|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
CNN:
"Negotiators working to broker a deal to rein in Iran's nuclear
program on Tuesday extended the talks until the end of the week. State
Department spokeswoman Mari Harf said Tuesday morning in a statement that
U.S. officials have 'made substantial progress in every area' and will
continue negotiating with their Iranian counterparts through Friday. This
is the second time negotiators have extended the deadline, which was originally
set for June 30... 'This work is highly technical and high stakes for all
of the countries involved. We're frankly more concerned about the quality
of the deal than we are about the clock, though we also know that
difficult decisions won't get any easier with time -- that is why we are
continuing to negotiate,' said Harf, who is the State Department's Senior
Advisor for Strategic Communications." http://t.uani.com/1JLWcLN
WSJ:
"Iran is pushing for a United Nations arms embargo to be completely
lifted as part of the international community's moves to improve
relations with Tehran in the wake of an emerging nuclear agreement, a
senior Iranian diplomat said Monday... 'This issue does not belong to the
nuclear file so the natural question is: What has been the reason for the
inclusion of arms embargo in the resolution in the first place?' the
official said. 'So this is a question that should be posed to our
European and American partners...What was the reason that you put this
issue in the agenda of the Security Council?' ... The senior Iranian
official indicated that the U.S. demands weren't acceptable, adding that
the U.N. Security Council's perception of Iran needed to change to
support a nuclear accord. 'In our opinion, the treatment of Iran by the
Security Council has been terrible, to put it mildly,' the official said.
'If they want to open a new page in relations with Iran, they have to
make this hard choice.' ... The Republican chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.) sharply criticized Iran's
calls for a lifting of the arms embargo and the curbs on its missile
program. Mr. Royce repeated concerns raised by U.S. lawmakers that any
sanctions relief given to Tehran could provide it with new funds to
support its military allies in the Middle East, such as the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.
'With tens of billions of sanctions-relief cash likely coming, Iran now
wants free rein to arm Hezbollah terrorists, assist Assad in Syria, and
aid Houthi rebels in Yemen,' Mr. Royce said." http://t.uani.com/1J2lyiZ
Reuters:
"Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have done very well out of
international sanctions -- and if a nuclear deal is done in Vienna this
week under which those sanctions are lifted, they are likely to do better
still. The Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), created by Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini during Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, is more than
just a military force. It is also an industrial empire with political clout
that has grown exponentially in the last decade, benefiting from the
favor of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself a former guardsman
and, most recently, from the opportunities created by Western sanctions.
A Western diplomat who follows Iran closely told Reuters that the IRGC's
recent annual turnover from all of its business activities was estimated
to be around $10-12 billion. Iranian officials refuse to reveal the
IRGC's market share, but $12 billion would be around a sixth of Iran's
declared GDP, at current exchange rates. 'They control major companies,
and businesses in Iran such as tourism, transportation, energy,
construction, telecommunication and Internet,' said an Iranian official
in Tehran who asked not to be named. 'Lifting sanctions will boost the
economy; it will help them to gain more money.' ... 'For a few years now,
the IRGC has being buying small and medium-sized companies in Iran and
using them as front companies,' the trader said. To do business in Iran,
foreign companies need an Iranian partner, which for large-scale projects
often means firms controlled by the IRGC. Analyst Hamid Farahvashian said
many of these front firms were not known at all, 'and will be used for
the time when sanctions are lifted to work with foreign companies'...
'Companies should be careful when signing contracts because they'll never
know who's really behind those companies,' the Western diplomat said...
