|
|
Top Stories
Reuters:
"Germany's Germanischer Lloyd (GL) has stopped verifying safety and
environmental standards for Iran's biggest shipping companies, a letter
from the company showed, the last big European classification society to
pull back as sanctions heat up. Without verification from such bodies,
ships are unable to call at international ports. The move follows similar
decisions in recent weeks by British classification society Lloyd's
Register, France's Bureau Veritas and Norway's Det Norske Veritas to halt
operations in Iran as Western powers pile pressure on the Islamic
Republic over its disputed nuclear programme, putting companies that
still trade with Iran in the firing line. In a letter sent to U.S.
pressure group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) dated June 15 and seen
by Reuters, GL said it had stopped offering services to the Islamic
Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and the National Iranian Tanker
Company (NITC). 'It is of the utmost importance that we maintain our good
reputation,' GL said in the letter. 'Therefore, we have pursued the
decision to cease rendering services to the Iranian companies mentioned.'
... UANI, which includes former U.S. ambassadors on its board and is
funded by private donations, had said GL's cover for IRISL was in
violation of EU sanctions. UANI, which seeks to prevent Iran getting
nuclear weapons, had also pressured Bureau Veritas before the French firm
stopped its Iran cover... Mark Wallace, UANI's chief executive and a
former U.S. ambassador, welcomed GL's decision. 'The shipping industry is
now set to help deny the Iranian regime critical access to global trade
and seaborne crude oil exports,' Wallace said in a statement. 'GL is
absolutely correct in stating that working with the Iranian regime is
badly damaging to a corporation's good name and reputation,' he
added." http://t.uani.com/KGXc6L
NYT:
"Talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions resumed in Moscow on Monday, with
a significant gap looming between the two sides' positions as painful new
sanctions are set to come into effect to further isolate Tehran from
world oil and banking markets. Three hours after the talks began, a
report on state-controlled Iranian television said that Iran will not
consider curtailing enrichment of uranium to 20 percent - a key goal for
international mediators - unless the major powers acknowledge that Tehran
has the right to enrich uranium and lifts sanctions. Iran has long sought
these two concessions in exchange for curtailment of enrichment to 20
percent but they go far beyond what the six major powers have proposed.
The six-power proposal, originally offered at earlier talks in Baghdad,
would have given Iran parts for older American-built civilian aircraft
and safety upgrades for an Iranian nuclear reactor, with the promise of
more sanctions relief in return for specific Iranian actions to come into
compliance over time. The Moscow talks continued incremental negotiations
that began years ago, but which were recently renewed in Istanbul and
Baghdad, bringing together Iranian negotiators with major powers
including the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - as well as
Germany and the European Union. Iran is in violation of Security Council
resolutions demanding that it suspend enrichment and has failed to ease
concerns that its nuclear program is aimed at building a bomb, a charge
Iran denies." http://t.uani.com/MZxvJp
Reuters:
"In less than two weeks, Iran's biggest oil buyers will lose access
to the London-based insurance market that protects 95 percent of the
world's tanker shipments against oil spills or catastrophic collisions.
Barring an unexpected last-minute deal to relax European Union sanctions,
Europe's Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs will be unable to insure
vessels carrying Iranian crude from July 1, an unforeseen but ultimately
critical side effect of EU sanctions to punish Iran for its nuclear
program. In an extreme scenario, exports from OPEC's second-largest
supplier -- already curtailed by separate U.S. sanctions and an EU import
ban -- could grind to a halt next month as overseas oil companies cannot
afford to take the risk of multibillion-dollar liabilities arising from
an uninsured incident... Despite the risks, however, oil markets appear
blase: Since April, Brent crude prices have slumped more than 20 percent
to trade below $100 a barrel for the first time since early 2011; in a
straw poll by Reuters, none of the five analysts who provided forecasts
for Iranian exports expected more than a modest dip in sales in July and
the rest of the year... For the moment, traders are betting that reduced
demand resulting from Europe's debt crisis, near-record Saudi oil
production and a boom in North American output are more than sufficient
to offset the estimated drop of 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in Iran's
exports since last year." http://t.uani.com/MfUnHu
Nuclear
Program & Sanctions
NYT:
"The calendar will loom large over the next round of Iran nuclear
talks. Less than two weeks after its diplomats meet on Monday with those
of the United States and five other major powers in Moscow, Iran faces
the imposition of a potentially crippling European oil embargo and
American banking sanctions. Whether choking off Iran's main source of
