|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Reuters: "As the U.S. Treasury Department decides whether
to license sales of Boeing Co (BA.N) and Airbus (AIR.PA) commercial
aircraft to Iran, opponents of last year's nuclear pact with the Islamic
republic have launched a lobbying campaign against the deals... some
members of the U.S. Congress who oppose [the Iran nuclear deal] want to
block proposed sales of some 200 jetliners, worth about $50 billion at
list prices, to renew Iran Air's aging fleet. While the lawmakers
oppose any action that could boost the Tehran government, they also argue
that Iran could use passenger aircraft for military purposes such as
transporting fighters to battle U.S. troops or allies in Syria or
elsewhere.The Republican-majority Congress could pass legislation to
block the sales even if the Treasury Department approved
them... This week, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a
Washington foreign policy research group, which has criticized the
nuclear pact and advocated tougher sanctions on Iran, organized letters
signed by dozens of national security figures expressing concern about
the aircraft sales and promising to increase pressure on Congress. 'This
deal ... represents a legitimization of a State Sponsor of Terror and a
direct benefit for a ruling regime responsible for gross human rights
abuses, support for terrorism including threats against the U.S. and its
allies,' said the letters to Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing's chairman, and
Fabrice Brégier, chief executive of Airbus' plane manufacturing
unit. The 42 signers included former Secretary of State George
Shultz, former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former U.S. Senator Joseph
Lieberman." http://t.uani.com/2ayZsMG
LA Times: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton both expressed
surprise Thursday that a $400-million cash payment to Iran early this
year has suddenly become an issue in the presidential campaign... At
a news conference Thursday at the Pentagon, Obama did little to hide his
bemusement at having to answer questions about the payment. 'There wasn't
a secret,' he said. 'We announced [it] to all of you.' He described
the money as the return of Iranian funds from a dispute dating back to
the 1970s. The administration could not send the money in dollars or
send a wire transfer of funds because of U.S. sanctions, Obama said, so
the money was delivered in other currencies. 'We couldn't send them a
check,' he said. The president flatly rejected allegations that the
$400 million was a ransom for four Americans who were released from
Iranian custody at about the same time... Clinton, who stepped down
as secretary of State several years before the payment was made, bluntly
described it as 'old news' in an interview with a Colorado television
station. 'So far as I know, it had nothing to do with any kind of hostage
swap or any other tit for tat,' she said. Republicans were only
reviving the issue 'because they want to continue to criticize the
[nuclear] agreement, and I think they are wrong about that.' 'I have said
the agreement has made the world safer, but it has to be enforced. And
I've spoken out very strongly about how I will enforce this agreement,'
she added. 'I will hold the Iranians to account for even the smallest
violation, and that's exactly what I think needs to happen.'" http://t.uani.com/2azZwAe
Newsweek: "Russian President Vladimir Putin plans on backing
Iran's nuclear programme beyond the current agreement for Russia to
deliver nuclear reactors to Tehran, state news agency RIA Novosti has
reported. The two countries struck a deal for Russia to deliver two
nuclear reactors, which could be increased to a potential six, in 2014. Putin
will meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Azerbaijan next week;
ahead of the visit, he said Moscow is more than willing to extend the
nuclear partnership... 'Firstly, this will affect the joint work in the
nuclear sphere,' Putin said. 'Also, we will increase joint trade efforts.
