Eye on Iran: US Warns It Is Ready to Walk Away from Iran Nuclear Talks

Join UANI           Top Stories AP: "With only weeks left to the deadline to reach a first-stage nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday that 'significant gaps' remained and warned that America was ready to walk away from the talks if Tehran doesn't agree to terms demonstrating that it doesn't want atomic arms. Kerry spoke after the Iranian Atomic Energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz added their muscle to the talks for the first time to help resolve technical disputes standing in the way of an agreement meant to curb Iran's nuclear programs in exchange for sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic. But Kerry warned against undue optimism. Salehi's and Moniz's presence is no 'indication whatsoever that something is about to be decided,' he said. 'There are still significant gaps.' ... The talks have missed two previous deadlines, and President Barack Obama has said a further extension would make little sense without a basis for continuing discussions. Kerry...said there was no doubt Obama was serious. The president, he said, 'is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they're not being met with the kind of productive decision-making necessary to prove that a program is in fact peaceful.'" http://t.uani.com/1JCMM5w NYT: "The top nuclear officials from Iran and the United States took part in high-level talks on Monday as the two sides sought to meet a March deadline for finalizing the outline of an agreement to limit Tehran's nuclear program. Ali Akbar Salehi, the director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, joined Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, in the negotiations, which began Sunday night in a luxury hotel near Lake Geneva. Iran's decision to include Mr. Salehi in its delegation prompted Washington to arrange for Ernest J. Moniz, the American energy secretary, to join Secretary of State John Kerry on the American side. The current round of negotiations signals the first time the talks have been broadened to include the top nuclear officials. Their participation is a reflection of the complexity of the potential agreement, which seeks to place constraints on Iran's nuclear program in return for suspending and eventually removing economic sanctions... But some Western observers have raised concerns that Mr. Salehi, who also served as foreign minister in Iran's previous hard-line government, might seek to protect the country's nuclear activities from being subjected to stringent limits and might restrict Mr. Zarif's room to maneuver." http://t.uani.com/1zzxgxk WSJ: "Arab governments are privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential deal aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program, according to Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations. The direction of U.S. diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat. The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years. Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran's nuclear capabilities. 'At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,' said an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks." http://t.uani.com/1LxB89B     Nuclear Program & Negotiations AFP: "The world powers negotiating with Iran over its nuclear programme stand united, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday, a day before resuming talks with his Iranian counterpart. 'There is absolutely no divergence whatsoever in what we believe is necessary for Iran to prove that its nuclear program is going to be peaceful,' Kerry said in London before heading to Geneva Sunday for talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. 'The P5+1 remains united on the subject of Iran,' he added." http://t.uani.com/1JCLGa0 AFP: "A senior Iranian official in talks on the country's disputed nuclear programme has said differences remain on key questions at the ongoing negotiations in Geneva, state media reported Monday. 'The gap still exists, differences exist, and all parties are negotiating with seriousness and determination, but we haven't found solutions to key questions,' Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said... 'In many areas, the negotiations have addressed the details... In some cases, solutions were found and the time has come for political decisions,' said Araghchi, quoted by state television. 'For this reason, contacts at the highest level between the two parties are needed,' he added." http://t.uani.com/1w2p3jR Reuters: "Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has dispatched his brother and atomic chief to Geneva to try to overcome hurdles in high-profile nuclear talks with the United States and five other major powers, official Iranian media reported on Saturday... Iranian media said nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi and President Rouhani's brother and close aide, Hossein Fereydoon, would make their first formal appearance in the marathon talks, now entering a sensitive stage involving fine technical details. 