'Boosting the economy will increase the IRGC's influence over politics
and the economy because it will strengthen the hardline establishment,'
said one Iranian oil executive." http://t.uani.com/1CmKZ1S
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
CNN:
"Americans express broad doubts that negotiations between the U.S.
and Iran will lead to an agreement that prevents Iran from developing
nuclear weapons, and President Barack Obama's approval ratings for
handling the U.S. relationship with Iran have taken a hit, according to a
new CNN/ORC Poll. In the days leading up to the deadline for a deal, 64%
said the negotiations led by the U.S. and its allies will not result in a
deal that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, while just 30%
think such a deal will emerge. Democrats are the only partisan group
among which a majority said a deal that prevents a weapon is likely --
51% think it will happen -- while only 25% of independents and 16% of
Republicans agreed. Obama's approval rating for handling the U.S.
relationship with Iran has dipped from 48% in April to 38% now. Among
Democrats, his rating has fallen from 79% approving in April to 66%
today." http://t.uani.com/1HaVCjV
WSJ:
"The White House is crafting a Middle East strategy for the
remaining 18 months of President Barack Obama's term that would more
forcefully address conflicts in Iraq, Yemen and Syria amid tensions over
the conclusion of talks with Iran... Any reorientation of Mr. Obama's
Middle East strategy would test the durability of his broader
foreign-policy doctrine, and senior administration officials said the
president is intent on cleaning up leftover messes in the region before
leaving office in 2017, including relations with key allies that have
been strained by the Iran talks. White House officials see the conclusion
of Iran talks as a gateway for Mr. Obama to press for a political
resolution in Syria that would facilitate the exit of President Bashar
al-Assad, a close Iranian ally. 'It's something I'd expect to see more
pickup on as the Iran talks conclude,' a senior administration official
said. 'There's a growing sense that momentum has turned against Assad and
that is feeding a belief that there could be more opening on the
political track.' ... U.S. officials are unsure how a nuclear deal would
affect Tehran's behavior. Iran could firm its support for Mr. Assad or
cut a deal to push him aside, U.S. officials said. 'They'll have more
money to be bad actors if they choose to be bad actors,' another senior
administration official said. 'But they'll also have more opportunities
to be constructive if they choose that route.'" http://t.uani.com/1G4P85k
LAT:
"The Obama administration began its nuclear negotiations with Iran
by insisting that Tehran halt production of all nuclear fuel, dismantle
its nuclear infrastructure and roll back its missile program. In two
years of bargaining, each of those demands has been dropped. As the
administration and its five major-power negotiating partners close in on
a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran - indications are that one could
be announced as early as Tuesday, although some issues remain unresolved
- they will have to answer a tough question: Did they drive a hard enough
bargain? ... But critics, including some of Obama's former advisors, argue
that the group could have gotten a tougher, longer-lasting deal,
considering that they began negotiations two years ago, after they had
put in place a powerful set of sanctions to squeeze the economically
fragile, militarily weak, medium-sized country... The debate has at times
taken a personal tone: Critics argue that the Obama administration is too
eager for an agreement that could give the president a legacy-burnishing
foreign-policy victory and possibly cap Kerry's career with a Nobel Peace
Prize. Opponents of the deal say it will give Iran a huge economic boost
as sanctions are eased and its government reclaims up to $150 billion
frozen in overseas accounts. A deal will restore Iran's ties to the world
economy and give the former pariah state a new legitimacy, even as its
military and proxy forces have been gaining influence in Yemen, Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region, the critics note." http://t.uani.com/1HbB9P2
NYT:
"As the negotiations have continued here, Iranian state television,
the main tool for disseminating the views of the establishment, suddenly
changed its tune on Monday on the nuclear negotiations. News Channel 6,
which is broadcast even into the farthest corners of Iran, is a known
bastion for hard-liners who are generally very skeptical of any nuclear
deal with the United States. On Monday, however, news anchors were all