During the first five months of this year it grew by 70 percent, to $855
million.' Russia is in the process of delivering the S-300 missile
system to Iran-a deal that was put on hold when the U.N. banned the
international community from trading arms with Tehran in
2010. Putin, Rouhani and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev will discuss
further regional cooperation, including Russia and Iran's military
cooperation in support of the Syrian government, next week." http://t.uani.com/2aYGKCn
UANI in the News
France 24: "French newspaper Le Parisien on Friday accused a
US-based NGO of trying to 'torpedo' French business initiatives in Iran, but
the French daily may be sounding a false alarm... The organisation,
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), was founded in 2008 and its leaders
include Mike Wallace, who served as US ambassador to the United Nations
under president George W. Bush, and former US senator Joe Lieberman. One
of its founders is James Woolsey, who directed the CIA under Bill
Clinton... France's Le Parisien newspaper suggested that UANI, which
is controversial even within the United States, is an American 'secret
weapon' with links to the CIA, aimed at blocking European businesses -
'and especially French ones' - from doing business in Iran. And behind
UANI's moralistic arguments, the French daily said, UANI just wants to
guard a 'slice of the pie' of the Iranian market for US businesses. During
a visit from Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Paris last
spring, half a dozen major French businesses received 'threatening'
letters from UANI citing possible legal action, Le Parisien
reported... while UANI may have targeted French businesses during
Zarif's visit to Paris, the NGO has also taken aim at US corporate
interests in Iran. The UANI website provides extensive information on any
company that invests in Iran. UANI also sends letters to those businesses
in order to outline the extensive legal and financial risks of those
making deals in Iran. '[French aviation giant] Airbus received a letter
from UANI, but so did Boeing,' its American counterpart, UANI president
David Ibsen told FRANCE 24... Far from being a 'secret weapon,' UANI
has been an outspoken critic of Iran since the organisation's founding.
UANI's position has often run counter to that of the Obama administration
- most notably when the NGO objected to the negotiation of the Iran
nuclear deal in 2015... Nor is it likely that the organisation has a
major CIA connection. Ibsen told FRANCE 24 that UANI receives 'no funding
government funding whatsoever' and has 'no links to government
organizations.'" http://t.uani.com/2aTnWCD
Congressional Action
Fox News: "Republicans have a problem with more than just
the timing of the Obama administration's controversial $400 million
payment to Iran earlier this year -- one top GOP lawmaker says the fact
the payment was made in hard currency is another big red flag. According
to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., this
could enable Iran to more easily fund groups like Hezbollah since hard
cash is the regime's preferred way of financing terrorism. 'If you're
going to have a transaction, the last thing you want to do with Iran ...
is to give that to them in unmarked bills, in hard currency, in Swiss
francs,' Royce [said]... 'I can guarantee, the money's not going for
infrastructure ... Where do you think the money goes when you give them
unmarked bills and they're the number one sponsor of terrorism in the
region?' Royce asked. 'The primary state sponsor of terrorism -- the
number one international concern is to not have these kinds of
transactions in cash. That's how they pay Hezbollah. That's how they pay
their fighters,' he added... Royce, who has sponsored legislation to
prevent the administration from giving Iran access to the U.S. dollar and
the U.S. banking system, plans to hold hearings on the payment
soon." http://t.uani.com/2az0DtP
Human Rights
VOA: "Human rights groups on Thursday condemned the
execution of at least 20 Kurdish activists in Iran who had been charged
with links to terrorism... The Iranian government said that the men
had ties to foreign Islamist groups, an apparent reference to Islamic
State, and that they were plotting to carry out attacks inside Iran. But
rights activists said the government's accusations were baseless. 'Some of
them had been in prison even before Daesh [Islamic State] or other Sunni
extremist groups appeared in the region,' said an attorney from Tehran
who requested anonymity. Shahram Ahmadi, 29, a Kurdish activist from
Sanandaj, was among those who were hanged. He was reportedly arrested for
distributing leaflets that demanded rights for the Sunni minority in
Iran... Rights activists in Iran say the government is using IS as
an excuse to instill fear in the public... 'Kurds in Iran are persecuted
twice - first because they are Kurds, and second because they are
Sunnis,' said Azad Moradian, spokesman for the Los Angeles-based Kurdish
American Committee for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran... Tehran
has accused foreign powers, Saudi Arabia in particular, of backing
Kurdish rebels against Iranian forces. But Kurdish groups say this is
merely a pretext for the government to justify its suppression of Kurds.