revenue will persuade Tehran to accept a deal that curbs its nuclear
ambitions is the critical question at these talks, which follow
inconclusive meetings in Baghdad and Istanbul. Administration officials
and outside experts are loath to make a prediction. 'The reality is that
they're on the verge of a choice between having a nuclear program or an
economy,' said Cliff Kupchan, a senior analyst on the Middle East at the
Eurasia Group, a consulting firm. 'There's nothing like no money in your
wallet to straighten your senses.' Still, Mr. Kupchan and other analysts
said they doubted there would be a breakthrough in Moscow. Even if Iran
were to show a readiness to accept an interim deal - something the
economic pressure makes more plausible - the United States and the other
powers are probably not yet willing to meet Tehran's terms." http://t.uani.com/M3SldO
Reuters:
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared to indicate that Iran would
be prepared to stop high-grade uranium enrichment - a demand of the
United States and its allies - if world powers agreed to meet its needs
for the fuel. 'From the beginning the Islamic Republic has stated that if
European countries provided 20 percent enriched fuel for Iran, it would
not enrich to this level,' Ahmadinejad stated in comments published on
his presidential website." http://t.uani.com/LgqPK1
Bloomberg:
"Iran may be constructing a secret uranium enrichment plant outside
of international nuclear safeguards, according to a report from the
Institute for Science and International Security. 'Although
suspicions are increasing that Iran is building a secret centrifuge
plant, ISIS assesses that it is unlikely that Iran could currently have
such a plant or finish one in the next year,' according to the report
yesterday from the Washington-based research group. Iran is already
increasing its stockpiles of 19.75 percent low-enriched uranium which,
with further processing, would be enough to fuel a single nuclear bomb
'by early next year,' according to ISIS analysts David Albright and
Christina Walrond. If Iran 'modestly expands' its capability to make
19.75 percent uranium consistent with its existing plans, it could have
enough for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2012, they said. 'Production of
enough for a second nuclear weapon would take many additional
months.'" http://t.uani.com/KVzPQn
FP:
"Nearly half the Senate told President Barack Obama today that
unless Iran gives three specific concessions at this weekend's talks with
world powers in Moscow, he should abandon the ongoing negotiations over
the country's nuclear program. 'It is past time for the Iranians to take
the concrete steps that would reassure the world that their nuclear
program is, as they claim, exclusively peaceful,' wrote 44 senators in a
Friday bipartisan letter organized by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and
Roy Blunt (R-MO). 'Absent these steps, we must conclude that Tehran is
using the talks as a cover to buy time as it continues to advance toward
nuclear weapons capability. We know that you share our conviction that
allowing Iran to gain this capability is unacceptable.' The senators
wrote that the 'absolute minimum' Iran must do immediately to justify
further talks is to shut down the Fordo uranium enrichment facility near
Qom, freeze all uranium enrichment above 5 percent, and ship all uranium
enriched above 5 percent out of the country." http://t.uani.com/L8zKz7
Domestic Politics
Independent:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has revealed that he will retire from politics
when his second term as President ends next year. Mr Ahmadinejad was
quoted in Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper as
saying that he planned to return to academia. Although he might engage in
political activity at a university, he said: 'I will not found any
political party or group.' Mr Ahmadinejad cannot run in next year's
election because of term limits. Asked whether, like Russia's Vladimir
Putin, he envisioned returning to the presidency at a later date, he
replied: 'No, eight years are enough.'" http://t.uani.com/MZwFME
Foreign Affairs
AFP:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will embark next week on a
tour of Latin America including stops in Brazil for the Rio+20 summit, as
well as Bolivia and Venezuela, his office said on Saturday. Ahmadinejad
would stay in Brazil for two days, where he would meet world leaders on
the sidelines of the summit on sustainable development, Mohammad Reza
Forqani, a presidency official, told ISNA news agency. The Iranian leader
would stop in Bolivia on his way to Brazil to discuss 'the development of
bilateral relations' with his counterpart Evo Morales, said Forqani. The
last leg of his tour would take him to Venezuela for a 'brief' stop to
hold talks with President Hugo Chavez." http://t.uani.com/KNG8Hx
AFP:
"Hundreds of Jews, gays and rights activists jointly marched along
Rio's famed Ipanema beach Sunday to protest Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's attendance at the UN summit on sustainable development. 'We
want the world to know that religious hatred harms the environment and
Ahmadinejad represents hatred. Sustainable development encompasses human
rights,' said Ivanir dos Santos, of the commission against religious intolerance.