'Fereydoon's presence is prompted by the need to engage in consultations and make necessary coordinations throughout the present round of talks in Geneva,' foreign ministry official Mohammad Ali Hosseini said." http://t.uani.com/18fUDW4 Reuters: "Russia has offered Iran its latest Antey-2500 missiles, the head of Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec said on Monday according to media reports, after a deal to supply less powerful S-300 missiles was dropped under Western pressure. Sergei Chemezov said Tehran was now considering the offer, TASS news agency reported. Russia scrapped a contract to supply Iran with S-300 surface-to-air missiles under Western pressure in 2010, and Iran later filed a $4-billion international arbitration suit against Russia in Geneva, but the two countries remain allies. The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran's nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes... Rostec includes state-owned arms exporting monopoly Rosoboronexport, which has the sole right to export and import arms in Russia." http://t.uani.com/1BdqIdW Cyber Warfare NYT: "A newly disclosed National Security Agency document illustrates the striking acceleration of the use of cyberweapons by the United States and Iran against each other, both for spying and sabotage, even as Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart met in Geneva to try to break a stalemate in the talks over Iran's disputed nuclear program. The document, which was written in April 2013 for Gen. Keith B. Alexander, then the director of the National Security Agency, described how Iranian officials had discovered new evidence the year before that the United States was preparing computer surveillance or cyberattacks on their networks. It detailed how the United States and Britain had worked together to contain the damage from 'Iran's discovery of computer network exploitation tools' - the building blocks of cyberweapons. That was more than two years after the Stuxnet worm attack by the United States and Israel severely damaged the computer networks at Tehran's nuclear enrichment plant." http://t.uani.com/1zasYv6 Terrorism Reuters: "Relatives of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded in a 1983 Beirut bombing have been barred by a U.S. judge from seeking $1.6 billion in assets belonging to Iran's central bank and held by a unit of German exchange operator Deutsche Boerse. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in New York said in a decision released on Friday that they could not pursue assets owned by Iran's Bank Markazi and held in Luxembourg because she does not have jurisdiction over the funds. Clearstream Banking SA, the clearing unit for Deutsche Boerse AG, had argued for the case to be thrown out because U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over funds held in Luxembourg with no direct link to the United States. Lawyers for the plaintiffs countered that Clearstream operates an office in New York and that the Iranian funds are denominated in dollars, with proceeds from the assets previously arriving in a Clearstream account at JPMorgan Chase & Co in New York. Victims of the bombing won a $2.65 billion default judgment against Iran in 2007 and have since pursued Iranian assets held in various accounts to collect on the judgment." http://t.uani.com/1B52lxo Syrian Conflict Reuters: "Having lost control of its oil wells, Syria has been forced to import crude. Iranian support has remained solid, despite the decline in world oil prices which are around half the level they were at last June, said Safiyeh. 'The import of petroleum products did not stop because of the fall in the oil price. It continued, with the Iranian credit line, and continues until now,' [the Syrian minister of internal trade and consumer protection Hassan] Safieh said. He did not give numbers. 'There is an Iranian credit line. The truth is there are excellent (credit) facilities, and also Russia stands with us and the BRICs are standing with us in any matters requiring the provision of necessary supplies,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1vsbzms Human Rights IranWire: "Amir Hekmati, an Iranian American and ex-US marine who has spent more than three and a half years in Tehran's Evin Prison, has appealed to Iran's Head of the Supreme Court, asking him to reopen his case and outlining the illegality of the charges against him. In a letter to Hojatoleslam Hossein Karimi, the former marine describes how he was forced into giving a confession and insists that the authorities have no evidence against him. Hekmati explains how, in 2011, after being held in solitary confinement for four months, the authorities took him to a Tehran hotel, gave him cigarettes and food, and told him he would be released if he confessed to the charges against him. He was also told that the confession would be used to help train other intelligence agents. Though he initially refused, on the basis that what he was being asked to say was untrue, he eventually agreed, hoping he would be able to speak to his family. However the authorities did not release him, nor did it seem they had any intention of doing so. 'It was only after the video was broadcast that I understood the swamp I was stuck in as a result of a political game,' Hekmati writes. 'Now I understand that this fabricated video and this baseless propaganda was meant to prepare public opinion and the court, because my verdict was issued with that film.'" http://t.uani.com/1D3elMr France 24: "Iran on Thursday executed an Iranian Kurd arrested at the age of 17 for belonging to the rebel Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) and involvement in armed confrontations with Iran's Revolutionary Guards despite calls for leniency. Saman Naseem, 22, was sentenced to death in April 2013, after allegedly being tortured. His execution was confirmed by the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) on Friday. According to the FIDH, Nassem's family, which had been ordered by the authorities to 'keep quiet', were told to collect his personal effects from prison this weekend, which is the usual practice after an execution in Iran. The FIDH underscored in its communiqué on Friday that Iran was a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids the execution of minors, and that Tehran had ignored international calls - including from France - for leniency." http://t.uani.com/1wfLYhc IHR: "Iranian state media has reported about execution of 12 prisoners on Sunday 22 February. According to the Iranian State Broadcasting eight prisoners were hanged in the prison of Bandar Abbas (Southern Iran) on Sunday. One of the prisoners was charged with rape, while the seven others were sentenced to death for drug-related charges. The Young Journalists Club, run by the authorities, quoted Hormozgan prosecutor saying that these prisoners were charged with trafficking of one ton of opium, heroin and hashish. Official website of the Iranian Judiciary in the Markazi Province (South of Tehran) reported about execution of four prisoners convicted of drug-related charges in the prison of Arak." http://t.uani.com/1Gl7AJo Domestic Politics AFP: "Iran's Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said Saturday political life in the Islamic republic was tainted by 'dirty money', including from drugs, the official IRNA news agency reported. 