|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Politico:
"Republicans are clashing over the best strategy for confronting
President Barack Obama over his attempts to strike a nuclear deal with
Iran, as GOP leaders try to build enough Democratic support to override a
threatened veto. Adding to the murkiness is a heightened Democratic
reluctance to rebuke their president and mixed messages from the Israelis
about what exactly they want Congress to do on Iran. Two key Senate
committees will soon move separate proposals, one to increase sanctions
and the other to require congressional approval of any Iran deal. The
lead sponsors of those bills - Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and
Bob Corker of Tennessee, respectively - are racing to rack up supporters
and recruit Democratic co-sponsors in what is quickly emerging as a turf
war of sorts between the Banking Committee and the Foreign Relations
Committee. In the middle of it all are Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) and his leadership team, who are closely monitoring the
legislative developments. Senior Republicans and sources familiar with
the process said both proposals would get floor votes in some fashion and
portions of them could be merged into a final product, perhaps one as an
amendment to another. Those sources insisted that leadership will not
write a bill and put it directly on the floor, but rather will work out
the final legislation there. Yet some Republicans are starting to take
sides." http://t.uani.com/188isPg
LAT:
"In comments to Bloomberg news service, Kerry said a senior Israeli
intelligence official told U.S. senators visiting Israel this week that
new sanctions would be like "throwing a grenade into the
process." Although Kerry did not name him, the official who met with
the senators was Mossad director Tamir Pardo. Public reports of a rift
between Netanyahu and the Mossad on a centerpiece policy issue forced the
spy agency out of the shadows to issue a rare statement meant to clarify
its position and what Pardo had told the senators. In a release
circulated to the press in Hebrew and English, the agency stressed that
Pardo had met with the senators at their request and with Netanyahu's
approval. 'Contrary to what has been reported, the head of Mossad did not
say he opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran,' the statement
said. Reportedly, Pardo told them that 'in negotiating with Iran, it is
essential to present both carrots and sticks and the latter are currently
lacking.' The statement also said the Mossad chief intended the 'grenade'
comment as a metaphor to describe not the explosion of negotiations with
Iran but rather 'creating a temporary crisis' that would ultimately produce
better conditions for the talks. Reportedly, Pardo cautioned that 'the
bad agreement taking shape with Iran is likely to lead to a regional arms
race.'" http://t.uani.com/1t65VoS
Al-Monitor:
"Commander Hossein Hamedani, who according to statements by Iranian
officials is responsible for establishing Syria's paramilitaries and
militias, also spoke at the funeral, saying that there are now three
Hezbollahs in the region. Hamedani said, 'God promised that if you resist
and have a presence, you do not need to be worried about results. Your
victory is from that. God also promised that he made your enemies from
the most idiotic, and they make mistakes. One time, the enemy made a
mistake and went into south Lebanon, and Hezbollah was born. Then they
went to Syria and another Hezbollah was born. This year, they went into
Iraq and another Hezbollah was born.' He added, 'Today, Hezbollah shines
in the region like the sun.' He said that strikes against such groups are
intended to create fear, 'but they don't know and they don't understand
that we race toward martyrdom.' He said that rather than becoming
fearful, these strikes will create a 'wave of jihad and martyrdom.'"