Unlike previous demonstrations organized by the commission, which groups
tens of thousands of people of all faiths, Muslims did not join Sunday's
rally. 'Muslims do not take part in demonstrations against a fellow
Muslim, even if they disagree with him,' dos Santos said. The marchers
carried banners proclaiming in English 'Rio does not welcome Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad' and 'Iranians we love you.'" http://t.uani.com/M6O4DD
Opinion &
Analysis
Nicholas Kristof
in NYT: "Yet one lesson from my 1,700-mile drive
around the country is that, largely because of Western sanctions,
factories are closing, workers are losing their jobs, trade is faltering
and prices are surging. This is devastating to the average Iranian's
pocketbook - and pride. To be blunt, sanctions are succeeding as
intended: They are inflicting prodigious economic pain on Iranians and
are generating discontent. One factory owner, Hassan Gambari, who makes
electrical panels, told me that he had had to lay off 12 of his 15
workers. Another, Masoud Fatemi, who makes cotton thread and textiles,
said that Western sanctions had aggravated pre-existing economic
problems. 'Prices have gone ridiculously high, so production is almost
impossible,' he said. 'Everything has become harder, more time-consuming and
more expensive because of the sanctions.' Fatemi said that an electrical
inverter blew out a year and a half ago, closing one of his factory lines
and costing him $500 a day. Because of sanctions, he said, he has been
unable to get a replacement from the West, although he hopes to install
one soon from South Korea. In Tabriz, in the west, I chatted with the
owner of a store selling Nike, Adidas and Saucony sneakers, hugely prized
as status symbols. If a young man wants to find a girlfriend, the shop owner
explained, the best bet is to wear Nikes. But sales have dropped by
two-thirds in the last year, he fretted. He added in disgust that some
Iranians are in such penury that they attend parties wearing
Chinese-made, fake Nikes. In March, Iran was pushed out of Swift, a
banking network for international payments, so the businessman now pays
for his imports through the traditional hawala system. That's an
unofficial global network of money-traders. You lug a briefcase of cash
to a hawala office in an Iranian bazaar and then ask for it to be made
available in Beijing or Los Angeles. This is more expensive and less
reliable than a bank transfer, but it's now the main alternative. 'We are
finding a loophole around sanctions,' a hawala trader told me. 'The Iranian
nation has no other option.' Economic frustration is compounded because
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been lifting subsidies for everything
from bread to gasoline - probably sound economic policy, but very
unpopular. Western sanctions have succeeded in another way: Most blame
for economic distress is directed at Iran's own leaders, and discontent
appears to be growing with the entire political system. I continually ran
into Iranians who were much angrier at their leaders on account of rising
prices than on account of the imprisonment of dissidents or Bahais. 'We
can't do business as we used to, and our quality of life is getting
worse,' one man, who lost his job as a salesman, said forlornly. 'We
blame our regime, not Western countries.' Economic pressure also may be
distracting people from other nationalist issues. For example, many
ordinary Iranians side with their government on nuclear issues and are
angry at assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. But people are
much more focused on lost jobs and soaring prices. 'The economy is
breaking people's backs,' a young woman told me in western Iran... Yet,
with apologies to the many wonderful Iranians who showered me with
hospitality, I favor sanctions because I don't see any other way to
pressure the regime on the nuclear issue or ease its grip on power. My
takeaway is that sanctions are working pretty well." http://t.uani.com/LvVTnl
Ray Takeyh in
WashPost: "As the ebbs and flows of diplomacy with
Iran once more fixate official Washington, a subtle shift is emerging in
the Islamic Republic's nuclear calculus. Officials in Tehran increasingly
sense that it may be easier to get the bomb through an agreement than by
pursuing it outside the parameters of a deal. But for this strategy to
succeed, Iran has to get the right kind of an accord, one in which it
trades size for transparency. Namely, the deal must allow Iran to
construct an elaborate nuclear infrastructure in exchange for conceding
to intrusive inspections. With the next round of talks looming, the
challenge at hand is not just to negotiate an agreement with a
disciplined adversary but to avoid the pitfalls of a flawed deal. Iran's
current path to the bomb is perilous. Its incremental nuclear gains come
at the price of debilitating sanctions that may erode the regime's
ability to sustain its patronage networks and thus its power. In the
meantime, the Islamic Republic is exposed to the possibility of military
action. It is often suggested that strikes against Iran will cause a
resurgence of nationalism that will refurbish the legitimacy that the
Islamist state lost during the fraudulent presidential election of 2009.