smiles as they explained that it was the Americans who had caved in on
several crucial issues. 'The fact is, Obama needs this deal much more
than we do,' one anchor said. Showing an image of President Obama biting
his lip and looking worried, she added: 'The American president needs a
victory, and only a deal with Iran can give him that. They have retreated
on several issues and compromised on their own red lines.'" http://t.uani.com/1UwbtDB
AFP:
"Iran and United Nations nuclear monitors took a 'major step' toward
resolving remaining issues regarding the Islamic Republic's disputed
atomic program, an Iranian spokesman said Tuesday. The 24-hour visit to
Iran by experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on
Monday followed a similar trip last week by its chief executive Yukiya
Amano, but no clear outcome was reached. Quoted by the official IRNA news
agency, the spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Behrouz
Kamalvandi, said progress was made but he gave no details on the latest
discussions. 'Iran and the IAEA took a major step in resolving the
outstanding issues to reaching a fundamental understanding on the topics
and the timing of cooperation,' he said. Kamalvandi described Monday's
meetings as 'constructive and forward-looking' and said the second IAEA
visit 'shows the serious determination of both sides to enhance
cooperation.'" http://t.uani.com/1HdnBCu
CBS:
"'Access is really important,' explains Laura Rockwood, who wrote
the access rules for inspectors during her time at the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. 'The
IAEA should have access to military bases. They have access in other countries,
at least 10 other countries... there's no exemption, no automatic
exemption for access to a military location,' Rockwood told Brennan. If
access to those key sites is limited, it would make it difficult to prove
whether Iran is complying with any final deal the diplomats do
reach." http://t.uani.com/1dJROyw
Roll Call:
"President Barack Obama's schedule this week has been largely
cleared in hopes that negotiators will reach an Iran deal. Press
Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged that the president's schedule was
freed up, given the potential of news 'from Vienna' - where negotiators
are racing to beat the clock on yet another deadline. Typically, Obama
will schedule a trip or two or three - but this week is just slated to
hold meetings at the White House." http://t.uani.com/1CmOZ2c
Al-Monitor:
"The US House of Representatives is set to kick off its review of a
final nuclear deal with Iran this week following a month of parallel
activity in the Senate. The Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing
July 9 with former George W. Bush administration arms control official
Stephen Rademaker and other outside experts on the implications of a
nuclear agreement... Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., has raised serious
misgivings about the deal that appears to be taking shape in Vienna. 'As
we anticipate a congressional review of the Administration's possible
nuclear agreement with Iran, we'll be looking to see how the
Administration has done on Congress' red lines,' Royce said in a
statement. 'This hearing will be the first in a series the Committee will
hold should the Administration strike what might be one of the most
significant agreements in decades. As I have said, no deal is far better
than a bad deal.' The panel's top Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., for
his part isn't ready to give up on the negotiations. 'The alternative is
to not take the deal, which surely means there has to be some military
action in bombing the nuclear sites and slapping more severe sanctions on
them,' Engel told Al-Monitor last week. 'You've got to pick the least bad
of all bad choices.'" http://t.uani.com/1HIsncW
Bloomberg:
"Advocating for an Iran truce is a loose coalition of peace groups,
think tanks, and former high-ranking U.S. diplomats bound together by
millions of dollars given by the Rockefeller family through its $870
million Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The philanthropy, which is run by a
board split between family members and outsiders, has spent $4.3 million
since 2003 promoting a nuclear pact with Iran, chiefly through the New
York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former U.S. diplomats. For
more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well-placed
Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, now Tehran's chief nuclear
negotiator... The Rockefeller fund has given about $3.3 million to the
Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based disarmament group that has spent
