|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"Wrapping up six days of marathon nuclear talks with mixed results,
Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement
agreeing to continue talks in a new phase aimed at reaching a final
agreement to control Iran's nuclear ambitions by the end of June,
officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday. Officials had set a
deadline of March 31 for a framework agreement, and later softened that
wording to a framework understanding, between Iran and the so-called P5+1
nations - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
And after intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment,
where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran's
nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions
relief among other issues. The joint statement is to be accompanied by
additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing
the sides to claim enough progress has been made thus far to merit a new
round, the officials said. Iran has not yet signed off on the documents,
one official said, meaning any understanding remains unclear... The
softening of the language from a framework 'agreement' to a framework
'understanding' appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement
from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he
demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the
other side to 'make things difficult' by giving it wiggle room on
interpretations." http://t.uani.com/1I0ykCI
Reuters:
"Iran is not expected to normalize relations with the United States
even if Tehran reaches agreement with world powers on its nuclear
program, officials and analysts said... Loyalists of supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, drawn from among Islamists and Revolutionary
Guards who fear continued economic hardship might cause the collapse of
the establishment, have agreed to back President Hassan Rouhani's
pragmatic readiness to negotiate a nuclear deal, Iranian officials said.
'But it will not go beyond that and he (Khamenei) will not agree with
normalizing ties with America,' said an official, who spoke in condition
of anonymity. 'You cannot erase decades of hostility with a deal. We
should wait and see, and Americans need to gain Iran's trust. Ties with
America is still a taboo in Iran.' ... However, Khamenei has continued to
give speeches larded with denunciations of Iran's 'enemies' and 'the
Great Satan', words aimed at reassuring hardliners for whom anti-American
sentiment has always been central to Iran's Islamic revolution... 'As
long as Khamenei remains Supreme Leader the chances of normalizing
U.S.-Iran relations are very low. Rapprochement with the U.S. arguably
poses a greater existential threat to Khamenei than continued conflict,' said
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington." http://t.uani.com/1OULW4r
WSJ:
"With a key deadline just hours away, U.S. and European officials
said nuclear negotiations were imperiled by deep uncertainty over whether
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would sign off on the
necessary concessions for a deal... after more than 18 months of direct
negotiations, Western officials said there are signs Mr. Khamenei hasn't
empowered his negotiators to give ground on the few remaining sticking
points. These include the pace at which United Nations sanctions on Iran
would be removed, the scope of Tehran's future nuclear work, and the
ability of international inspectors to access the country's nuclear and
military sites. Mr. Khamenei, in speeches and posts on social media in
recent days, has fixated on the demand that U.N. sanctions be removed at
the beginning of any agreement. U.S. officials have said this isn't
feasible and that the restrictions would be removed in phases and in
response to Iran abiding by the commitments it makes." http://t.uani.com/1CHzHD2
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"Iran would not necessarily have to ship its stockpile of highly
enriched uranium abroad under a nuclear pact with major powers, U.S. State
Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Monday. 'You don't have to ship
it out of the country to get to a year breakout time,' she said in a
conference call, referring to the goal of stretching the amount of time
it would take Iran to acquire enough fissile material to make one atomic
bomb. 'You can have some other dispositions for it that get us where we
need to be in terms of our bottom line,' Harf said... Harf said that the
two sides had never had an agreement on shipping enriched uranium abroad
and said there were different ways to achieve the U.S. goal of extending
Iran's 'breakout time' to one year. 'For months we have been talking with
Iran about the different ways they can get rid of that stockpile. One is
obviously dilution in country, as they have been doing. One is shipping
it overseas,' Harf said. 'This is one we have to resolve, but we haven't
yet.'" http://t.uani.com/1Iid1t9
NYT:
"Negotiators from the United States, Iran and five other nations
pushed into the night on Monday to try to reach a preliminary political
agreement on limiting Iran's nuclear program. But with a Tuesday
deadline, it seemed clear that even if an accord were reached some of the
toughest issues would remain unresolved until late June... The main
points that the negotiators have been grappling with include the pace of
lifting United Nations sanctions, restriction on the research and
development of new types of centrifuges, the length of the agreement and
even whether it would be detailed in a public document. Yet another
dispute was highlighted Sunday when Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas
Araqchi, told Iranian and other international news organizations that
Iran had no intention of disposing of its nuclear stockpile by shipping
the fuel out of the country, as the United States has long preferred...
'The shipping out of Iran's uranium stockpile was to be the key
administration win in this agreement,' Representative Ed Royce, the
California Republican who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, said in an interview Monday. 'It was presumed they were going
to win on that point because they were giving in on every other point.