'These [executions] have something to do with Iran's regional policy,'
said Moradian. 'Iran is afraid of a Saudi influence in Sunni Kurds. And
so these executions could be a message for Saudi Arabia.'" http://t.uani.com/2aYuxNU
Jerusalem Post: "Iran's regime executed a gay adolescent in July
- the first confirmed execution of someone convicted as a juvenile in the
Islamic Republic in 2016 - Amnesty International reported this
week. Hassan Afshar, 19, was hanged in Arak Prison in Iran's Markazi
Province on July 18, after he was convicted of 'forced male-to-male anal
intercourse' ('lavat-e be onf') in early 2015... Amnesty said the
Iranian authorities received a complaint accusing Afshar and two other
adolescents of forcing a teenage boy to have sex. Afshar, who was
arrested in December, 2014, said that the same-sex relations were
consensual and the accuser had freely engaged in prior homosexual
relations. 'Iran has proved that its sickening enthusiasm for putting
juveniles to death, in contravention of international law, knows no
bounds,' said Magdalena Mughrabi, Deputy Middle East and North Africa
Programme Director at Amnesty International... Iran frequently
executes gay men for same-sex relations and frames the men for rape
charges to justify its Islamic law application of lethal
homophobia." http://t.uani.com/2aXWww5
Washington Examiner: "Iranian Judiciary Chief Sadeq Amoli Larijani this
week shut down the possibility that his country would participate in a
human rights discussion with the United States... Larijani did say
he would consider discussing human rights with European countries as long
as the conversation is on a 'bilateral framework, not a unilateral one
where only Iran is put to questions.' He encouraged the Iranian High
Council for Human Rights and Foreign Ministry to 'pave the way for talks
with European countries' on human rights. But the chief judge laid
out some tough questions he would post to Europe in any human rights
talk. 'Theoretically, we have two questions regarding the basics of
right. Whom does this right serve? And how do you interpret it?
Practically, why do you impose your take on the whole world?' he
asked"... Larijani also took issue with the Universal
Declaration of the Human Rights of 1948. 'Those who prepared a draft of
the universal declaration were secular liberal in orientation and to
avoid possible disagreement, they put it in the guise of human dignity,'
he stated. Larijani's own record on human rights is shaky. He
appointed deputy prosecutor general Saeed Mortazavi, who was responsible
for the abuse of a number of political prisoners and activists, including
Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian journalist who died in police
custody." http://t.uani.com/2aYFOO4
Reuters: "Britain said it was concerned about its
nationals imprisoned in Iran including a British-Iranian aid worker who
has been detained since early April and accused by Revolutionary Guards
of trying to overthrow Iran's government. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe,
who was arrested as she tried to leave Iran after a visit with her
two-year-old daughter, appeared in the Revolutionary Court on
Monday... Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 37, works for the Thomson Reuters
Foundation, a London-based charity that is independent of Thomson Reuters
and operates independently of Reuters News." http://t.uani.com/2aY3FMC
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Singh in WSJ: "Rarely in foreign policy does one get a decade's
advance notice of a crisis. But that's effectively what happened last
month when the Associated Press reported on a previously unpublicized
document describing how Iran plans to expand its nuclear program
beginning in January 2027: by installing thousands of centrifuges capable
of enriching uranium faster than its current models. It's well known
that the Iran nuclear agreement is a temporary accommodation; Iran will
be free of its restrictions beginning in less than a decade. The question
is what can be done now to prepare for that eventuality...Even President
Obama said last year that the deal amounted to 'purchasing for 13, 14, 15
years assurances that the breakout is at least a year...at the end of
that period, maybe they've changed, maybe they haven't.' In other words,
the can has been kicked down the road... In the face of all this,
other steps can be taken now to deter Iran from expanding its nuclear
program as the 2015 agreement sunsets. First, the next U.S.
administration can make clear that being aware of Iran's plans is not the
same as acquiescing to them, and that we reserve the right to oppose
Iran's nuclear expansion. The U.S. should reassert its opposition to Iran
developing nuclear weapons capability and to the general spread of
nuclear weapons technology. This policy would gain credibility by the
U.S. actively deterring and responding to Iranian provocations in the
region as well as any violations of the nuclear agreement. Such a policy
should not preclude the use of sanctions or force should Iran seek a
nuclear weapon, nor should it rule out the negotiation of a follow-on
accord that exchanges further incentives for further nuclear
restrictions. In parallel, the U.S. can also lead an effort to
restrict the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology generally.