$4 million since 2010 to promote a deal with Iran and shepherded the
peace groups and think tanks it supports to back Obama... 'The pro-deal
side has done a very good job systematically co-opting what used to be
the arms control community and transforming it into an absolutist,
antiwar movement,' says Omri Ceren, senior adviser for strategy for the
Israel Project, a nonprofit that opposes a deal." http://t.uani.com/1CliMsa
Congressional
Action
The Hill:
"Top Senate Democrats are issuing hard-line demands for a nuclear
deal with Iran, highlighting the challenge facing the Obama
administration in securing congressional approval for one of the
president's top foreign policy priorities... 'If the deal doesn't meet
the conditions set forth in the bipartisan statement organized by the
Washington Institute, the administration could face some serious problems
persuading Democrats to stick with the deal,' said Patrick Clawson, the
director of research at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. The
group organized a bipartisan statement in late June laying out conditions
supported by influential Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the
senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... Cardin laid
out similar criteria during an interview Sunday. 'You have to have full
inspections, you have to have inspections in the military sites. You have
to be able to determine if they use covert activities in order to try to
develop a nuclear weapon,' he said on ABC's 'This Week.' He said
sanctions relief should be pegged 'to the actual progress they are
making,' Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.), a senior Democrat on the Foreign
Relations panel, said Iran must agree to 'anytime, anywhere' inspections
and cautioned sanctions can only be lifted incrementally... House
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) last week endorsed the benchmarks set by
the Washington Institute's letter... Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), a
Democratic member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Mark
Warner (Va.), an influential centrist Democrat, have also drawn
bright-line requirements for the deal." http://t.uani.com/1HK7mAg
Free Beacon:
"White House officials on Monday held a private conference call with
liberal organizations to discuss ways of pressuring Democrats and other
lawmakers on Capitol Hill into supporting a nuclear deal with Iran that
is expected to be finalized in the coming days, according to an audio
recording of that call obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The call,
in which there were more than 100 participants, was organized by the
liberal pro-Iran group Ploughshares Fund, which has spent millions of
dollars to slant Iran-related coverage and protect the Obama
administration's diplomatic efforts. The White House officials described
a nuclear deal with Iran as President Obama's 'signature foreign policy
accomplishment' and urged liberal groups to launch an all-out lobbying
campaign to pressure lawmakers, especially Democrats, to back the deal.
Progressive leaders on the call told participants to prepare for a 'real
war' and repeatedly declared that 'the other side will go crazy' in the
coming days. The call also included the anti-war group MoveOn.org." http://t.uani.com/1ezGUMA
JTA:
"Ahead of the Iran deal, Steny Hoyer seems to have chosen Menu B,
for backing it. Which is not good for plans by opponents to bury it. A
statement from the Maryland Democrat late Thursday drew its red lines
from a bipartisan letter posted last week by the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy. Hoyer's statement differed in significant ways from the
wish list circulated on Capitol Hill by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee. (The June 30 deadline for the plan was extended a week
to July 7.) ... Hoyer is the House minority whip, which is significant in
itself. Republicans who overwhelmingly are skeptical of the emerging deal
can reject the deal in a vote, but they don't have the numbers by
themselves to reach two-thirds and override Obama's pledged presidential
veto. But Hoyer is also one of AIPAC's closest friends in the House...
And yet his statement pointedly embraces the Washington Institute
letter's language and does not cite the AIPAC memo." http://t.uani.com/1gjZGsk
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Martin Herrenknecht, founder of a company in southern Germany that
is a world leader in tunnel-boring equipment, has been carefully
preparing for the day when Iran reopens for business. He recently visited
Tehran, meeting officials in the energy ministry and sewage department.
