|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
LAT:
"With Iran's known enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, as
well as a heavy-water reactor at Arak, under international oversight, the
country's leaders would almost certainly look elsewhere to conduct any
secret nuclear work, said Gary Samore, former nonproliferation advisor to
President Obama. 'It's the undeclared sites that are the real threat,' he
said... In public, U.S. officials have said inspectors must be given
'anywhere, anytime' access to sites where nuclear work is suspected. The
administration will not accept a deal unless access is granted 'to
whatever Iranian sites are required to verify that Iran's program is
exclusively peaceful - period,' Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken
said in a speech Monday. In the negotiating rooms, however, U.S.
diplomats aren't demanding immediate access. Rather, they've signaled
that they're willing to allow a panel some time to consider Iranian
objections and weigh the evidence before allowing a challenge inspection
to proceed. The world powers have studied a proposal to have inspection
requests judged by a commission, with voting representatives from the six
powers, Iran and possibly the European Union. Access would be granted if
a majority of the eight supported an International Atomic Energy Agency, or
IAEA, request for access. That means that Iran alone - or Iran backed by
Russia and China - wouldn't have the votes to stop an inspection if the
United States and the other commission members favored it. The proposal
calls for a maximum of 30 days for deliberations by the commission on
IAEA requests for inspections. That could be enough time for Iran to
conceal some recent nuclear activities if it wanted to, Samore said. But
it wouldn't be enough time to hide evidence of the uranium enrichment
facilities Iran would need to create the fissile material required for a
bomb. If Iran refused to cooperate or was found to have cheated,
sanctions could be quickly reimposed, or 'snapped back,' as diplomats
describe it. That approach would provide 'a strong mechanism' to ensure
access, said a Western diplomat who declined to be identified in
discussing the closed-door talks. 'And that's what we need.' Some outside
experts, including some who have urged a tough approach to Iran, agree.
'This would be very impressive,' said Samore, who heads a group called
United Against Nuclear Iran." http://t.uani.com/1IspBqW
WSJ:
"United Nations inspectors must be permitted access to suspect
Iranian sites, including possible military ones, for 'years and years' to
restore confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, Yukiya
Amano, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
said Monday... Mr. Amano said it would take years for the U.N.'s atomic
agency to come to a final broader conclusion that Iran's nuclear program
is fully peaceful. During that time, Iran's obligations under the
so-called Additional Protocol mean Tehran would have to give detailed
explanations of its nuclear activities every three months. If the IAEA
has concerns about the information, it can seek clarifications or request
access to sites where it believes illicit activities may be taking place.
'We will continue these activities for quite a prolonged period of time
and then, after making our efforts, we come to the point when we can provide
credible assurance that there is no indication of activities other than
peaceful activities,' Mr. Amano said at a news conference. 'This is a
long process and full cooperation from the country is needed.' The IAEA
chief said there was no way of telling in advance how long it would take
the IAEA to declare Iran's program is fully peaceful. 'But it's a matter
of years at least. Not months. Not weeks. Years or years and
years.'" http://t.uani.com/1QImI7k
AP:
"The chief U.N. nuclear inspector said Monday that Iran has already
committed to letting his experts see Iranian military sites and Iranian
atomic scientists despite an alleged ban by Tehran, deepening a
confrontation over how much openness Iran must accept under any nuclear
deal... Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month declared
that 'no inspection of any military site and interview with nuclear
scientists will be allowed,' and Iranian negotiators have since said
Khamenei's ban is indisputable. Amano, however, challenged that, saying
Iran already has committed to permit 'access to sites, documents (and)
people' under a preliminary agreement that outlined components of the
deal now being negotiated. Coming just weeks ahead of a June 30 target
date for a nuclear deal, Amano's comments were certain to further inflame
the controversy between Iran and the international community over the
degree of intrusiveness the nuclear agreement will give the IAEA. Amano
confirmed Monday his agency will not be able to deliver a ruling on the
allegations of past weapons work in time for a deal. That means any
nuclear agreement will likely keep some sanctions in place until the IAEA
submits its findings. 'It will not be an endless process,' he said of his
probe. 'But this is not bound by the June 30 target date.'" http://t.uani.com/1cGlhZC