http://t.uani.com/1CYXonR
Sanctions Relief
Reuters:
"The European Union's second highest court on Thursday annulled EU
sanctions on an Iranian bank and 40 shipping companies hit with asset
freezes as part of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme. But
they will remain under sanctions for now after the General Court gave the
EU time to appeal or to decide whether to re-impose sanctions using
different legal grounds... The EU put Bank Tejarat, an Iranian commercial
bank, under sanctions in 2012, saying it had helped Iran's nuclear
efforts. The General Court struck down the sanctions, saying the Council
of EU governments had failed to prove that Bank Tejarat had provided
support for nuclear proliferation or had helped others to avoid
sanctions. It also said the bank was partially privatised in 2009 and the
Iranian state was no longer its majority shareholder. The General Court
also struck down EU sanctions on 40 shipping companies, including
Hamburg-based Ocean Capital Administration GmbH. The companies were
placed on the EU sanctions list because it said they were controlled or
otherwise linked to Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, which had
previously been put under sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1xJo9t0
Reuters:
"China's crude oil imports from Iran jumped by nearly 30 percent
last year to their highest average level since 2011, customs data showed
on Friday, as Iran's largest oil client boosted shipments after an
interim deal eased sanctions on Tehran... Last year, China lifted 27.5
million tonnes of Iranian crude and condensate, an increase of 28.3
percent over 2013, the customs data showed. That put its daily average at
549,250 bpd, almost even with the 555,000 bpd imported in 2011 before the
United States and the European Union tightened sanctions. The December
imports from Iran rose 19.1 percent from a year ago to 604,740 bpd, and
were up 17 percent from November. China, Iran's largest buyer, also
recorded exporting 320,000 tonnes, or 6,400 bpd, of crude to Iran in
2014, including 240,000 tonnes in December. The exported volumes likely
have to do with the movement of crude in and out of storage that sources
with knowledge of the matter said state-owned Iranian oil company is
leasing in the northeast Chinese port of Dalian." http://t.uani.com/15kOJk8
Human Rights
IHR:
"Three prisoners were hanged in the public in town of Bonab
(Northwestern Iran) reported the Iranian state media. According to the
state run Iranian news agency Mehr, the prisoners were convicted of
kidnapping and murdering a 12 year old girl in October 2014. The public
hangings took place today, Wednesday 21 January." http://t.uani.com/1wrZuHS
IHR:
"An Iranian man has been sentenced to surgical removal of one eye
and one ear as retribution for an acid attack. The sentence has not been
implemented yet because no doctors have been willing to carry out the
sentence." http://t.uani.com/1Ct3A9M
IranWire:
"Poverty and dire inequality are forcing underage girls into
unwanted marriages, a recent report indicates. According to official
government figures and research published by the Iran Student
Correspondents Association news agency (Iscanews), there are more than
41,000 registered marriages among underage children in Iran, and the
figure is set to rise. Campaigners urged President Rouhani and his
government to take swift action to reduce the number of children marrying
each year. 'In a meeting held by the Minister of Justice in 2010,
specialists and consultants reported on the increasing rate of marriage
among children in certain provinces,' the Iscanews report said. 'In 2011,
five children under 10 were married in three towns of Hormozgan province.
There was also news of marriage of 75 girls and boys under 10 registered
in the same year'. 'Based on observations, in district 12 of Tehran, many
families force their daughters to marry Iraqi or Afghan men and some have
even sold their girls due to extreme poverty.'" http://t.uani.com/1xJr1Gf
Guardian:
"It was the unity of the Iranian fans, more than anything else, that
shocked Talieh Akbari. Sitting in Stadium Australia in Sydney with her
mother for Iran's second group match against Qatar - their first time
together at a football stadium - she was struck by the sheer outpouring
of emotion. 'In Iran, happiness is forbidden,' she says. 'Iranian people
inside Iran are not happy people, but watching the people's happiness,
that is unity.' ... As a woman Talieh is banned from attending football
matches in Iran, and although she prefers watching the game on
television, she was never going to miss such a rare opportunity to watch
the national team in her adopted hometown." http://t.uani.com/15x8Agm
Opinion &
Analysis
Charles
Krauthammer in WashPost: "While Iran's march toward
a nuclear bomb has provoked a major clash between the White House and
Congress, Iran's march toward conventional domination of the Arab world
has been largely overlooked. In Washington, that is. The Arabs have
noticed. And the pro-American ones, the Gulf Arabs in particular, are deeply
worried. This week, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the
Yemeni government, heretofore pro-American. In September, they overran
Sanaa, the capital. On Tuesday, they seized the presidential palace. On
Thursday, they forced the president to resign. The Houthis have local
religious grievances, being Shiites in a majority Sunni land. But they
are also agents of Shiite Iran, which arms, trains and advises them.