This would provide a firm policy foundation to rally international opposition
to the expansion of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Such an approach could
involve making the global nonproliferation regime-which currently permits
non-nuclear states to engage in almost any nuclear activity short of
weapons production if they produce a feasible civilian purpose... It
could also involve making nuclear fuel-cycle activities multilateral-for
example, by creating nuclear 'fuel banks' that would obviate the need for
states to pursue their own enrichment capabilities. Any successful
policy likely requires the U.S. to pursue all of these steps, not to
choose from among them. Doing nothing to head off this crisis in the
making only ensures that it will be bigger, and worse, when it
arrives." http://t.uani.com/2b85JyP
Jonah Goldberg in NY Post: "Few things really cement a solid working relationship
like $400 million in cash. Kerry failed to mention that part in his
[past] press conferences or Congressional testimony. In fact, the Obama
administration kept the whole thing a secret. The White House
concedes that it all looks very bad. But it insists this was in no way a
ransom payment; the trout got in the milk for perfectly normal reasons...
That the money was delivered to coincide with the release of our hostages
is little more than a funny coincidence... Still, one wonders why,
if it was such a laudable and innocent money-saving maneuver, they kept
it all secret from the American people. Here's one possible reason
from the Wall Street Journal exposé. 'U.S. officials also acknowledge
that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the
cash to show they had gained something tangible.' Catch that? The
Obama administration did not think the huge pallet of Swiss francs, euros
and other currencies dropped off in the dead of night was a ransom
payment - they just wanted the Iranians to think it was. And they
bought it!... The whole point of not paying ransoms to terrorists
isn't to save money. The reason we don't pay kidnappers is that we
understand that it will only encourage more kidnapping. So letting
the Iranians think the $400 million was a ransom payment is doubly
asinine, because it fooled exactly the wrong people, the wrong way. Who
cares if the Obama administration 'knew' it wasn't a ransom? What
mattered was to make it clear to the Iranians that it wasn't a ransom,
not give them every reason to believe it was. Now, because of this
pas-de-deux of asininity, not only have we given the Iranians untraceable
walking-around money to give to its terrorist proxies, we've also given
them every incentive to kidnap more Americans - which is exactly what
they've been doing. But at least the folks at the State Department
can sleep soundly knowing that they didn't really pay a ransom - it just
looks that way." http://t.uani.com/2aTE2vY
WSJ Editorial: "'We do not pay ransom for hostages,' [President
Obama] said [Thursday]. 'We didn't here, and we won't in the future,
precisely because if we did we'd start encouraging Americans to be
targeted.' He's right that paying ransom for hostages encourages
more hostage-taking, which is why U.S. policy has long opposed doing it.
And Mr. Obama, with his talent for imagining a world that he would like
to exist, may even believe that Iran released the Americans for reasons
other than the pallets of cash the U.S. delivered... But the hard
reality of geopolitics is about more than what a U.S. President chooses
to believe. And if Mr. Obama is right that he paid no ransom, then how
does he explain that Iran has taken three more Americans as hostages
since those January payments? An unhappy coincidence? What matters
to American credibility is what the mullahs of Iran believe. And it's
obvious they believe that arresting and holding Americans in Iran is a
useful way to extract money and other concessions from the United States.
Their latest demand is for the U.S. to hand over $2 billion in Iranian
funds that have been frozen for the victims of Iranian-sponsored
terrorism. The thugs of the world don't care what Mr. Obama believes.