It is, however, entirely possible that the Iranian population may blame
their leaders for reckless diplomacy that caused such an intervention,
further imperiling the theocracy's fortunes. Either way, Iran's current
path of defiance, which is tempered by tantalizing but elusive promises,
cannot forever shield it from either more sanctions or possible military
retribution. To an extent that Iranian officials even contemplate a
nuclear deal, they stress that it has to be predicated on the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Iran's telling, the treaty grants it the
right to construct an extensive nuclear apparatus featuring a vast
enrichment capacity. In exchange for such a presumption, Tehran is
willing to concede to inspection of its facilities. On the surface such a
bargain has much to offer, as it reaffirms the treaty while avoiding war.
Iran's craving for nuclear science would be satiated while the West gains
an ability to closely monitor its activities. The problem is that such an
agreement may yet prove Iran's most suitable path to the bomb. As Iran's
nuclear facilities grow in scope and sophistication, the possibility of
diverting material from them increases regardless of the parameters of an
inspection regime. Any large-scale nuclear facility involves moving
hundreds of containers of uranium from various stations every day. No
monitoring measure can account for every container. Moreover, under the
auspices of an agreement Iran will have access to nuclear technologies
such as advanced centrifuge models. Should Iran perfect centrifuges that
operate with efficiency at high velocity, then it will require only a
limited number of such machines to quickly enrich weapon-grade uranium.
Such cascades can easily be concealed in small-scale, surreptitious
installations that may avoid detection. Hovering over all this is the
fact that once a deal is concluded between Iran and the international
community, the existing sanctions will quickly collapse. Tehran's
technical violations of its treaty obligations are unlikely to be met by
reconstitution of the sanctions regime or the use of military force, as
most international actors such as Russia and China will press for endless
mediation. International reactions to past instances of proliferation
suggest that arms-control violations are not met with strenuous
responses. The reaction to North Korean and Soviet violations of their
arms-control agreements prove that once a treaty is signed the
international community becomes so invested in its perpetuation, and so
fearful of the consequences of failure, that it will focus on
preservation at any cost... All this is not to suggest that it is
implausible that diplomacy could resolve the nuclear conundrum regarding
Iran. But as part of any realistic agreement, the United States and its
allies must impose serious curbs on Iran's nuclear ambitions. This
implies that Iran cannot maintain enriched uranium and must export all of
its accumulated stock for reprocessing abroad. There must similarly be
significant restriction on not just the number but also the type of
centrifuges that Iran operates. In essence, Iran cannot be permitted to
upgrade its centrifuges beyond its IR-1 machines, which are primitive by
today's standards. As a price for such an accord, Iran has to abide by
all U.N. Security Council resolutions and come clean about all its
weaponization activities." http://t.uani.com/MY2RA4
Dennis Ross in
TNR: "The ultimate goal of the ongoing nuclear
negotiations with Iran, the next round of which commences in Moscow on
June 18, has always been the same: Determining whether Iran is willing to
accept that its nuclear program must be credibly limited in a way that
precludes it from being able to turn civil nuclear power into nuclear
weapons. The collective approach of the 5+1-the five permanent members of
the U.N. Security Council plus Germany- has likewise always been steady:
They have pursued an incremental, step-by-step process designed to
produce Iranian actions that restore the international community's
confidence in the purposes of Iran's nuclear program. Rather than trying
to see if a broader deal is possible, the 5+1 has thought it more
achievable to solicit an interim step of confidence-building measures,
absent which there will be no relaxation of financial sanctions. At this
stage, however, the step-by-step approach may be more of a trap than a
vehicle for success. The problem is that the 5+1 strategy has necessarily
depended on time serving as an ally. The United States and the European
members of the 5+1 hope that by ratcheting up economic pressures on Iran,
they will eventually convince the Iranian leadership to compromise (ie:
accept a face-saving way to preserve their right to have civil nuclear
power but without the means to convert it into nuclear weapons.) And the
West's economic pressures on Iran do continue to become more acute; they
will escalate significantly with the planned European boycott on the purchase
of Iranian oil set to begin on July 1. With financial sanctions having
already led to a devaluation of the Iranian currency of over 50 percent
in recent months, and with U.S. sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank and
anyone who does business with it now affecting all those who buy Iranian
oil-leading to estimates that Iran is unable to sell close to 40 percent
of its normal export total-there is some logic in playing for time. But,
seen another way, time is decidedly not on the 5+1's side. Though Iran
has agreed to come to talks, at this point its enrichment and
accumulation of low-enriched uranium is continuing. The IAEA, the nuclear
watchdog of the United Nations, reports that the Iranians now have
accumulated roughly 6000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. If purified
further to weapons grade, that amount of material could be converted into
approximately five nuclear bombs. And, that does not count the higher
level of enrichment that the Iranians have begun in their Fordow
facility-a facility embedded deep inside a mountain near the city of Qom.
