions easing, IAEA experts will go daily to Iran's
uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, up from about once a week
now. They will also inspect plants where Iran is manufacturing the
specialized equipment, centrifuges, used to enrich uranium, as well as
uranium mines and mills." http://t.uani.com/1cZXujn
Reuters:
"The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday a planned meeting with
Iran next week to discuss steps meant to ease concerns over its nuclear
programme has been pushed back to February 8 at Tehran's request. The
International Atomic Energy Agency did not say why Tehran asked for a
delay. But the original date, January 21, is just a day after Iran and
big powers are to start implementing an interim deal on curbing Iranian
nuclear activity, suggesting a busy agenda in coming days may have led to
the postponement. The IAEA has been tasked with checking that Iran
carries out its end of the six-month preliminary accord, so the U.N.
agency is also facing an extra workload. The IAEA-Iran negotiations that
have now been postponed are separate from - albeit still closely aligned
with - broader, high-level diplomacy between Tehran and six world powers
over Iran's nuclear programme. In November, Iran and the IAEA struck a
cooperation pact, including six initial steps to be taken by Tehran over
the following three months, entailing access to two nuclear-related
facilities and the provision of information. They said after a review
meeting last month they would meet again in Tehran on January 21 to
discuss the next steps under the framework agreement. Western diplomats
say those measures may be increasingly difficult to negotiate, as the
IAEA has made clear it wants to resume a long-blocked investigation into
what it calls the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear
programme." http://t.uani.com/L6VCMK
AP:
"Diplomats said Tuesday that the U.N. nuclear agency will convene a
Jan. 24 meeting of the agency's leading nations on a landmark pact
reached between Tehran and six world powers - an agreement described by
Iran's president as representing the 'surrender' of Western powers to his
country's demands. The date was shared with The Associated Press by two
diplomats from member countries of the U.N's International Atomic Energy
Agency. They demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to
reveal it before a formal IAEA announcement... The accord designates the
IAEA to oversee Iranian compliance with terms of the deal. The 35-nation
IAEA board is expected to approve that role at the Jan. 24 meeting."
http://t.uani.com/KZF2Oo
Global Security
Newswire: "China's export policies have enabled
Pakistan and Iran to buy technology relevant to developing longer-range
missiles, says a new congressional report. Beijing has taken some actions
to address international concerns about its role in weapons
proliferation, but its exports nonetheless have 'aggravated trends that
result in ambiguous technical aid, more indigenous capabilities,
longer-range missiles, and secondary [re-transferred] proliferation,'
reads the Jan. 3 report by the Congressional Research Service, Capitol
Hill's internal research arm. 'Unclassified intelligence reports told
Congress that China was a 'key supplier' of technology, particularly with
[Chinese] entities providing nuclear and missile-related technology to
Pakistan and missile-related technology to Iran,' says the paper, which
did not go into further specifics." http://t.uani.com/JYkNAm
Sanctions
Reuters:
"President Barack Obama is more likely to win his battle with the
U.S. Congress to keep new sanctions on Iran at bay now that world powers
and Tehran have made a new advance in talks to curb the Islamic
Republic's nuclear program. Despite strong support for a bill in the
Senate to slap new sanctions on the Islamic Republic, analysts, lawmakers
and congressional aides said on Monday that the agreement to begin
implementing a nuclear deal on Jan. 20 makes it harder for sanctions
supporters to attract more backers. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a
Connecticut Democrat, was one of several of the 59 co-sponsors who said
there is no clamor for a vote any time soon. 'I want to talk to some of
my colleagues. I'm encouraged and heartened by the apparent progress and
certainly the last thing I want to do is impede that progress. But at the
same time, sanctions are what has brought the Iranians to the table,' he
told reporters." http://t.uani.com/1fumdkg
WSJ:
"Lawmakers in the House have begun a push for a vote on the same
legislative language as the bill circulating in the Senate to 'help push
that over the finish line,' said a person familiar with discussions. If
the House were to pass legislation matching the bill in the Senate, it
would speed the process of sending a bill to Mr. Obama's desk because the
two chambers would not have to go through the process of reconciling
their different bills. The shift in legislative strategy comes after
House leaders last month devised Iran sanctions legislation that was far
more stringent than the Senate bill. That effort was delayed after
intense lobbying from the White House. A House vote would also increase
pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to hold a Senate
vote. So far, people familiar with the process say, Mr. Reid has no plans
to bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote this month. It is
unclear what type of support House leaders will get from Democrats for
their effort." http://t.uani.com/1eG7X51
Reuters:
"The White House said on Monday it was concerned about a recent
report that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth
$1.5 billion a month, a deal a spokeswoman said could trigger U.S.