'Now,' he added, 'it looks like that rationale is being tossed out the
window.' Outside experts said the resolution of the issue was critical to
the administration's ability to make a convincing political case that the
United States and its allies would have plenty of warning time if Iran
made a dash for a bomb." http://t.uani.com/1bMQydJ
Free Beacon:
"One source familiar with the talks told the Free Beacon that the
Obama administration had been promising members of Congress that Iran
would consent to export its uranium. 'Administration officials told
lawmakers they'd get the Iranians to make a concession, then the Iranians
refused to make that concession, and now the State Department is
pretending they never expected anything anyway,' said the source. 'The
White House briefed lawmakers and told them the Iranians were willing to
ship out their stockpile,' the source said. 'That was the whole
justification for jacking up centrifuge numbers to 6,000. State
Department spokespeople are basically gaslighting reporters by pretending
otherwise.'" http://t.uani.com/1EYHIk5
AFP:
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday he was planning
to take part in marathon talks aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear
programme, saying chances of a deal were significant. 'Indeed I am
planning to return and take part in the final part of the ministerial
meeting of the six powers,' Lavrov told reporters in Moscow. Moscow had
said earlier that Lavrov, who participated in the talks on Monday, would
only return if there was a realistic chance of a deal. On Tuesday, Lavrov
struck a sanguine note. 'The prospects of this round of talks are not
bad, even good I would say,' said Lavrov, speaking alongside Vanuatu's
foreign minister Sato Kilman. 'Chances are high,' he added. 'They are
probably not absolute and there is never absolute certainty in
anything.'" http://t.uani.com/1HhhVpU
Pew:
"Ahead of a March 31 deadline for nuclear talks with Iran, more
Americans approve (49%) than disapprove (40%) of the United States
negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program. But the public
remains skeptical of whether Iranian leaders are serious about addressing
international concerns over their nuclear enrichment program. If a
nuclear agreement is reached, most Americans (62%) want Congress to have
final authority over the deal. Just 29% say President Obama should have
final authority over any nuclear agreement with Iran... Among those who
have heard at least a little about the nuclear talks (76% of the public),
63% say Iranian leaders are not serious 'about addressing international
concerns about their country's nuclear enrichment program.'" http://t.uani.com/19wUz4h
Regional
Destabilization
Reuters:
"A nuclear deal with Iran may spur proxy wars in the Middle East as
Sunni Muslims try to counter an increasingly wealthy and powerful Shi'ite
Iran, the European Union's counter-terrorism coordinator said on Monday.
Gilles de Kerchove told the European Parliament one important cause of
terrorism was 'this war by proxy from the Sunni world which feels a bit
on the defensive because of the rise of Iran'. Asked if a deal to curb
Iran's nuclear ambitions being negotiated in Switzerland would have an
impact, he said: 'Yes, of course, because Iran will have even more money.
'It is a sophisticated country, with a vision, more and more powerful in
the Middle East, and therefore on the Sunni side there might be a
temptation for some to support extremist groups to fight against Iran by
proxy,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1OUMerU
Free Beacon:
"NBC's Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were
stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched
attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were
finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time.
Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress
believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do
not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran. 'Saudi
Arabia and other countries simply don't trust the United States any more,
don't trust this administration, think the administration is working to
befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn't
feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that's a
situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,' Engel said...
'So there are many people who I have spoken to, many in the military,
many policy analysts who say what we are seeing here is incoherent policy
regarding not just Iran, but regarding the middle east in general,' Engel
said." http://t.uani.com/1FdLfxB
Yemen Crisis
Fars:
"Commander of Iran's Basij (volunteer) Force Brigadier General
Mohammad Reza Naqdi condemned the Saudi aggression against Yemen, and
said that the Al Saud dynasty will have a fate similar to that of former
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 'Imposing war on Yemen will, God
willingly, have no result other than Saddam's fate for the aggressors and
the US that is the direct sponsor of this crime will have to leave the
region forever after losing its puppet, the Al Saud regime,' Brigadier
General Naqdi said in a statement on the occasion of the anniversary of
the Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on Tuesday." http://t.uani.com/1FdJW1D
Opinion &
Analysis
Bret Stephens in
WSJ: "Some readers may object that Iran has made its
own significant concessions. Except it hasn't. They may also claim that
the U.S. has no choice but to strike a deal. Except we entered these
negotiations with all the strong cards. We just chose to give them up.