In that facility, the Iranians are now enriching uranium to 20 percent,
ostensibly to provide fuel for a medical research reactor. The problem
with enrichment to 20 percent is that it greatly shortens the time needed
to purify uranium to weapons grade... The current step-by-step approach
is not up to the task. It lends itself too much to a dilatory process
that we cannot sustain. Worse, it denies us the ability to put a
comprehensive proposal to the Iranians, one that permits us to directly
address the core question of the negotiations: namely, whether Iran is
prepared to accept not having a break-out capability to nuclear weapons.
It's clear what the diplomacy around such a comprehensive proposal would
entail: We would offer Iran a civil nuclear power capability-and if they
reject the proposal, it would be presented to the public as a declaration
that the Iranians want a nuclear weapons capability not civil nuclear
power. Abandoning incremental step-by-step negotiations for a more direct
end-state proposal of this sort offers obvious and not-so-obvious
diplomatic advantages." http://t.uani.com/LUd0zU
David Albright
& Christina Walrond in ISIS: "As Iran's stock of
19.75 percent enriched uranium increases, the amount of time Iran needs
to produce weapon-grade uranium for nuclear weapons decreases
significantly. At current rates of production of 19.75 percent
low-enriched uranium (LEU), Iran will have enough of this material by
early next year, if further enriched to weapon-grade in a breakout, for a
nuclear weapon. If Iran modestly expands its capability to make 19.75
percent LEU consistent with its existing plans, it could have enough
19.75 percent LEU for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2012. Production of
enough for a second nuclear weapon would take many additional months.
Because the Fordow enrichment plant is so deeply buried, it raises
concerns that Iran will try to breakout at this site, believing that the
site is impervious to military strikes or that breakout can be achieved
prior to a military strike. Predicting when or if Iran would breakout at
Fordow remains difficult, but it would likely want to have sufficient
19.75 percent LEU for more than one nuclear weapon and ensure a rapid
breakout after a decision to do so. However, regardless of an exact
timeline, the dedication of this site to the production of 19.75 percent
LEU and its extreme fortifications increase the chance of military
strikes aimed at preempting the emergence of the means for a more rapid
Iranian breakout. The ability to fully destroy the Fordow site is open to
debate, but nonetheless the United States and Israel have the military
capability to shut down operations at the facility for some period of
time. If Iran seeks to breakout at Fordow only, the time to produce
enough weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon is estimated to exceed
two months. In this case, there is adequate time for both the detection
of such a breakout and an international response. Iran could reduce the
time it needed to breakout using a stock of 19.75 percent LEU by using
the relatively large numbers of centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment
site, reducing breakout times to as short as about one month and
requiring a relatively rapid detection and response. In contrast, if Iran
had to rely mainly on its stock of 3.5 percent LEU, breakout times are
several months to obtain enough weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear
weapon. But even with a relatively short breakout time of one month, the
Natanz site is highly vulnerable to military strikes and regularly
visited by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. On balance,
Iran may feel deterred from breaking out there. But Iran's current
trajectory at Fordow is increasing the chance of a confrontation with
Iran. To reduce the tensions caused by the Fordow site and Iran's
increasing stocks of 19.75 percent LEU, a priority in the short term is
Iran agreeing to stop producing uranium enriched over five percent and
freezing the number of centrifuges at the Fordow site to no more than a
few hundred. It is in the interest of all concerned to avoid an
escalation of the Iranian nuclear crisis by negotiating such an
agreement, and then to negotiate in a step-by¬-step manner agreements
that ensure Iran will not build nuclear weapons." http://t.uani.com/MAeyj5
|
|
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