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Independent:
"Saudi Arabia could attempt to obtain a nuclear weapon unless
negotiations with Iran produce a 'watertight' agreement over Tehran's
nuclear ambitions, the Saudi ambassador to the UK has warned. Prince
Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud said he hoped negotiations with
Iran would lead to a 'guarantee Iran will not pursue this kind of
weapon', but that 'if this does not happen, then all options will be on
the table for Saudi Arabia'. The ambassador's warning came in an
interview with The Daily Telegraph published on Monday... Prince Mohammed
said that Saudi Arabia commended the current diplomatic efforts, but
reiterated a Saudi warning that if left unchecked Iran's activities will
spark nuclear proliferation across the region." http://t.uani.com/1BWmW40
Press TV (Iran):
"A senior Iranian nuclear negotiator has rejected remarks by a US
official who has recently said a potential comprehensive deal between
Iran and the P5+1 group of countries will be permanent. Seyyed Abbas
Araqchi, who is Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and
international affairs, rejected on Tuesday remarks by US Deputy Secretary
of State Anthony Blinken concerning the time frame of the final deal
between Iran and the P5+1... Blinken had told an audience at the American
Jewish Committee's annual Global Forum in Washington on Monday that the
deal between Iran and the six other countries 'will not expire and there
will not be a so-called sunset.' Araqchi rejected the remark by Blinken
as false and said the agreement, if reached, will have a specific time
frame, at the end of which the deal will expire. None of the measures
envisioned in the accord would be permanent, the Iranian nuclear
negotiator said." http://t.uani.com/1FGPXCb
Tehran Times:
"The head of the Strategic Research Center of Iran's Expediency
Council has underscored that Tehran will never let any foreigner have
access to its military sites. Ali Akbar Velayati made the remarks on
Monday in reference to calls by certain Western countries for access to
Iranian military sites under a possible comprehensive nuclear deal
between Tehran and 5+1 group of world powers. 'Visits [by foreigners] to
the Islamic Republic's military sites are forbidden on the basis of the
Supreme Leader's very specific standpoints,' Velayati said. 'We will not
permit any stranger, either American or non-American, to visit the
Islamic Republic's military and sensitive centers,' he underlined." http://t.uani.com/1QliqYC
AFP:
"CIA chief John Brennan made a 'secret' visit to Israel last week to
discuss an emerging nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, Israel's
Haaretz newspaper reported on Tuesday. It came as a June 30 deadline
looms for a deal that would row back Iran's nuclear programme in return
for relief from sanctions, which Israel has long opposed, causing
friction with the White House. Brennan met his counterpart Mossad chief
Tamir Pardo and other intelligence officials, as well as Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Haaretz reported, citing 'senior Israeli officials.'
They discussed the emerging Iran deal and Tehran's 'subversive'
activities around the Middle East." http://t.uani.com/1GwJm31
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Eight western European companies are keen to invest in Iran's $2.8
billion (2 billion pound) Siraf oil refinery project, an Iranian official
said on Monday, as the country ramps up capacity to reduce is dependence
on imports... Sadeghabadi said an Asian company, which he would not name,
and an Iranian company would work together on certain sections of the
refinery. 'And we will choose from among eight western European companies
that want to be involved,' he said, declining to name the companies. He
did not say how many companies would be chosen. The Siraf refinery
project will have a processing capacity of 480,000 barrels per day and
will be completed in 38 months, or just over three years. Eight
processing plants would be built by private companies, using their own
funds, Sadeghabadi said." http://t.uani.com/1AZYqE6
Reuters:
"Russian officials said on Monday it was too soon to say when an
oil-for-goods deal with Iran would start, contradicting a report that
Moscow had already begun delivering grain under such an arrangement. The
deal could help Moscow, which faces Western sanctions over the Ukraine
crisis, strengthen its foothold in Iran. But an agreement between Tehran
and world powers on Iran's nuclear programme that relaxes sanctions on
the Islamic republic has not yet been agreed. An official at
Rosselkhoznadzor, Russia's food-safety regulators, said on Monday grain
sales to Iran had begun, according to the RIA news agency. But the
regulators later said that did not mean the barter deal was already being
implemented. 'Of course not,' a Rosselkhoznadzor spokesman said when
asked whether he knew that the deal had already started, adding that 'we
are dealing only with phytosanitary security.' Iran's semi-official Fars
news agency, citing a report by Bloomberg, quoted Iran's oil minister on
Saturday as saying Russia would begin oil imports from Tehran this week.