Before Western sanctions hit, Herrenknecht, which carries its 72-year-old
founder's name, did 10 million to 15 million euros ($11 million-$17
million) of business a year in Iran. It has maintained an office there,
anticipating a day when Iran reaches a nuclear deal with major powers
that will put lucrative projects like a long-delayed expansion of the
Tehran metro back on track. 'I know what projects are coming and I'm
ready to sign when the sanctions are lifted,' Martin Herrenknecht told
Reuters. Like a host of other German companies, many of them
small-to-medium sized 'Mittelstand' firms, Herrenknecht, based in
Schwanau in prosperous Baden-Wuerttemberg, is gearing up for a return of
the Iranian market... The German official mentioned Volkswagen and
Daimler as among those jostling for position. Volkswagen said it had not
restarted any business activities in Iran and Daimler said it was closely
monitoring the situation although any transactions or re-entry into Iran
would depend on the outcome of the nuclear talks. But a person familiar
with the situation at VW, Europe's biggest carmaker, said: 'Of course
there are talks,' adding that the same applied to all potential
suppliers. 'It's done rather behind the scenes to see what levers one will
need to pull.'" http://t.uani.com/1NJ8nqM
AFP:
"Since the start of tortuous nuclear negotiations with Iran, France
has been seen as taking the toughest stand. Now as a deal nears, Paris
must be ready to dash in and grab a slice of long untapped market. 'The
first repercussions of any deal will be the opening of the Iranian
market. That's what all the Western countries are waiting for,' a top
western diplomat said recently. 'They are jostling as if they're at the
start of a marathon, and are keeping a close eye on one another.' ... The
French employers federation, MEDEF, is due to visit Iran in September to
try to kickstart ties. Some 107 representatives from the body travelled
to Iran early last year, triggering anger in the US which said it was
still too early to do business with Tehran." http://t.uani.com/1CWm5AX
Extremism
Reuters:
"'Israel is a fake temporary state. It's a foreign object in the
body of a nation and it will be erased soon,' the state news agency IRNA
quoted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. Iran refuses
to recognise Israel, which is widely believed to be the Middle East's
only nuclear power and has repeatedly described Iran's nuclear programme
as a threat to its existence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said
the deal would 'pave Iran's path to a nuclear arsenal'. 'It will give
them a jackpot of hundreds of billions of dollars with which to continue
to fund their aggression and terror - aggression in the region, terror
throughout the world,' he told reporters in Jerusalem." http://t.uani.com/1MaW2LA
Press TV (Iran):
"Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan says the
West, including the US, is not safe from the threats of the Israeli
regime. The Iranian official described the Tel Aviv regime as a symbol of
terrorism, infanticide, occupation, aggression and genocide. Dehqan made
the remarks on Monday ahead of International Quds Day, which falls on the
last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan. He said that the Israeli
regime, backed by the US, seeks to create divisions, wars and bloodshed
among Muslims to disunite them, stressing that the upcoming Quds Day
rallies can foil Israeli plots and further foster unity among Muslims.
Today, the bloodthirsty Zionist regime, which is in possession of hundreds
of nuclear warheads as well as weapons of mass destruction, is the
'world's center of evil, espionage and warmongering' and neither Islamic
countries nor the Western ones and even the US will be safe from its
threat, the Iranian official said." http://t.uani.com/1NJz9z7
Tasnim (Iran):
"Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan warned
against Israel's plot to expand the occupied territories from 'the Nile
to the Euphrates' with the support of the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. 'This year's rallies to mark the
International Quds Day due to be held this Friday are more important than
the previous years' because the Zionist regime (of Israel) with the full
support of ISIL terrorists... is seeking to realize the occupation of
(areas from) the Nile to the Euphrates,' General Dehqan said in a speech
on Monday." http://t.uani.com/1IGQhWT
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost
Editorial: "If it is reached in the coming days, a
nuclear deal with Iran will be, at best, an unsatisfying and risky
compromise. Iran's emergence as a threshold nuclear power, with the
ability to produce a weapon quickly, will not be prevented; it will be
postponed, by 10 to 15 years. In exchange, Tehran will reap hundreds of
billions of dollars in sanctions relief it can use to revive its economy
and fund the wars it is waging around the Middle East. Whether this
flawed deal is sustainable will depend on a complex set of verification
arrangements and provisions for restoring sanctions in the event of cheating.