Finally, critics may argue that I'm being unfair to the administration,
since nobody knows the agreement's precise terms. But that's rich coming
from an administration that refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent
of its diplomatic surrender be prematurely and fatally exposed. Nearly a
century ago Woodrow Wilson insisted on 'open covenants of peace, openly
arrived at, after which there shall be no private international
understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and
in public view.' Barack Obama prefers to capitulate to tyrants in secret.
Judging from the above, it's no wonder." http://t.uani.com/1GIEdTu
Elise Auerbach in
Amnesty: "As if it weren't bad enough. Iranian women
face persistent systemic discrimination in terms of family law. New
legislation being considered by Iran's parliament is intended to roll
back many of the gains women have made in the past decades and consign
them to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And on top of that,
if they dare to protest about the inequities they suffer, they are
sentenced to long prison terms, to be served in prisons where unsanitary
conditions and medical neglect can quickly undermine their health. This
is the fate of Bahareh Hedayat, an activist with The Campaign for
Equality, a grassroots initiative, and a member of the Central Committee
of the Office for the Consolidation of Unity, a national student body
which has been active in calling for political reform and opposing human
rights violations in recent years. She is currently serving a ten-year
prison sentence in Evin Prison. She had been charged with a number of
'offenses' including 'interviews with foreign media,' 'insulting the
leader,' 'insulting the president,' and 'disrupting public order through
participating in illegal gatherings.' Bahareh Hedayat has already served
half of her prison sentence and is therefore eligible to be paroled under
Iranian law. But concerned human rights activists need to urge the
Iranian government to release her now so that she can receive medical
attention for her health conditions. Amnesty International and
United4Iran have collaborated to create a petition calling for her
immediate and unconditional release. The situation for women has only
gotten worse since Bahareh Hedayat's arrest five years ago. As Amnesty
International's new report 'You Shall Procreate: Attacks on women's
sexual and reproductive rights in Iran' details, Bill 446 currently being
amended by the Parliament as per the recommendation of the Guardian
Council and Bill 315, soon to be considered by Parliament, will result in
the state interfering in women's most intimate and personal decisions in
the attempt to double Iran's population. The human rights of women and
girls would be violated and their autonomy greatly restricted if the
bills become law. Among other provisions, women who have not had children
will be disfavored in hiring decisions by employers and voluntary
sterilization will be outlawed." http://t.uani.com/1yw1O2J
Joseph Bahout
& Benjamin Haddad in FP: "As a March 31 deadline
looms in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the United States
and France, two strong allies, have found themselves increasingly at
odds, at times quite publicly. While the White House has been pushing
hard for consensus on the framework for a deal ahead of the deadline,
Paris has been pushing back. 'Repeating that an agreement has to be
reached by the end of March is a bad tactic. Pressure on ourselves to
conclude at any price,' Gérard Araud, France's ambassador in Washington,
tweeted on March 20. On Tuesday, François Delattre, France's ambassador
to the United Nations, said that Iran's progress was 'insufficient.' The
word from Paris has been equally unsupportive of the U.S. push for a
deal. 'France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees
that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic
bomb,' French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared on March 21. What
gives? Is France's Socialist President François Hollande actually a
neoconservative? Has Paris suddenly turned into a hawk among nations? Not
quite. France's policy is dictated by a set of principles with regard to
nonproliferation that have guided administrations on both sides of the
political spectrum in the talks with Tehran since 2002. And the tension
with Washington is just one expression of a larger disagreement between
the two countries over U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Differences
between Washington and Paris have been quietly brewing for months. The
French feel that they are being kept out of the loop in critical
discussions. The multilateral framework of Iran and the P5+1 (the five
permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) has turned into a
bilateral discussion between Iran and the United States. This exclusion
has been coupled with increasing pressure from Washington. French
diplomats complain (albeit only privately) that their American
counterparts are trying to force them to make concessions on issues like
the number of centrifuges allowed or sanctions in order to reach an
agreement by March 31, a deadline that the French, like many of the White
House's critics back home, see as artificial and counterproductive. The
French do not share the sense of hurry that Washington seems to feel. As
France's ambassador to the United States tweeted on March 3: 'We want a
deal. They need a deal. The tactics and the result of the negotiation
should reflect this asymmetry.' But the differences between the French
and American positions go beyond process and into matters of substance.