sanctions... Russian and Iranian sources close to the barter negotiations
said the deal could see Russia buy as much as 500,000 barrels a day of
Iranian oil in exchange for Russian equipment and goods. 'We are
concerned about these reports and Secretary (of State John) Kerry
directly expressed this concern with (Russian) Foreign Minister (Sergei)
Lavrov today,' Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National
Security Council, told Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1dn0kA8
Reuters:
"India may cut Iranian oil imports by 15 percent in 2014/15 from the
current fiscal year's target, if western sanctions on Iran are not eased
and the situation remains the same, a senior oil ministry official said
on Tuesday. India, Iran's second-biggest customer after China, may import
180,000-185,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian oil in 2014/15 fiscal
year beginning in April, and would be able to import close to the
targeted 220,000 bpd in the current fiscal year, R.K. Singh told
reporters." http://t.uani.com/1hmq6W2
Algemeiner:
"Ambassador Mark Wallace, CEO of advocacy group United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI), called on the White House to end its 'continued
characterization of those who support new Iran sanctions as dishonest
warmongers.' In a statement, Wallace said, 'It is wrong for the White
House to continue questioning the integrity and motives of anyone who
supports more sanctions on Iran. It is nonsensical and out of bounds to
say that a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators secretly wants war with
Iran.' 'Sanctions are a non-violent policy tool used to avoid war. It
was, after all, President [Barack] Obama himself who, in his Nobel Prize
acceptance speech, described sanctions as alternatives to violence that
must be tough enough to actually change behavior.'" http://t.uani.com/1aBoqX9
Human Rights
IHR:
"Three prisoners were hanged in two different Iranian prisons,
reported the Iranian state media. According to the official Iranian news
agency IRNA, a 45 year old prisoner was hanged in the prison of Yasouj
(western Iran). The prisoner who was not identified by name was from
Zabol (Sistan-Baluchistan Province) and convicted of trafficking 60
kilograms of crack, said the report." http://t.uani.com/1cZUt2E
Domestic
Politics
Al-Monitor:
"Iran's deputy parliament speaker, Mohammad Reza Bahonar, has warned
of a 'new sedition' in the 2016 parliamentary elections as a result of
the makeup of President Hassan Rouhani's administration. Bahonar, the
secretary-general of the conservative Front of Followers of the Imam's
and the Supreme Leader's Line, told Fars News that Rouhani received
nearly half of the vote because Iranians 'were tired of the eight years
of the unconventional ways of the extremist Reformists [Mohammad
Khatami's presidency] and eight years of [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad extremism,
and that is why they voted for a moderate slogan.' Bahonar, however, said
that Rouhani has organizational weaknesses that have been exploited to
bring in Reformists at lower levels of management of the
administration." http://t.uani.com/1hmttwd
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Executive
Director David Ibsen in the Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska):
"In 2014, Nebraska has an opportunity to make an impact on a major
foreign policy issue - the threat posed by Iran. It comes in the form of
a new bill in Lincoln, LB77, known as the Nebraska Iran Divestment Act.
The act is authored by State Sen. Bill Avery, and it puts strong new
pressure on the Iranian regime. Here are the reasons why LB77 deserves
your support. First, Iran is a terrorist state that has the blood of U.S.
troops on its hands. Due to its support for terror groups like Hamas and
Hezbollah, the Iranian regime has been designated by the U.S. State
Department as 'the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism.' For
the past decade, the government of Iran, through its Quds Force, has
supplied Improvised Explosive Devices to fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq
that have killed hundreds of American troops and wounded thousands,
including many from Nebraska. Since combat operations began in 2003, 79
citizen-soldiers from Nebraska have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of these 79 brave troops, at least 35 were killed by IEDs. There is no
doubt that Iranian-supplied weapons were responsible for many of these
deaths. Of course, that is reason enough to put new pressure on Iran.
Unfortunately, the threat from the Iranian regime is multifaceted and
requires us to respond to multiple dangers, none more urgent that Iran's
work to develop nuclear weapons in open defiance of multiple U.N.
Security Council resolutions. That is where LB77 comes in. It may come as
a shock to many, but through the investments of many state pension funds
- including Nebraska's - millions of Americans are unwittingly investing
billions of dollars in companies that help to enrich the Iranian regime,
and indirectly keep its nuclear program and terrorist activities afloat.
To address this problem, 24 states have passed Iran divestment bills over
the past decade, prohibiting their investments from benefiting companies
that are active in Iran. The Nebraska Iran Divestment Act, authored by
Sen. Avery of Lincoln, with the support of Nebraska Attorney General Jon
Bruning, gives Nebraska the opportunity to become the 25th. It would
prohibit Nebraska's state pension funds from investment in foreign companies
that provide power production-related services or military equipment to
Iran. My organization regularly works with companies on their exits from
Iran. And believe me, when companies are forced choose between U.S.
taxpayers and the Iranian regime, they choose the former. No responsible
and profit-minded firm will jeopardize potential profits, or the good
will of American consumers, by doing business with a regime that murders
our fellow citizens... Divestment is not a new idea in Nebraska. In fact,
Nebraska was actually a pioneer in the struggle for human rights in
apartheid South Africa. In 1980, Nebraska passed America's first
divestment bill targeting our state's investments in companies doing
business in South Africa. It is time for us to continue Nebraska's
tradition as a leader in the struggle for peace and human rights." http://t.uani.com/19rNxNg
Max Boot in
Commentary: "In politics, war, sports, and other
realms momentum counts for a lot. If you maintain the momentum, you can
give the appearance that your victory is inevitable. This disheartens
your adversaries, emboldens your side, and leads waverers to root for
your cause. If, however, you lose momentum the entire process is reversed
and you are put on the defensive, with numerous negative consequences.