The schemes may or may not work; the history of the comparable nuclear
accord with North Korea in the 1990s is not encouraging. The United
States and its allies will have to be aggressive in countering the
inevitable Iranian attempts to test the accord and willing to insist on
consequences even if it means straining relations with friendly
governments or imposing costs on Western companies. That's why a recent
controversy over Iran's compliance with the interim accord now governing
its nuclear work is troubling. The deal allowed Iran to continue
enriching uranium, but required that amounts over a specified ceiling be
converted into an oxide powder that cannot easily be further enriched.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran met the
requirement for the total size of its stockpile on June 30, but it did so
by converting some of its enriched uranium into a different oxide form,
apparently because of problems with a plant set up to carry out the
powder conversion. Rather than publicly report this departure from the
accord, the Obama administration chose to quietly accept it. When a
respected independent think tank, the Institute for Science and
International Security, began pointing out the problem, the
administration's response was to rush to Iran's defense - and heatedly
attack the institute as well as a report in the New York Times. This
points to two dangers in the implementation of any longterm deal. One is
'a U.S. willingness to legally reinterpret the deal when Iran cannot do what
it said it would do, in order to justify that non-performance,' institute
President David Albright and his colleague Andrea Stricker wrote. In
other words, overlooking Iranian cheating is easier than confronting it.
This weakness is matched by a White House proclivity to respond to
questions about Iran's performance by attacking those who raise them. Mr.
Albright, a physicist with a long record of providing non-partisan expert
analysis of nuclear proliferation issues, said on the Foreign Policy Web
site that he had been unfairly labeled as an adversary of the Iran deal
and that campaign-style 'war room' tactics are being used by the White
House to fend off legitimate questions. In the case of the oxide
conversion, the discrepancy may be less important than the
administration's warped reaction. A final accord will require Iran to
ship most of its uranium stockpile out of the country, or reverse its
enrichment. But there surely will be other instances of Iranian
non-compliance. If the deal is to serve U.S. interests, the Obama
administration and its successors will have to respond to them more
firmly and less defensively." http://t.uani.com/1dJYWLc
Dennis Ross in
Politico: "Just as June 30 turned out not to be a
true deadline for the Iranian nuclear talks, it would be wise to treat
July 7 - the extended deadline - much the same way. The Obama
administration should make clear that it is prepared to conclude a deal
at any time, provided it is fully consistent with the framework
understanding from April; anything less, and there will be no deal. If
the Iranians insist on trying to walk back or redefine the framework
understanding, they will not only stretch out the negotiations but will
lead us to harden our own position and impose new conditions. Taking such
a stance is all the more critical now, with Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme
leader, seemingly laying down conditions that are inconsistent with the
framework understanding - no access to military sites or scientists,
immediate sanctions relief upon signing of the agreement, no limits on
research and development, and rejection of any restrictions on its
program lasting 10-12 years. Was the supreme leader signaling that he
does not want a deal? Was he posturing so his negotiators could seek more
concessions? Was he playing domestic politics and trying to assuage
hard-line opponents of a deal? My bet is on posturing. Of course, his
revolutionary ideology and hostility toward the United States, as well as
the reality that there are hard-line opponents of an agreement, mean that
he might not only be posturing to influence the negotiations. It may, in
fact, be difficult for him to conclude a deal. Still, Khamenei has
allowed these negotiations to continue and permitted his negotiators -
whom he continues to defend - to conclude the framework understanding.
