|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Reuters:
"Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on
sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but
the odds are still against sealing a final agreement, U.S. President
Barack Obama told Reuters on Monday. Interviewed at the White House,
Obama moved to dial back tensions over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress on Tuesday opposing the Iran deal,
saying it was a distraction that would not be 'permanently destructive'
to U.S. Israeli ties. But he strongly criticized Netanyahu's stance and
stressed there was a 'substantial disagreement' between them over how to
achieve their shared goal of preventing Israel's arch foe from acquiring
nuclear weapons... Obama's comment about the time frame for a freeze
represents one of the U.S. government's strongest signals yet of its red
line for a successful deal. 'If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to
double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in
fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we've got
that, and we've got a way of verifying that, there's no other steps we
can take that would give us such assurance that they don't have a nuclear
weapon,' he said... In the interview, Obama again criticized a plan by
Republicans and some Democrats in the U.S. Senate to impose additional
sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by June 30, saying it could
undermine the delicate talks. 'I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime
Minster Netanyahu's commentary than I'm with Congress taking actions that
might undermine the talks before they're completed.' Despite recent
progress in the talks, Obama suggested there had been little change in
his assessment that the negotiations have less than a 50 percent chance
of success." http://t.uani.com/1DEoHmn
Reuters:
"Iran on Tuesday rejected as 'unacceptable' U.S. President Barack
Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least
10 years, but said it would continue talks aimed at securing a deal,
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported. 'Iran will not accept
excessive and illogical demands,' Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif was quoted as saying by Fars. 'Obama's stance ... is expressed in
unacceptable and threatening phrases ... ,' he reportedly said, adding
that negotiations underway in Switzerland would nonetheless carry on.
Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sat down for a second day of
meetings hours after Obama had told Reuters that Iran must commit to a
verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a
landmark atomic deal to be reached." http://t.uani.com/18Jjbaf
NYT:
"Over six years of bitter disagreements about how to deal with the
Iranian nuclear threat, President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
of Israel kept running into one central problem: The two leaders never
described their ultimate goal in quite the same way. Mr. Obama has
repeated a seemingly simple vow: On his watch, the United States would do
whatever it took to 'prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' Mr.
Netanyahu has used a different set of stock phrases. Iran had to be
stopped from getting the 'capability' to manufacture a weapon, he said,
and Israel could never tolerate an Iran that was a 'threshold nuclear
state.' That semantic difference has now widened into a strategic chasm
that threatens to imperil the American-Israeli relationship for years to
come, and to upend the most audacious diplomatic gamble by an American
leader since President Richard M. Nixon's opening to China... In short,
Israel would eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, and the United States
would permit a limited one... Mr. Obama's approach is based in part on a
bet that time remains on America's side. Eventually, the administration's
thinking goes, the clerical government in Iran will fall or be eased from
power, and a more progressive leadership will determine that Iran does
not need a weapon. But the implicit gamble of the accord now under
discussion is that the long-awaited change will occur within 15 years,
when the deal would expire and Iran would be free to build 180,000
advanced centrifuges the supreme leader spoke about last summer. If Iran
had that many machines to enrich uranium - a big if - it would have the
capacity to make a bomb's worth of uranium every week or so." http://t.uani.com/1M4G8CX
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AP:
"Seeking to lower tensions, Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. officials
cast their dispute over Iran as a family squabble on Monday, but the
Israeli leader still claimed that President Barack Obama did not - and could
not - understand his nation's vital security concerns... 'I have a moral
obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still
time to avert them,' he told the cheering crowd of 16,000 at the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. He said Israel had a unique
understanding of the security concerns posed by any Iranian pursuit of a
nuclear bomb because of its position in a 'dangerous neighborhood.' Obama
spoke dismissively of Netanyahu's warnings about the risks of an Iran
deal, saying the prime minister had previously contended Iran would not
abide by an interim agreement signed in 2013 and would get $50 billion in
sanctions relief, a figure the U.S. says is far too high. 'None of that
has come true,' Obama said in an interview with Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1M4IqC1
WashPost:
"National Security Adviser Susan Rice asserted the U.S. rationale
for negotiating a deal on Iran's nuclear program, hours before Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will tell Congress that such an
agreement could threaten the future of Israel... Rice recalled going to
Jerusalem with Obama, where he declared that Iran would not get a nuclear
weapon. 'President Obama said it, he meant it, and those are his orders
to us all,' she said. To achieve that, she said, a 'good deal is one that
would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile
material for a single nuclear weapon.' But Rice cautioned against pursing
outcomes that cannot be achieved. Some, she said, want Iran to 'forgo its
domestic enrichment capacity entirely.' While it is desirable, 'it is
neither realistic nor achievable,' she said, noting that close
international partners in the negotiations don't support denying Iran
'the ability ever to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.'" http://t.uani.com/1GMxxlk
AFP:
"Top diplomats from Iran and the US began a new round of marathon
talks on a nuclear deal late Monday... US Secretary of State John Kerry
and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met in a Swiss lakeside
hotel for a series of sessions which are scheduled to stretch into
Wednesday afternoon. They were accompanied by Energy Secretary Ernest
Moniz and Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, who according to the
Iranian news agency IRNA had first met earlier for about 90 minutes.