But the Kremlin declined comment and the Russian Energy Ministry said it
was too early to talk about the start of the arrangement." http://t.uani.com/1HmpZbU
Tehran Times:
"Directors of nine large companies from Britain, France,
Switzerland, and Russia, pledged to make €300 million investment in the
Iranian stock market as soon as the Western-led sanctions are lifted
against the country. They paid a visit to the Tehran Stock Exchange on
Monday, expressing the hope that lifting of the sanctions would pave the
way for their presence in the Iranian market. During their three-day stay
in Iran, they will also pay visits to a number of large Iranian
internationally renowned industrial companies." http://t.uani.com/1JGEaJ8
Human Rights
Reuters:
"Iranian authorities arrested five social media users on security
charges, a judiciary spokesman was quoted as saying on Monday, in the
latest incident in the establishment's long fight to suppress online
dissenters. 'Several members of a group which systematically took steps
against security and called for illegal activities on social media were
identified and arrested by the security forces,' Gholamhossein
Mohseni-Ejei was quoted as saying by the Mehr agency. He said five people
had been arrested so far and more may follow as part of the same operation."
http://t.uani.com/1Ga0RCS
AP:
"A limited number of Iranian women will be allowed to watch
Volleyball World League games in Tehran later this month, a senior
government official has told The Associated Press, part of a government
move to allow women and families to attend male sporting events. Vice
President for Women and Family Affairs Shahindokht Molaverdi, part of the
Cabinet of moderate President Hassan Rouhani, said the government hopes
to avoid a showdown with hard-liners over the issue. However, the issue
already has garnered worldwide attention on Iran with the detention of a
British-Iranian woman trying to attend a men's match last year.
Molaverdi, a reformist politician and women's rights activist, said women
will be allowed into stadiums to watch men's matches in specific sports
such as volleyball, basketball, handball and tennis. However, she said
women still won't be allowed into soccer, swimming and wrestling matches.
The decision has yet to be officially announced, but Molaverdi told the
AP that, 'a limited number of women, mainly families of national team
players,' will be allowed to watch the upcoming volleyball matches as a
way of gradually introducing the change... Meanwhile, Molaverdi said she
is seeking to set a gender quota for women in parliamentary elections
early next year. Currently, only nine out of 290 lawmakers in Iran's
parliament are women. 'That's less than 3 percent. Gender quotas should
be applied for women in the parliament,' she said. 'What we have offered
is 30 percent of parliament seats' be allocated for women." http://t.uani.com/1AZXP5m
Foreign Affairs
NYT:
"The woman wore form-fitting clothes and a scarf wrapped around her
head that revealed a few of her blond tresses. The men carried backpacks
to official meetings. Nothing all that unusual in most places, but enough
to touch off a firestorm of criticism this weekend from Iranian
lawmakers, who accused their visitors of flouting Islamic law by, as one
put it, wearing 'extremely weird clothing.' Two worlds collided when the
foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament met with the head of
the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani, a top power broker whose idea of a
wild outfit is wearing a blue vest under his dark suit in winter. When a
Dutch legislator, Marietje Schaake, entered the room, all eyes were on
her Islamic dress, a self-chosen creation consisting of a pair of
leggings, a tight coat with a zip-up front topped off with a blue head
scarf, carefully draped on top of her head... That was too much for Iranian
lawmakers. 'It is as if she is wearing underwear,' a prominent
conservative, Mahdi Kouchakzadeh, wrote on his Instagram page, noting
that Ms. Schaake's neck and ears were also not covered. He criticized Mr.
Larijani, the conservative son of a prominent ayatollah, asking why he
had allowed 'human and Islamic rights to be violated in his presence.'