'A large part of the moral corruption in this country comes from the introduction of dirty money into politics,' the minister was quoted as saying. Iran was in 136th place out of 175 last year in an index of nations seen as corrupt by Transparency International, a non-governmental organisation. 'Part of this money is now in politics,' said Rahmani Fazli, who was speaking during a seminar of police officials charged with fighting drugs trafficking. 'For example, a candidate in municipal elections spends 20 billion rials ($600,000). When asked where it came from, he says friends helped him. This dirty money is everywhere.'" http://t.uani.com/1LuOly9 AFP: "Iran's parliament has approved an article in the 2015-2016 draft budget to tax religious foundations and army-linked firms that could generate trillions of dollars. The vote, reported by the state news agency IRNA, could help boost state coffers in the Islamic republic which has long depended on revenues from oil. But since the plunge in international oil prices, the government has sought to tighten spending and raise taxes to offset the negative hit on state finances. Revenues raised by taxing religious foundations and army-linked firms that control large parts of the economy could amount to 10 trillion rials (more than $350 million at the official exchange rate/300 million euros), budget committee member Mousalreza Servati had said in December. The taxes would be raised from religious foundations and army-linked firms that control large parts of the economy and would be made to pay from the start of the fiscal year in March. The article approved by parliament, which is voting on the budget point by point, still has to be ratified by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." http://t.uani.com/1BG66KR Opinion & Analysis UANI Advisory Board Member Joseph Lieberman in WashPost: "Last week, 23 House Democrats asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to postpone Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint meeting of Congress scheduled for March 3. But it is absolutely clear that the speaker will neither postpone nor rescind his invitation. The prime minister will be there to speak. Therefore, I appeal to those 23 individuals and any other undecided members of Congress to go to the joint meeting and hear what the prime minister has to say. Let me suggest some good reasons why: ● Go because this is about determining how best to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and not just another Washington test of partisan and political loyalty. ● Go because - regardless of what you think of the leaders involved or their actions in this case - you are a strong supporter of America's alliance with Israel, and you don't want it to become a partisan matter. ● Go because you know that the Constitution gives you, as a member of Congress, the power to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations,' 'define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations,' 'declare war,' 'raise and support armies' and 'provide and maintain a Navy,' and Netanyahu might say some things that will inform your exercise of those great powers. ● Go because you know that Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies and you feel a responsibility to listen to its leader speak about developments that he believes could threaten the safety, independence and even existence of his country, as well as that of our closest allies in the Arab world. ● Go because you worry that it is not just the security of Israel and the Arab nations but the security of the United States that will be threatened if a bad agreement is made with Iran that enables it to build nuclear weapons it could put on its increasingly capable long-range missiles. ● Go because you are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation and believe that a faulty deal with Iran will not only put it on the road to becoming a nuclear power but will also lead some of Iran's Arab neighbors to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible. In sum, there is too much on the line in the negotiations with Iran for members of Congress to decide not to listen to what Netanyahu, or any other ally, has to say on this subject." http://t.uani.com/1LxI2vr Dennis Ross in WashPost: "The controversy over Republican House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress has had the ironic effect of diverting attention from the very topic the Israeli prime minister wants to discuss: the problems with a potential deal on the Iranian nuclear program. Although everyone debates the propriety of the Israeli prime minister challenging President Obama's policy in such a setting, the partisan nature of the invitation and the timing of the speech - just two weeks before an Israeli election - the substance of the issue has been pushed aside. Why is there such a divide between the United States' and Israel's positions, and can they be bridged? There is no disguising the gap between the president and prime minister. Obama is clearly prepared to accept a deal that would limit the Iranian nuclear program for