Iranian negotiators Abbas Araghchi and Majid Takht Ravanchi had also held
talks with US Under Secretary Wendy Sherman as well as the EU's deputy
foreign policy chief Helga Schmid, IRNA added... 'We are all focused
simultaneously on the need to elicit from Iran answers to questions about
their nuclear programme -- not just answers for today, but answers that
are capable of lasting well into the future,' Kerry told reporters in
Geneva. He stressed global powers, grouped under the P5+1, were not
seeking 'a deal at any cost' but to ensure that the 'four pathways to a
nuclear bomb have been closed off.' 'We hope we can get there, but there
is no guarantee,' Kerry added." http://t.uani.com/18Jkje9
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flies to Riyadh this week to
reassure King Salman that any nuclear deal with Iran is in Saudi Arabia's
interest, despite the country's fears it may boost its rival's support
for Shi'ite Muslim interests in the region... 'The Saudis fear Obama will
give the Iranians a deal whatever the cost because it is important for
his legacy, and that Iran will get a certain regional status in exchange
for an agreement,' said a diplomat in the Gulf... Saudi's anxiety about
an agreement has fueled a flurry of diplomacy in recent days to bolster
unity among Sunni states in the Middle East in the face of shared threats
including Iran, analysts say." http://t.uani.com/1zEo8Xr
NJ.com:
"U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez tonight told the largest pro-Israel
lobbying group that he would only support a negotiated agreement that
dismantles Iran's nuclear program, not one that gives Tehran a 'pathway'
to a bomb. Menendez (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that
he would oppose any deal that allowed Iranian centrifuges to keep
spinning and provide at best a year's warning before the country decided
to develop nuclear weapons. 'As long as I have an ounce of fight left in
me, as long as I have a vote and a say and a chance to protect the
interests of Israel, the region, and the national security interests of
the United States, Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon,' Menendez
said, bringing the delegates to their feet. 'It will never threaten
Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to start a
nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch.'" http://t.uani.com/1aJTYNE
Iraq Crisis
WSJ:
"Iran took a leading role in the Iraqi military's largest offensive
yet to reclaim territory from Islamic State, throwing drones, heavy
weaponry and ground forces into the battle while the U.S. remained on the
sidelines. The operation that began Monday aims to retake Tikrit, best
known as the hometown of Saddam Hussein, 80 miles north of the capital Baghdad.
In addition to supplying drones, Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard
force has fighters on the ground with Iraqi units, mostly operating
artillery and rocket batteries, according to a U.S. military official.
Iraqi Shiite militias closely allied with Iran are also heavily involved.
Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency reported that Qasem Soleimani, head
of the Revolutionary Guard's overseas unit Quds Force, was on the ground
near Tikrit advising commanders... It has also thrown a new spotlight on
Shiite Iran's role in assisting Shiite-dominated Iraq to regain control
of large parts of the country taken by the Sunni radical group Islamic
State. Tehran has wielded increasing influence over Iraq's military
affairs after Iraqi security forces proved unable to contain the Islamic
State onslaught that began in summer... U.S. officials said one of the
key reasons the Iraqis didn't ask for U.S. help was because they were
getting it from Iran... The Tikrit fight, according to U.S. officials,
represents the most sizable Iranian support yet for an Iraqi
offensive." http://t.uani.com/1B548B3
Human Rights
Reuters:
"Iran had a 'deeply troubling' number of executions last year and
did not keep a promise to protect ethnic and religious minorities, the
United Nations said on Tuesday in its annual report on Tehran's human
rights record. The report from the office of Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon to the U.N. Human Rights Council cataloged U.N. concerns about
rights violations in Iran against women, religious minorities,
journalists and activists. The report was published as a deadline nears
for Iran and major powers to agree a deal on its nuclear program, which
Tehran says would end sanctions against it. Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif complained to the Council on Monday about 'double
standards' and an 'almost uncontrollable compulsion' to politicize
issues. Iran was believed to have executed at least 500 people between
January and November 2014 and possibly many more, the report said. Most
victims did not get a fair trial and over 80 percent of those executed
were drug offenders, it said. 'The Secretary-General remains deeply
troubled by the continuing large number of executions, including of
political prisoners and juveniles,' it said, repeating a U.N. call for a
death penalty moratorium and a ban on executing youths. It said Iran had
not kept President Hassan Rouhani's promise to 'extend protection to all
religious groups and to amend legislation that discriminates against
minority groups.'" http://t.uani.com/17NHyCE
IHR:
"Six death row Kurdish Sunni prisoners have been transferred to an
unknown location. Families of prisoners have been asked visit met their
loved ones for the last time. Right groups believe the prisoners might be
executed within the coming 24 hours. Iran Human Rights (IHR) calls for
immediate reaction of the international community and urges the Western
leaders meeting with the Iranian Foreign minister today, to put pressure
on Iran to stop these unlawful executions." http://t.uani.com/1F51OKY
Reuters:
"Iran monitored 8 million Facebook accounts with new software and
will watch other social media sites for content that contravenes the
Islamic Republic's moral codes, state television reported on Monday. The
Center for Investigation of Organized Crime, a branch of the elite
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), accused Facebook of spreading immoral
content and said it had arrested several users. '[Facebook] is trying to
push its users toward immoral content via its suggestion system, by
making them choose harmful, decadent and obscene content over beneficial
and educational subject matter,' the IRGC said in a statement cited by
state TV and other Iranian media. Iran blocks access to social media
sites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube but millions of Iranians easily get
around that by using virtual private networks (VPNs)... The cyber
security directorate will expand its 'Spider' program to monitor other
social media including Instagram, Viber and WhatsApp, the IRGC
said." http://t.uani.com/1zUR4v7
Foreign Affairs
AFP:
"Western democracies should ask themselves some tough questions
about why they have produced some of the extremists wreaking havoc in the
world today, Iran's foreign minister said Monday. In a speech before the
UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the West
of 'selectivity and double standards' in its dealings with the Muslim
world, suggesting a bit of 'soul-searching' would be in order. Western
democracies, he said, should ponder 'why quite a sizable number of
individuals and groups espousing extremist ideologies and engaged in acts
of brutal terror and heinous violence... happen to be second generation
citizens of Western democracies.' 'It is frightening that Daesh
terrorists, beheading innocent civilians, speak European languages with a
native accent,' he said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State (IS)
group... In a veiled swipe at the United States and its allies, he
charged that countries had used human rights as a 'disguise for broad
social, political and strategic engineering to transform the region and
undermine governments deemed to be unfriendly.'" http://t.uani.com/1EcV0y0
Opinion &
Analysis
Jeffrey Goldberg
in The Atlantic: "I'm fairly sure Netanyahu will
deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and
forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be
strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that
allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey
proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building,
Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror
regime is a dicey proposition. The deal that seems to be taking shape
right now does not fill me-or many others who support a diplomatic
solution to this crisis-with confidence. Reports suggest that the
prospective agreement will legitimate Iran's right to enrich uranium (a
'right' that doesn't actually exist in international law); it will allow
Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will
lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be