Their slogan - 'God is great. Death to America. Death to Israel' - could
have been written in Persian. Why should we care about the coup? First,
because we depend on Yemen's government to support our drone war against
another local menace, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). It's not
clear if we can even maintain our embassy in Yemen, let alone conduct
operations against AQAP. And second, because growing Iranian hegemony is
a mortal threat to our allies and interests in the entire Middle East. In
Syria, Iran's power is similarly rising. The mullahs rescued the reeling
regime of Bashar al-Assad by sending in weapons, money and Iranian
revolutionary guards, as well as by ordering their Lebanese proxy,
Hezbollah, to join the fight. They succeeded. The moderate rebels are in
disarray, even as Assad lives in de facto coexistence with the Islamic
State, which controls a large part of his country. Iran's domination of
Syria was further illustrated by a strange occurrence last Sunday in the
Golan Heights. An Israeli helicopter attacked a convoy on the Syrian side
of the armistice line. Those killed were not Syrian, however, but five
Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon and several Iranian officials, including
a brigadier general. What were they doing in the Syrian Golan Heights?
Giving "crucial advice," announced the Iranian government. On
what? Well, three days earlier, Hezbollah's leader had threatened an
attack on Israel's Galilee. Tehran appears to be using its control of
Syria and Hezbollah to create its very own front against Israel. The
Israelis can defeat any conventional attack. Not so the very rich, very
weak Gulf Arabs. To the north and west, they see Iran creating a
satellite 'Shiite Crescent' stretching to the Mediterranean and
consisting of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. To their south and west, they see
Iran gaining proxy control of Yemen. And they are caught in the pincer.
The Saudis are fighting back the only way they can - with massive
production of oil at a time of oversupply and collapsing prices, placing
enormous economic pressure on Iran. It needs $136 oil to maintain its
budget. The price today is below $50... For the Saudis and the other Gulf
Arabs, this is a nightmare. They're engaged in a titanic regional
struggle with Iran. And they are losing - losing Yemen, losing Lebanon,
losing Syria and watching post-U.S.-withdrawal Iraq come under increasing
Iranian domination. The nightmare would be hugely compounded by Iran
going nuclear. The Saudis were already stupefied that Washington
conducted secret negotiations with Tehran behind their backs. And they
can see where the current talks are headed - legitimizing Iran as a
threshold nuclear state." http://t.uani.com/1yCjmxq
Suzanne Maloney in
Brookings: "The flurry of excitement and activity
around the process itself belies the unmistakable reality - the Iran
nuclear negotiations have been stalemated for months. The regular powwows
and eruption of bilateral bonhomie have failed to achieve their first and
foremost goal - a comprehensive agreement that would conclusively end the
impasse over Iran nuclear program... Still, for now at least, the reality
is that sanctions aren't the real threat to the prospects for a
comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran. Rather, the primary obstacle to a
deal rests where it always has - with the unwillingness of Iran's
ultimate authority, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to countenance
any meaningful compromise on Iran's production and stockpiles of enriched
uranium. Some advocates of diplomacy with Tehran have sought to equate
the problems of domestic political opposition to diplomacy in each
country, depicting a bilateral symmetry in hard-liner obstructionism.