... One outlet, Nasimonline, also angrily noted that a sturdy Austrian
delegate named Josef Weidenholzer had casually swung his backpack over
his left shoulder while shaking hands with Mr. Larijani. His act, seen as
disrespectful by some in Iran, 'shocked observers and the media,' the
website proclaimed." http://t.uani.com/1JGrLom
Opinion &
Analysis
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "Iran is spending billions of dollars a
year to prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to the
U.N.'s envoy to Syria and other outside experts. These estimates are far
higher than what the Barack Obama administration, busy negotiating a
nuclear deal with the Tehran government, has implied Iran spends on its
policy to destabilize the Middle East. On Monday, a spokeswoman for the
U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, told me that the envoy
estimates Iran spends $6 billion annually on Assad's government. Other
experts I spoke to put the number even higher. Nadim Shehadi, the
director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts
University, said his research shows that Iran spent between $14 and $15
billion in military and economic aid to the Damascus regime in 2012 and
2013, even though Iran's banks and businesses were cut off from the
international financial system. Such figures undermine recent claims from
Obama and his top officials suggesting that Iran spends a relative
pittance to challenge U.S. interests and allies in the region. While the
administration has never disclosed its own estimates on how much Iran
spends to back Syria and other allies in the Middle East, Obama himself
has played down the financial dimension of the regime's support. 'The great
danger that the region has faced from Iran is not because they have so
much money. Their budget -- their military budget is $15 billion compared
to $150 billion for the Gulf States,' he said in an interview last week
with Israel's Channel 2. But experts see it another way. The Christian
Science Monitor last month reported that de Mastura told a think tank in
Washington that Iran was spending three times its official military
budget--$35 billion annually--to support Assad in Syria. When asked about
that earlier event, Jessy Chahine, the spokeswoman for de Mistura,
e-mailed me: 'The Special Envoy has estimated Iran spends $6 billion
annually on supporting the Assad regime in Syria. So it's $6 billion not
$35 billion.'Either way, that figure is significant. Many members of
Congress and close U.S. regional allies have raised concerns that Iran
will see a windfall of cash as a condition of any nuclear deal it signs
this summer. Obama himself has said there is at least $150 billion worth
of Iranian money being held in overseas banks as part of the crippling
sanctions. If Iran spends billions of its limited resources today to
support its proxies in the Middle East, it would follow that it will
spend even more once sanctions are lifted... If Iran ends up accepting a
deal on its nuclear program, it will see an infusion of cash to pursue
that regional agenda. Shehadi said this fits a pattern for dictatorships
in the Middle East: they preoccupy the international community with
proliferation issues while, behind the scene, they continue to commit
atrocities. 'In the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein was massacring his people
and we were worried about the weapons inspectors,' Shehadi said. 'Bashar
al-Assad did that too. He kept us busy with chemical weapons when he
massacred his people. Iran is keeping us busy with a nuclear deal and we
are giving them carte blanche in Syria and the region.'" http://t.uani.com/1IsusbM
Robert Einhorn in
TNI: "Now that the Corker-Cardin legislation has
been adopted without poison pills attached, it is virtually certain that
Congress will be unable to block President Obama's ability to conclude
and begin implementing a nuclear agreement with Iran that he believes
meets U.S. requirements. The main domestic impediment to a deal lies in
Iran. If negotiations are to be brought to a successful conclusion,
Supreme Leader Khamenei must decide that he wants an agreement, that he
is willing to make the hard choices necessary to achieve one, and that he
is prepared to use his authority to bring Iranian critics on board... A
serious complicating factor-aside from the usual hard bargaining that can
be expected in any high-stakes negotiating endgame-has been a series of
public statements by Supreme Leader Khamenei and other senior Iranians
that have seemed to contradict and backtrack from solutions already
worked out in the negotiations. Within a week of the Lausanne agreement,
the Supreme Leader asserted that all sanctions must be removed as soon as
a final agreement is reached. But the notion of immediate removal of
sanctions is at variance with Iran's earlier acceptance of the idea, as
recorded in the EU-Iran joint statement, that relief from U.S. and EU
sanctions would only come 'simultaneously with the IAEA-verified
implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments.' As agreed at
Lausanne, what Iran would need to do to trigger sanctions relief would
include such significant undertakings as removing excess centrifuges to
monitored storage, removing a critical component of the Arak reactor,
reducing enriched uranium stocks to 300 kilograms, repurposing the Fordow
enrichment facility, and taking agreed steps to address concerns about
past Iranian activities believed to be related to nuclear weapons
development. Iranian negotiators are therefore faced with the challenge
of reconciling what they have already agreed to with the statements of
their Supreme Leader and the expectations those statements have created
within Iran for the premature removal of sanctions. One way they have
tried to square the circle is to admit that sanctions relief would follow
Iranian implementation of key nuclear commitments but contend that those
commitments can be implemented in an impossibly short period of time-a
matter of weeks rather than the half year or more that would almost surely
be required. Continued Iranian insistence on the position that all
sanctions must 'cease to apply' (their preferred formulation) as soon as
the comprehensive agreement is reached or in an unrealistically short
period of time thereafter would undoubtedly ensure deadlock. Khamenei has
also been publicly adamant that IAEA inspectors will not be granted
access to Iranian military installations. But Iranian negotiators freely
acknowledge that the Additional Protocol to which Iran is committed
permits IAEA access to any location where questions of compliance have
arisen, civilian or military. To square this circle, Iran's negotiators
say that 'managed access' procedures-which are provided for in the
Additional Protocol to protect parties' legitimate secrets unrelated to
their nuclear nonproliferation obligations-can be used at Iran's military
installations to protect its national security, thereby not crossing the
Leader's redline. However, the notional managed access procedure
described by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a May 25
television interview is so excessively constrained as to be comical. In
the example provided by Araghchi, an IAEA inspector is blindfolded and
taken into an installation where everything is covered up so that nothing
can be seen. The blindfold is removed, the inspector is allowed to take
an environmental sample with a handkerchief, and the inspector is then
blindfolded again and escorted out of the installation. The IAEA would
clearly regard such a procedure as woefully inadequate to meet its
verification responsibilities... The negotiators have come close to
agreement. But a final deal could still prove elusive. Perhaps the
biggest risk of failure is an Iranian miscalculation that the Obama
administration is so committed to an agreement, and so eager for one,
that it is prepared to conclude the negotiations largely on Iran's terms.