Clearly, he decided Iran has much to gain from an agreement. And the fact
is that an agreement consistent with the framework understanding offers
Iran a lot. It is permitted to preserve its enrichment infrastructure and
to have an industrial-size nuclear program at the end of the 15-year
period for the agreement. It will be a nuclear threshold state at that
point, effectively not having given up the nuclear weapons option but
simply deferring it. With sanctions relief tied to fulfillment of its
major obligations in the agreement, Iran would, within six to 12 months,
have access to what are now frozen accounts that may total as much as
$150 billion. Even if it chose to use 90 percent of those funds to
address real domestic needs, $15 billion could have a dramatic effect on
Iran's ability to use Hezbollah and other Shiite militias to pursue its
'resistance' agenda in the region and continue to shift the balance of
power in its favor. And, of course, once the sanctions are lifted, Iran
can be reintegrated into the global financial system and be open for
business... While the gains from such an agreement are real, the fact
remains that Iran is not giving up the option for a bomb and the deal is
essentially one in which we are rolling back sanctions in return for
transparency. That is why the principles of the framework understanding
must not be eroded in a final deal: why the transparency must be real and
the verification extensive with access to any suspicious site when it is
needed; why the International Atomic Energy Agency's questions on the
'possible military dimensions' of the Iranian program must be answered,
particularly to establish a baseline against which to measure Iran's
actions; why the R&D must be limited on the advanced centrifuges for
the first 10 years with constraints even after that to ensure that Iran's
breakout time does not go to zero before year 15; why sanctions relief
must be tied to implementation of Iran's key nuclear obligations; and why
there must be guaranteed and meaningful consequences for any violations -
no matter how small the transgression. In addition, since Iran will be
legitimized as a nuclear threshold state, the leadership of the Islamic
Republic must know that if Iran moves toward having a nuclear weapon, it
will trigger the use of force against its nuclear infrastructure. There
must be no doubt in Iran - or among the 5+1 - that we will not allow Iran
to become a nuclear weapons state and will take, or support, whatever
means are necessary, including the use of force, to prevent that from
happening. In this connection, our public declarations need to be
stronger: meaning that instead saying that all options are on the table,
the president should bluntly state at the time of the deal that during
the life of the agreement and afterward the United States will not permit
Iran to have nuclear weapons and will act to ensure that is the case.
Having Congress endorse this posture would add to its credibility and
make clear that President Barack Obama's statements are binding on his
successors as well." http://t.uani.com/1CmNK33
UANI Advisory
Board Member Michael Singh in WSJ: "As another
negotiating deadline comes and goes, U.S. allies in the Middle East
appear less concerned with the particulars of a possible accord than the
particulars of U.S. policy toward Iran after a deal. The Obama
administration believes that Iran's behavior in the region will improve
after a nuclear agreement is reached. Yet there are good reasons to
suspect this will not be the case. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, may feel compelled in the wake of a compromise to reassert his
regime's anti-Americanism, both because it is one of the Islamic
Republic's key pillars and out of worry that a deal with the U.S. could lead
to a broader opening to the West. Any deal would be seen in Iran as a
political victory for President Hasan Rouhani and Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif, both relative pragmatists. This could prompt the
supreme leader-who has been known to try to balance the political power
of his regime's contentious factions-to seek to bolster hard-liners in a
deal's wake. Iran's behavior will be driven not only by the nuclear deal
but also by events in the Middle East and South Asia. Using proxies and
subversion to project its power and drive adversaries to distraction,
Tehran has become deeply enmeshed in regional conflicts, many of
which-such as in Iraq and Syria-appear to be worsening rather than
abating. Those deepening conflicts are due in no small part to Iran's
involvement, which feeds the same sectarian tensions stoked by Islamic
State and raises alarms among nearby rivals. Iran will have motivation to
intensify its involvement in regional conflagrations and, thanks to the
funds expected to flow in the wake of a nuclear accord, the financial
wherewithal to do so. If an accord is reached, in addition to Iran's
behavior in the region Washington will also need to deal with those
elements of Iran's nuclear program not specifically addressed by an
accord. This is expected to include Iran's ballistic missile program,
which is dual-use but has clear application to the development of a
nuclear weapon. After the agreed framework was concluded between the U.S.
and North Korea in 1994, Pyongyang's ballistic missile activities became
a major point of contention with the Clinton administration. There is
reason to worry that this pattern will be repeated: Tehran possesses the
largest, most sophisticated ballistic missile arsenal in the region. It
has sought to extend the range and capability of its missiles. It has
shared missiles with others, including terrorist groups. And despite
refusing to moderate its missile program, Iran is demanding that missile
and conventional-arms sanctions against it be dropped as part of a nuclear
deal." http://t.uani.com/1Mbbnf1
UANI Advisory
Board Member Michael Gerson in WashPost: "On the
morning of April 14, speaking to a meeting of about 55 senators,
Secretary of State John F. Kerry argued against passage of the Iran
Nuclear Agreement Review Act, claiming it would complicate negotiations.