This is inaccurate and misleading. In the United States, opponents of
compromise have used the democratic system to advance their position - to
date, unsuccessfully. For now, they are really only background noise for
an administration that is so committed to a diplomatic outcome that it
will readily engage in largely illusory conflations of rhetorical
opposition with war-mongering. Meanwhile, in Iran, the opponents of
compromise occupy the one position that matters, the office of the
supreme leader. Equating his role as the country's ultimate authority to
that of Congressional Republicans who have thus far failed to avert or
roll back a single aspect of the Obama administration's diplomacy toward
Tehran reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relative balance of
power in each system. And it does a profound disservice to those in Iran
who have articulated, at some risk, the need for a different path. The
P5+1 has proffered endless creative permutations of a formula for
addressing international concerns about Iran's proximity to weapons
capability. Their hope is to find one that might meet the 'red lines'
articulated by Khamenei and other regime scions as essential to
preserving Iran's dignity - and its nuclear options. But to date, there
has been no sustained progress in gaining Iranian buy-in for any such
formulation, and Iran's only known proposal entails leaving the entirety
of its current capabilities for enrichment intact... There are indeed many
reasons why Iran would have signed an interim nuclear agreement without a
firm commitment to making subsequent concessions. And even if Tehran was
inclined to settle the dispute in mid-to-late 2013, it is perfectly
reasonable that developments since that time - the rise of ISIS and the
intensification of the regional power struggle, for starters - may have
altered that calculation in the ensuing 18 months... What will overcome
the diplomatic stalemate is not simply more time or 'space to let these
negotiations work,' as White House chief of staff Denis McDonough
implored before the speech, but rather a shift in Iran's readiness to
compromise on its nuclear fuel and stockpiles. That shift can only be
undertaken by Iranians, within the ruling system, who succeed in
persuading its inner circle that the revolution can only be preserved via
compromise made in the name of Iran's national interests." http://t.uani.com/1ws4tIu
Aaron David Miller
in FP: "Right now, reaching an agreement with Iran
on the nuclear issue is probably the administration's most important
priority in the Middle East. But would such an agreement fundamentally
alter the relationship between the two countries, and could Iran over
time emerge as a partner of the United States in the region? The
advantages of a credible deal that prevented Iran from breaking out to
attain a nuclear weapon or developing an industrial-grade nuclear
infrastructure are obvious, including avoiding the drift toward a
military conflict. But the notion of a partnership in the wake of such an
accord is a stretch. The mullahs need to have the United States as an
adversary to maintain their control and to avoid the slippery slope of
uncontrolled openings to the West that might jeopardize it. And Iran and
the United States have different interests and conceptions of both Iraq
and Syria. Mobilizing against the Islamic State as a common enemy won't
be enough to overcome those differences. As long as the mullahcracy and
security establishment continue to see Iran as a revolutionary Islamic
power at home and abroad, the chances of an Obama engagement strategy
transforming the U.S.-Iran relationship - even over time - look pretty
bleak. Indeed, perhaps the greatest danger is that a deal really won't
diminish Tehran's determination to remain a screwdriver's turn away from
a weapon. And if the administration is too eager for an agreement, it
will find itself with the worst of all possible worlds - with an
emboldened Iran freed from sanctions and international pressure,
untransformed, unrepentant, and in a stronger not weaker position to
challenge U.S. interests in a turbulent Middle East. So come February,
Mr. President, send you valentines to Michelle and the girls. Skip the
mullahs. They really don't deserve it." http://t.uani.com/1yRSvw5
Tzvi Kahn in U.S.
News & World Report: "But Obama then went
further. In the coming weeks, he argued that his approach constituted the
only thing standing between war and peace with Tehran. Thus, when Sens.
Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., first introduced
conditional sanctions legislation at the end of 2013, the White House
called the bill a "march toward war." Critics of the
president's deal with Iran, Obama said, are guilty of "tough talk
and bluster." Essentially, the president framed the debate as a
binary choice: Either accept my strategy or accept responsibility for
dragging America into war. This rhetorical hand grenade ultimately
succeeded in detonating the Menendez-Kirk bill. Yet with the recent
Republican takeover of the Senate, the latest extension of talks in late
2014, and the absence of any discernible progress in reaching an
agreement, the political dynamic has changed. And suddenly, the
president's arguments seem even less persuasive than they did last year.