perhaps the next 15 years and in a way that ensures the Iranians would be a year away from being able to produce weapons-grade uranium. Iran, however, would not be required to dismantle any nuclear facilities or infrastructure - and, after the agreement expires, would be permitted to have an industrial-size nuclear program and be treated like any other party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). In Netanyahu's view, however, that means leaving Iran as a nuclear-threshold state. Though the prime minister's public posture is that Iran must not be allowed any enrichment capacity and that its nuclear facilities should be dismantled, my conversations with Israelis suggest that they could, in fact, live with an agreement that permits Iran a small enrichment capability. Their view is that, in return for a rollback of sanctions, there must be a serious rollback of the Iranian nuclear program. By contrast, the deal reportedly under consideration would limit the Iranian nuclear program, not meaningfully diminish it, in return for a rollback of sanctions. The Israelis argue that if Iran is permitted to have an industrial-size nuclear energy program, it would be able to become a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. Indeed, the transparency or verification system needed to detect a so-called breakout by a small program is unlikely to work for a very large one. Olli Heinonen, a former official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for verification, has been outspoken on this point. Heinonen has emphasized that what might be effective for a program with 1,000 to 2,000 centrifuges will not work for one with tens of thousands of centrifuges unless new protocols are developed, access is redefined and additional inspectors are permitted. Thus, at least in part, the Israeli fear is related to the difficulty of verifying that the Iranians are complying with the NPT once they have an industrial-size program. No doubt it is also driven by concerns about the will of the United States and other nations to prevent Iran from crossing the weapons threshold, particularly if they have accepted a deal in which Iran is permitted a large nuclear infrastructure. Could the Obama administration address those fears? Yes, provided that the administration is prepared to take two steps." http://t.uani.com/1D3i4cN Fred Hiatt in WashPost: "Can President Obama sell an Iran deal at home? If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it will be far from ideal: Rather than eradicating Iran's nuclear-weapons potential, as once was hoped, a pact would seek to control Iran's activities for some limited number of years. Such a deal might be defensible on the grounds that it is better than any alternative, given that most experts believe a military 'solution' would be at best temporary and possibly counterproductive. But making that kind of lesser-evil defense would be challenging in any circumstances. Three conditions will make it particularly hard for Obama to persuade Congress and the nation to accept his assurances in this case: the suspicious, poisonous partisanship of the moment here, with Israeli politics mixed in; worries that he wants a deal too much; and the record of his past assurances. The partisanship needs no explanation, but the record of foreign-policy assurances is worth recalling: ● In 2011, when he decided to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Obama belittled worries that instability might result. Iraq and the United States would maintain 'a strong and enduring partnership,' Obama said. Iraq would be 'stable, secure and self-reliant,' and Iraqis would build a future 'worthy of their history as a cradle of civilization.' Today Iraq is in deep trouble, with a murderous 'caliphate' occupying much of its territory and predatory Shiite militia roaming through much of the rest. ● That same year, Obama touted his bombing campaign in Libya as a model of U.S. intervention and promised, 'That's not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya.' The United States and its NATO allies promptly abandoned Libya, which today is in the grip of civil war, with rival governments in the east and west and Islamist terrorists in between. ● Obama also said then, 'Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.' That was before Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's barrel bombs, systematic and well-documented prison torture and other depredations of civil war killed 200,000 of his compatriots , and drove millions more from their homes. ● In August 2011, Obama declared that Assad must 'step aside.' In a background briefing a senior White House official added, 'We are certain Assad is on the way out.' In August 2013 came Obama's statement that 'the worst chemical attack of the 21st century ... must be confronted. ... I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.' No military action was taken, and Assad remains in power. ● In September, the president said his strategy for defeating the Islamic State 'is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.' Shortly thereafter, an Iran-backed rebellion deposed Yemen's pro-U.S. government, forcing the United States to abandon its embassy and much of its anti-terror operation... This litany of unfulfilled assurances is less a case of Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and stubborn adherence to policies after they have failed. But inevitably it will affect how people hear Obama's promises on Iran, as will his overall foreign policy record... By most measures...the world has not become safer during Obama's tenure. Islamist extremists are stronger than ever; democracy is in retreat around the globe; relations with Russia and North Korea have worsened; allies are questioning U.S. steadfastness." http://t.uani.com/1ABUTYK          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.