free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I'm
more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of
the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.) This is a very
dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises,
and if he fails to keep them-if he inadvertently (or, God forbid,
advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be
forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in
the world's most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise
to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability
as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In an interview with me three
years ago, President Obama said he was motivated to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon in part because he worried that a nuclear Iran
would cause its many Middle East rivals to pursue their own nuclear
programs. 'It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region
for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon,'
he said. 'Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat
of proliferation becomes that much more severe.' He went on, 'The only
analogous situation is North Korea. We have applied a lot of pressure on
North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend
some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the
table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable
of shaping the environment (around it) than Iran is. And so the dangers
of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in
the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the
world.' If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey respond to an Iran nuclear
agreement by ramping up their own nuclear programs, we may be able to
judge the deal a provisional failure... One of Netanyahu's most strident
critics, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency,
said recently, 'A nuclear Iran is a reality that Israel won't be able to
come to terms with.' He went on to say, 'Two issues in particular concern
me with respect to the talks between the world powers and Iran: What
happens if and when the Iranians violate the agreement, and what happens
when the period of the agreement comes to an end and they decide to
pursue nuclear weapons?' In the coming weeks, President Obama must
provide compelling answers to these questions." http://t.uani.com/1Eebmoz
Mike Rogers &
Michael Doran in Politico: "Netanyahu's speech is
the act of a true and courageous friend. All of America's traditional
allies in the Middle East are deeply distrustful of Obama's outreach to
Iran. Allies in Europe and Asia are similarly fearful regarding what they
consider to be flagging American resolve in the face of threats from
Russia and China. Few allied leaders, however, will express their
concerns to the president plainly - even in private - for fear of
retribution. When they see the White House treating Netanyahu to a level
of hostility usually reserved for adversaries, their trepidation only
increases. Even worse, Obama's apparent reluctance to stand up to
adversaries gives allies incentive to hedge. The case of France is
instructive. As our colleague Benjamin Haddad recently argued, elements
of the French elite are now saying that the French government would be
foolish to take a hard line against Russia and Iran. If Washington is
going to fold in the face of pressure from Moscow and Tehran, how can
France alone hold the line? ... Netanyahu's appearance will also spark a
vital debate about more than just the nuclear deal, which is only one
aspect of a broader policy of outreach to Iran. Evidence mounts by the
day that Obama sees Iran as an attractive partner of the United States in
defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and stabilizing the
Middle East more broadly and that he sees the nuclear deal as the key
step to realizing that partnership. These apparent intentions are deeply
troubling to the Israeli government, which is watching today as Iran
leads Syria and Hezbollah in a combined offensive on the Golan Heights
against the rebels who threaten to topple the Assad regime. If Iran wins,
Israel and Jordan will find Iranian troops ensconced on their border.
While this prospect alarms them, it also vexes the traditional allies of
the United States in the Persian Gulf. They fear that a nuclear deal will
strengthen the defensive umbrella that Iran already provides to the Quds
force as it builds a network of Shiite militias from Baghdad to Beirut.
Netanyahu's visit will thus raise public awareness of the connection
between the nuclear issue and the destabilizing activities of Iran in the
region - an issue that deserves much more attention than it has received.
The Israeli prime minister's views are reasonable, if not judicious. His
opinions about the proposed Iran deal are not idiosyncratic; they are not
exclusively Israeli; nor are they extreme. American observers with
substantial reputations and with no ax to grind have themselves begun to
express similar doubts about the proposed deal. Citing Henry Kissinger
and others, The Washington Post editorial board recently wrote that 'a
process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran's potential to
produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and
temporarily restrict that capability.' If the president follows through
with such a plan without first subjecting its terms to a rigorous debate
in Congress, he will be concluding an agreement that is entirely personal
in nature. The legitimacy of such a deal would be hotly contested,
rendering it inherently unstable, if not dangerous. By helping to force a
more thorough examination of the matter, Netanyahu is therefore
performing a service to us all. When a president turns a deaf ear to a
good friend bearing an inconvenient message, he works against his own
interests, whether he realizes it or not." http://t.uani.com/1M4JBS4
|
|
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