President Obama clearly wants an agreement, but he and his administration
have a definite idea of the kind of agreement they can support. They need
to make clear that, if Iran cannot accept such an agreement, they are
prepared to walk away.The choice will then be up to Iran, especially to
the Supreme Leader. He will finally have to get off the fence and
authorize his negotiators to accept the solutions necessary to conclude
the deal (including some he has recently and strongly criticized). He can
no longer have it both ways, giving general, rhetorical support to his
negotiators but publicly articulating redlines that make their job
difficult. Unless he throws his weight clearly behind an agreement, the
best opportunity for a peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear issue will
be missed." http://t.uani.com/1cIOQK8
Jennifer Rubin in
WashPost: "As for Congress, an extension of the
talks may mean that, pursuant to Corker-Menendez legislation, lawmakers
would have additional time to consider the deal. But more important
Congress would again be faced with a choice: Allow the president to
negotiate endlessly or turn up the heat on Iran with new sanctions? When
last the Democrats spoke up, 12 of them had promised a vote on
Menendez-Kirk after March 30. With the passage of the final deadline,
they'd be hard-pressed to - but predictably would - stall again. It is
obvious the president does not have sufficient leverage or won't use it.
Otherwise Iran would have agreed to a deal by now. It is logical then for
Congress to turn the screw a bit, but also to begin more robust sanctions
against Iran's economy for its support of terrorism, its role in
supporting Bashar al-Assad, its continued ICBM program (which has no
purpose other than to deliver a nuke) and its conduct in destabilizing
Yemen and the rest of the region. For now Senate Foreign Relations staff
say the emphasis is on a series of briefings and hearings this month to
prepare members for congressional review of a final deal if one is
reached. Tuesday's briefing with the energy secretary and the directors
of U.S. nuclear laboratories was arranged to help members understand in
more detail the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Wednesday's
hearing with former U.S. diplomats to the Middle East focused on the
implications for U.S. interests in the region. Another briefing, this
Wednesday, will consider verification and compliance. Additional
briefings and hearings on other elements of a deal are expected later
this month. Beyond that Congress would be wise to lay down a marker as to
the substance of an acceptable deal. Widespread and bipartisan concern
gripped the Senate when the terms of the framework came to light. They
can remedy its shortcomings and help short-circuit a rotten final deal by
setting out the terms under which it would give a thumbs-up to a deal.
Those terms include full disclosure of PMDs, go-anywhere inspections,
shipment of excess fissile material and centrifuges out of the country,
the dismantling of Fordow and the gradual lifting of sanctions (no
upfront bonus). None of these should really pose a problem since the
administration at one time or another has said all these are critical parts
of the deal. The only problem would be if President Obama wanted to take
any deal, no matter how bad. As a bipartisan solution, Democrats and
Republicans might consider the following: Passage of a bill (with no
filibuster or veto) laying out the terms of a final deal; and a
requirement for the administration develop within 60 days a coherent
approach to ending Iranian aggression in the region. In exchange Congress
for now would not pass Corker-Menendez, although it may move forward on
sanctions for other Iranian conduct. It is not ideal, but it might be
enough to get both parties on the same page while making it that much
more difficult for Obama to give away the store." http://t.uani.com/1GwICuP
|
|
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