They care only that he shows them the money-then they'll release their
hostages." http://t.uani.com/2b0HTGh
Jennifer Rubin in Washington
Post: "[J]ust as the Treasury
Department went to bureaucratic war with leaks and objections to the
State Department's insistence on facilitating Iran's ability to conduct
dollar transaction, Justice too was aligned against the constant
give-aways the White House and Secretary of State John F. Kerry backed to
mollify the nonexistent 'moderates' in Iran... Elliott Abrams,
who served in both the National Security Council and the State Department
explains, 'What we've been told is that Justice objected but was
overruled by State. That can't be right: they are two co-equal Cabinet
departments.' He continues, 'So what happened was that Justice objected
and the White House said 'Shut up.' Obviously, the professional staff at
DOJ, of whom I'd bet 100 percent voted for Obama, were so angry that
people began to leak.' He adds, 'Of course, discipline always breaks down
as an administration ends, but this leak shows how rotten the Obama
decision to bribe Iran and ransom hostages truly was. We can only hope
that Clinton sees all of this, sees how rotten it looks and decides not
to repeat it'"... The good news is that when the new president
takes office she will have a critical segment of the executive branch
(Justice and Treasury) primed to take a tougher stand with Iran. As a
former secretary of state, she'll need to insist - if she really does
want to beef up our stance toward Iran - her pick for secretary and other
appointed officials get in line with any White House-Justice-Treasury
initiatives. It is hardly news that the State Department is more willing
to accede to our foes' demands for the sake of preserving its
"diplomacy" (in this case, a horribly one-sided deal that has
now distorted our approach to the region and horrified our
allies). Congress has a responsibility, too. Before the new
president and Congress come into office, it is essential to conduct
exacting oversight hearings, getting on record the administration's own
objections and extracting explanations from the State Department as to
its officials' rationale and legal basis for the cash-lift to the
mullahs. Legislation prohibiting transfers of money to state sponsors of
terror or designated terror groups seems the least Congress can do to try
to signal an end to the Obama era of appeasement." http://t.uani.com/2aW9QBB
Tzvi Kahn for Foreign Policy
Initiative: "By capitulating to
Iranian blackmail, the White House violated its own pledge to refrain
from paying cash for hostages, subsidized the regime's regional
aggression, spurred Tehran to detain more Western captives, and sent Iran
the message that it can humiliate the United States with
impunity... The administration's assertions seemed consistent with
official U.S. policy on ransoms. On June 24, 2015, President Obama issued
a formal statement 'reaffirming that the United States government will
not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding
American hostages.' Paying ransoms, he added, 'risks endangering more
Americans and funding the very terrorism that we're trying to
stop.' But the Journal's account suggests that the Obama
administration, against its own better judgment, reversed this policy -
and that its predictions of a ransom's likely outcome proved prophetic.
In the months after the settlement, Tehran detained several additional
hostages. And in May, Iran announced that its military would use the $1.7
billion to fund part of a 90 percent increase in military spending for
the 2016-2017 budget, thereby enabling the regime to expand its hegemonic
ambitions throughout the Middle East. Perhaps more troublingly, by paying
Iran with cash, the United States effectively rendered the money
untraceable, thereby enabling Tehran to transfer the sum to its regional
proxies without detection... the settlement more likely indicates
how badly the Obama administration has struggled to preserve its
signature foreign policy achievement. Recognizing that Iran's
incarceration of innocent Americans undermined public support for the
nuclear agreement, the White House payed the ransom covertly in an
attempt to demonstrate that the accord would lead to tangible
achievements in other diplomatic arenas. In reality, of course,
Washington merely emboldened Tehran to increase its aggression. Rather
than capitulate to any new Iranian demands for more money, the Obama
administration should state publicly that it will not pay any ransom for
the hostages that still remain in Iranian prisons. It should also
increase sanctions on Iran for its terrorism support, human repression,
and ballistic missile tests, and tie any future sanctions relief to
meaningful Iranian efforts to curb its misbehavior. In the absence of
such steps, the Iranian hostage crisis will endure, public support for
the nuclear deal will continue to decline, and a future U.S.
administration may harbor fewer compunctions about retaining an accord
that emboldens rather than tames a repressive Islamist
dictatorship." http://t.uani.com/2aA6mCV
|
|
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