Well, guess what? The West has just lost momentum in the battle to keep
Iran from going nuclear. The Obama administration claims that the deal
which takes effect next week is only temporary and phased in-that in
return for a partial slowdown in its nuclear program (which, according to
the New York Times, will add as little as 'several weeks to the time Iran
would need to acquire enough enriched uranium for a bomb') Iran will get
'only' $6 billion to $7 billion worth of sanctions relief. But Iran has won
something far more valuable than that limited sanctions relief, which is
valuable enough as it is to a cash-strapped regime. It has stopped the
momentum of the West's sanctions and is beginning to reverse it. After
having worked so hard to impose crippling economic sanctions on the
Iranian regime, the U.S. is now backing off, even going so far as to
implicitly recognize Iran's 'right' to enrich uranium-i.e., its 'right'
to maintain breakout capacity to build a bomb within a few weeks or
months. This is sending a signal to the entire world that we are no
longer serious about containing Iran. Instead, we are going to
accommodate it. Given that reality, the hordes of waverers and
finger-to-the-wind countries which have been very reluctant to give up
their business dealings with Iran are now likely to open up the spigots
and let trade flow." http://t.uani.com/1dnbkO6
Suzanne Maloney in
Brookings: "Since the seizure of the American
embassy in Tehran more than 34 years ago, economic sanctions have been at
the heart of Washington's strategy for dealing with Iran. For most of
that period, sanctions had more symbolic than strategic value. All that
changed over the course of the past decade, when Washington erected a
far-reaching set of restrictions on Iran's access to the international
financial and persuaded the world to abide by the measures and to curb
their own investment and trade with Tehran. This pressure had a
devastating impact on Iran's oil exports and revenues, the value of its
currency, the stability of its economy as well as the confidence of its
citizens. And after decades of skepticism about their utility, sanctions
were widely credited with turning Tehran toward a more moderate
leadership and facilitating the recent diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear
issue... To kick things off, I've assembled a few of the most commonly
articulated shibboleths surrounding sanctions and tried to offer some
correctives based on my own analysis, which is part of a forthcoming book
on Iran's political economy... Myth 5. More sanctions will produce more
concessions. Maybe. Let's be fair here: nearly all of those who oppose
the new measures under discussion in the Congress - myself included -
have routinely warned against ratcheting up pressure on Iran on the
grounds that such tactics empower Iranian hard-liners and undercut
advocates of diplomacy. Yet in practice, those same measures plainly
contributed to Ahmadinejad's fall from grace and to Tehran's embrace of
the more moderate Rouhani. So it's simply inaccurate to insist that all
pressure is counterproductive... Myth 6. Support for additional Iran
sanctions is the equivalent of support for war. No. With all due respect
to the Obama administration officials who have been making this argument,
it is an overstatement and, in many cases, patently untrue and unfair. It
may be effective domestic politics, given the country's understandable
weariness of Middle Eastern conflicts, but it is an ugly smear to accuse
all those who are skeptical about the current diplomacy or who seek
additional pressure on Iran of war-mongering. More to the point, the
outcome of new sanctions is almost certainly not war. Tehran has come to
the negotiating table despite, and because of, severe economic pressure.
Rouhani's determination to achieve a deal, the speed with which he has
advanced this agenda, and the flimsy pushback (by the rough-and-tumble
standards of Iranian internal politics) he has received from hard-liners
suggests that there is a broad and deep consensus around ending the
nuclear stand-off with the West. No one should doubt Foreign Minister
Zarif's sincerity when he says sanctions will end the talks, but there is
a reasonable chance that Tehran will continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution under almost any circumstances - there simply is no better
alternative for Iranian interests. The same is true for Washington. Few
in Congress are truly eager for another costly Middle Eastern conflict,
and despite the tough talk from successive U.S. presidents on preventing
a nuclear Iran, there is nothing automatic about military action. Even if
the current diplomacy collapses, Washington and the world will have an
array of alternatives for blunting Iran's nuclear advances, including
many that fall short of war. That should not imply that new sanctions
would be free of costs. In fact, the tortuous history of negotiating with
Iran suggests that the almost certain outcome of any new pressure on Iran
will be a less optimal context for negotiations. In other words,
diplomacy would probably prevail, but the context and the terms would
become substantially inferior to what they are today. Iranian lawmakers
are already set to retaliate with their own counterproductive measures,
Iran's hard-liners would direct the pain toward the Iranian people and
the blame toward Washington, and at least some of our allies would see
less impetus for adhering to the extraterritorial measures that have made
the sanctions regime so powerful. So the end result would be greater
Iranian recalcitrance and less cohesion among Washington and its partners
on a path forward. Congressional supporters of new penalties should
consider how that might serve U.S. interests." http://t.uani.com/19rVhil
|
|
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