The reason is simple. Fourteen months of American goodwill, which
included billions of dollars in sanctions relief and stunning compromise
offers that would have allowed Tehran to maintain the bulk of its nuclear
infrastructure, have not generated any Iranian goodwill. Instead, the
Iranians have refused to offer any meaningful concessions and repeatedly
insisted that they have no intention of ever dismantling their nuclear
program. Why should they compromise, after all, when the other side seems
willing to make concessions unilaterally? Moreover, Tehran has backed its
words with actions. While Obama has argued that the Joint Plan of Action
froze progress on Iran's nuclear program, the regime in fact has
accelerated it by engaging in nuclear activities that the interim agreement
irresponsibly fails to address, including the development of advanced
centrifuges and the acquisition of parts for the Arak heavy water
reactor. Obama responded to these acts of bad faith by effectively
ignoring them and asking for more time to negotiate - lots of time. The
latest extension set a new deadline of June 30, 2015, giving the
post-plan of action talks a total of 19 months to succeed. And
administration officials indicated this week that yet another extension
may prove necessary thereafter... In essence, the administration's
strategy seems to rest on the hope that Iran, for no apparent reason,
will eventually moderate its demands. But Tehran's behavior offers no
rationale for such an assumption. On the contrary, the regime's actions
in the past 14 months suggest that it welcomes continued, and preferably
unending, negotiations as a means to wait out the clock in order to
develop its nuclear program while enjoying more and more sanctions relief
along with the guarantee of no new sanctions... Eventually, with or
without another extension, the negotiations will come to an end. Yet the
president's current trajectory offers little room for optimism that
America will emerge with an agreement that actually eliminates the
Iranian nuclear threat. Instead, Obama would likely emerge either with no
deal or with a face-saving agreement that effectively submits to the
Iranian position, which would constitute a de facto policy of
containment. At that point, Obama would have to make a binary choice between
two highly unattractive options: military action and simply letting Iran
have the bomb. And he would own it." http://t.uani.com/1yMzNHI
David B. Rivkin
Jr. & Lee A. Casey in WSJ: "Nuclear talks
between Iran and the U.S. recommenced Jan. 14, ahead of full
international talks with senior officials from the U.S., U.K., France,
Russia, China and Germany two days later. A final agreement is to be
reached no later than June 30. Nothing less than Middle Eastern and
global security hangs in the balance. That security depends on verifiable
elimination of Iran's nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is likely to accept a deal
leaving in place a substantial Iranian nuclear-weapons infrastructure,
including uranium-enrichment capability, long-range ballistic missiles
and the ability to deploy a rudimentary nuclear force on short notice. A
course correction that only Congress can effect is urgently needed. It is
difficult for Congress to stop a president determined to sign an
agreement with foreign leaders. And as this newspaper pointed out in a
recent editorial, President Obama has threatened to veto any legislation
to impose further sanctions on Iran if the June 30 deadline is not met.
Still, Tehran's insistence that existing U.S. sanctions be lifted as part
of a nuclear-weapons agreement gives U.S. lawmakers substantial leverage.
The collapse of oil prices, which dealt a heavy blow to the already
weakened Iranian economy, has further increased this leverage. Here is what
Congress should do: First, Congress should insist that any Iranian
agreement take the form of a treaty. The Constitution requires that
treaties be made only with the advice and consent of the Senate. At the
time it was adopted, and throughout most of U.S. history, agreements
fundamentally ordering the relationship between the U.S. and foreign
nations took the form of treaties, not executive orders. A mere executive
agreement, which Mr. Obama may use to evade congressional constraints
here, would be constitutionally insufficient. Iran, too, should insist on
a treaty and-to ensure sanctions ultimately are lifted-on congressional
involvement in the negotiations. Presidents can unilaterally terminate
both executive agreements and treaties, but executive agreements carry
far less weight. Presidents are more likely to revise or revoke a
predecessor's agreements or orders than they are to repudiate treaties.
The Iranians have already made clear that any deal would require their
parliament's approval. It is disconcerting to see Tehran treating its
legislative branch with more deference than this U.S. president is
treating Congress... Third, Congress should pass legislation now clearly
stating the parameters of an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran,
emphasizing the need to eliminate any Iranian breakout capability. It
should also put the Iranians and our allies on notice that, absent
congressional approval, the president cannot deliver comprehensive and
permanent relief from the existing sanctions statutes. This would prevent
the worst possible scenario: Mr. Obama makes unilateral sanctions-related
commitments, on which he ultimately cannot deliver. Tehran would thus
have a perfect diplomatic cover to continue its nuclear-weapons program,
while casting the U.S. as the deal breaker." http://t.uani.com/1yXUEcZ
|
|
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