The lifting of sanctions, the scope of inspections, research and
development capacities, the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to
maintain, and how long the agreement will last are all areas in which
Paris and Washington differ. In Lausanne last week, France rejected
Iran's demand to immediately lift United Nations Security Council sanctions
linked to proliferation after an agreement, arguing that this can only
come progressively, with verifications. A central concern is 'breakout
time' (the minimum time needed to make weapons-grade uranium). According
to current reports, a deal would ensure that Iranian breakout time would
be moved back to one year. French negotiators want to ensure that Iran's
agreed-upon breakout time will last the entire duration of the deal - and
after. They also want a deal that lasts as long as possible. 'Ten years is
short when you talk about nuclear issues,' one diplomat said. Another
diplomat summed it up: 'We spent more than 10 years talking, slowly
setting an architecture of sanctions, of pressure, defining principles of
negotiations. Once we dismantle this, it won't come back up. So we better
get the best possible deal.' ... Behind the Iran nuclear talks hovers the
question of the future and shape of American power and leadership. For a
decade, European countries have worked on trying to rein in Iran's
nuclear program. France, like the other countries, has taken an economic
hit in this effort, thanks to the sanctions regime. Now the view from
Paris is of a Washington that seems to lack empathy and trust for its
longtime friends and partners - more interested in making nice with Iran
than looking out for its old allies." http://t.uani.com/1FdPSYm
James Suchliki in
FP: "On Dec. 17, 2014, President Barack Obama
announced a dramatic change in the United States' policy toward Cuba,
heralding the end of a Cold War-era conflict that had begun to look
increasingly anachronistic. The benefits of the two longtime foes' new
and improved relationship remain to be seen - but the contradictions
involved are already obvious. Over half a century of pursuing an
aggressive anti-American foreign policy, Cuba has made plenty of friends
whom the United States considers enemies, and Havana is unlikely to
easily let go of its longtime allies. These include Russia, Venezuela,
and a variety of Arab dictators, Islamic fundamentalist movements, and
anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. The list of Cuba's unsavory friends
also includes Iran - a relationship of particular salience on the world
stage today. Communist Cuba's alliance with the Iran of the Ayatollahs
dates to 1979, when Fidel Castro became one of the first heads of state
to recognize the Islamic Republic's radical clerics. Addressing
then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, Castro insisted that there was
'no contradiction between revolution and religion,' an ecumenical
principle that has guided Cuba's relations with Iran and other Islamic
regimes. Over the next two decades, Castro fostered a unique relationship
between secular communist Cuba and theocratic Iran, united by a common
hatred of the United States and the liberal, democratic West - and by
substantial material interests. (In the photo, Iran's Vice President
Mohammad Reza Rahimi and Cuba's Vice Foreign Minister Marcos Rodriguez
attend a wreath-laying ceremony on Revolution Square in Havana on Sept.
7, 2011.) ... Iran has also benefited from its friendship with Havana in
more aggressive ways. Geographically, Cuba's strategic location enabled
the Islamic Republic, on at least one occasion, to clandestinely engage
in electronic attacks against U.S. telecommunications that posed a threat
to the Islamic regime's censorship apparatus. In the summer of 2003,
Tehran blocked signals from a U.S. satellite that was broadcasting
uncensored Farsi-language news into the country at a time of rising
unrest. Based on the satellite's location over the Atlantic, it would
have been impossible for Iranian-based transmissions to affect its
signals. Ultimately, the jamming was traced to a compound in the
outskirts of Havana that had been equipped with the advanced
telecommunications technology capable of disrupting the Los Angeles-based
broadcaster's programming across the Atlantic. It is well known that Cuba
has continuously upgraded its ability to block U.S. broadcasts to the
island, and hence, conceivably, to jam international communications.
Although the Cuban government would later claim that Iranian diplomatic
staff had operated out of the compound without its consent, given that
Cuba '[is] a fully police state,' as Iran expert Safa Haeri has noted,
'it is difficult to believe the Iranians had introduced the sophisticated
jamming equipment into Cuba without the knowledge of the Cuban
authorities,' much less utilized it against U.S. targets without the
knowledge of the Castro regime. In return for its services, Iran has
compensated the Cuban government directly. During the presidency of
Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), Tehran offered Havana an initial 20 million
euro annual credit line. Following the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in
2005, Iran expanded this credit line to 200 million euros for bilateral
trade and investment projects. At the same time, Havana was spearheading
a campaign within the Non-Aligned Movement to legitimize Iran's
'peaceful' nuclear program as an 'inalienable right' of all developing
nations. In June 2008 Ahmadinejad approved a record 500 million euro
credit for the Castro regime. From Iran's perspective, Cuba deserves to
be rewarded for its 'similarity in outlooks on international
issues.'" http://t.uani.com/1xvw3vB
|
|
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