(The White House had already issued a veto threat.) Sen. Bob Corker,
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, challenged Kerry to explain
how inspections would work under the just-announced nuclear framework
agreement. Kerry fumbled his response. 'He could not answer questions in
this fundamental area,' recalled Corker. 'At that moment, significant
concerns emerged on both sides of the aisle.' Shortly after noon, the
White House lifted its veto threat, not in a change of heart but as a
concession to reality. The legislation had bipartisan, veto-proof support
in the Senate. This has been the White House's consistent political
challenge: Its attempts to reassure have multiplied unease. Now (it
seems) we are about to see the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act in
action. The law dangles an incentive for the Obama administration to
conclude a final deal by July 9. If it meets that deadline and provides
all the relevant documentation, Congress gets just 30 days to act on a
resolution of disapproval. If the timing slips past July 9, Congress has
60 days to act. To borrow a metaphor from another contemporary
controversy, members of Congress and advocates have reached the 'speak
now or forever hold your peace' portion of the ceremony. Corker (Tenn.)
has sent a letter urging President Obama to buck up in negotiations. An
A-list group of diplomats and experts (including some former members of
the Obama foreign policy team) has set out the minimal conditions for an acceptable
deal... Most members of Congress I've surveyed believe the administration
has too much invested to say 'no.' They expect a bad deal, accompanied by
the argument that it is better than nothing. That is not an obvious or
easy determination. Down the path of 'managed proliferation,' Iran will
continue research and development on advanced centrifuges and ballistic
missiles, continue to move (with international help) toward an
industrialized nuclear program, and eventually (in perhaps a decade)
arrive at immediate breakout capability with a strong economy that is
funding terrorism and a bid for regional hegemony. This is the outcome if
Iran doesn't cheat. The alternative - the long-term containment of Iran
through both the threat of sanctions and the threat of force - is fraught
with dangers and uncertainties as well. So members of Congress will face
one of the hardest choices of their careers. And if the final stage of
negotiations consists mainly of U.S. concessions, the Obama
administration may have another revolt on its hands." http://t.uani.com/1NJplFx
Aaron David Miller
in WSJ: "I still think the odds favor a deal, soon,
on the Iran nuclear issue. But as negotiations have continued, and in
light of Iranian demands to eliminate the U.N. arms embargo, including
restrictions on its ballistic missile technology, there are reasons that
Barack Obama might now feel that no deal would better serve his
interests. Consider the advantages if the president were to view time as
an ally, not an adversary: Simply put, a bad deal would diminish not only
Mr. Obama's credibility on the Middle East street but also his domestic
accomplishments. And his domestic record is looking up: Recent
successes-including winning trade promotion authority, the Supreme
Court's rulings on the Affordable Care Act and gay marriage, and the
president's remarks on race in the wake of the Charleston church
shootings-have boosted Mr. Obama's approval ratings-and confidence.
Indeed, psychologically, he seems to be on a presidential high. He may
well be less inclined to appease the mullahs or accept a deal he can't
defend... No deal would not necessarily mean war or the end of sanctions
regime against Iran. If Iran is seen as the unreasonable party, Tehran
may well suffer far more than Washington between a lack of sanctions
relief and the absence of a political propaganda victory. Israel is not
in a hurry to use military force, and the Iranians have no desire-at
least for now-to court a military strike by Jerusalem or Washington.
That, of course, could change if Iran decided to accelerate its nuclear
program. In short, Washington could manage the fallout from no agreement.
And in that case, it's more than likely that Iran would become a problem
for the next administration, which, frankly, wouldn't be such a bad
outcome for this one." http://t.uani.com/1eCm0MT
|
|
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