|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"Officials tell The Associated Press that a draft nuclear accord
being negotiated between the U.S. and Iran would force Iran to cut
hardware it could use to make an atomic bomb by about 40 percent for at
least a decade. Officials say the draft deal would also offer the
Iranians immediate relief from sanctions that have crippled their
economy. The deal would cap Iran's uranium centrifuges at 6,000 for
decade or more. The centrifuge number is less than the 10,000 such
machines Tehran now runs. But it's substantially more than the 500 to
1,500 that Washington originally wanted as a ceiling. The existence of a draft
in circulation may be the clearest indication the sides were nearing a
written agreement before a March 31 deadline." http://t.uani.com/1CztnPS
AFP:
"A nuclear deal with Iran would be a diplomatic victory for Barack
Obama, but its historic worth and impact on the US president's legacy may
not be known for a decade or more... The agreement would limit Tehran's
nuclear program for 10 to 15 years in return for sanctions relief... It's
a bet that in just over a decade Iran's government will be less hardline
and perhaps more willing to dismantle, not just limit, controversial
aspects of its nuclear program. It's a bet on patience. 'It's a large
gamble,' said Gary Samore, a White House non-proliferation advisor during
Obama's first term. 'Iran is not making a strategic decision to abandon
its interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, they are deciding for tactical
reasons to accept temporary constraints on the program in exchange for
sanctions relief.' Samore says it may take a decade or more before we
know if the gamble has paid off. 'Whether it ends up being successful or
not no one can say. We are not going to know during President Obama's
presidency.' In the 1990s a similar deal with North Korea fell to pieces
and Kim Jong il acquired a bomb... 'The immediate consequence of a
nuclear deal will be to intensify tension between the US and Iran,' said
Samore. 'I would expect that you would see intensified US efforts to
challenge Iranian influence in Syria, in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and
so-forth and certainly to strengthen security assurances to the Arab Gulf
states.'" http://t.uani.com/1O32TJp
Reuters:
"Six world powers and Iran are unlikely to reach a framework
agreement on Iran's nuclear program in the coming days as the sides are
too far apart on many issues, a European negotiator said on Thursday. He
blamed Tehran for failing to compromise. 'Contrary to what the Iranians
are saying with regard to 90 percent of an accord being done, that's not
true,' the negotiator told reporters on condition of anonymity. 'We are
not close to an agreement.' The current round of talks in Switzerland may
need to continue beyond Friday. 'We are pretty far away. There are a lot
of issues that still need to be resolved. The Iranians must make
substantial concessions,' he said... Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister
Hamid Baidinejad confirmed that there were a number of sticking points.
'Contrary to what many think, that we are only discussing one issue, it
is not correct,' he told reporters. 'We are discussing many issues and
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.' He cited research and
development (R&D) into centrifuges as a sticking point... Baidinejad
said that if there was a framework agreement this month, it would not be
in writing. 'There will be no written agreement,' he said. 'It will be
kind of verbal agreement that will pave the ground for further
talks.'" http://t.uani.com/19CkesZ
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Bloomberg:
"When nuclear monitors said Iran had started testing a single
advanced centrifuge last year, some U.S. politicians and analysts jumped
on the report as proof the Islamic Republic can't be trusted. To U.S.
officials negotiating with Iran, it was probably just a mistake -- one
that shows the pitfalls in the highly technical accord being discussed.
Describing the incident in detail for the first time, U.S. officials, who
asked not to be identified following diplomatic rules, said the testing
was probably done by a low-level employee on Iran's nuclear program who
didn't understand the limits placed on his experimentation... The episode
highlights the difficulties of trying to regulate the vast industrial
infrastructure and laboratories involved in the Islamic Republic's
nuclear work." http://t.uani.com/1LwWYxo
Human Rights
Amnesty:
"The Iranian authorities must prove that their participation at the UN
Human Rights Council in Geneva is more than a mere PR exercise, by
halting any plans to execute an alleged juvenile offender and ordering a
judicial review of his case, said Amnesty International. The execution of
Saman Naseem, a member of Iran's Kurdish minority, following a grossly
unfair trial that relied on 'confessions' extracted under torture, was
scheduled to take place one month before the UN Human Rights Council
session on 19 March. The execution was not carried out then and the
authorities have refused to officially disclose his fate and whereabouts
since. 'We fear the Iranian authorities may have postponed Saman Naseem's
execution merely to avoid criticism and condemnation at the UN Human
Rights Council session, leaving him at even graver risk of execution once
the review ends,' said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Middle East and
North Africa Director at Amnesty International." http://t.uani.com/1ExWDE2
Guardian:
"The UN anti-drug agency is finalising a multimillion-dollar funding
package, including European money, for Iran's counter-narcotics
trafficking programmes, despite the country's high execution rate of drug
offenders. Iranian authorities have hanged at least two people a day this
year for drug offences, according to the human rights group Reprieve,
which works for the abolition of death penalty... Reprieve and a number
of other organisations have repeatedly urged the UN Office on Drugs and
Crime (UNODC) to stop funding Iran's anti-narcotics campaign until Tehran
ends its use of capital punishment for drug-related offences. But despite
their concerns, the UNODC is agreeing a new five-year deal with Iranian
officials. Reprieve says its research shows that millions of dollars of
support to Iran can be directly linked to the arrest and execution of
thousands of people, including children. Iran has a notorious record of
juvenile executions." http://t.uani.com/1O98bDk
The Hill:
"The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF) on Wednesday criticized Iran for its increasingly poor treatment
of its religious minorities. 'Since assuming office in 2013, Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani has not delivered on his promises to improve
conditions for religious minority communities,' USCIRF Chair Katrina
Lantos Swett said in a statement. 'In fact, the Iranian government has
imprisoned more than 350 people, including 150 Sunni Muslims, 100
Baha'is, 90 Christians and at least a dozen Sufi Muslims, for their
beliefs.' USCIRF's scathing remarks hit Tehran prior to its appearance
Thursday before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)." http://t.uani.com/1BZREMI
Opinion &
Analysis
Evan Bayh, Saxby
Chambliss and Norm Coleman in Roll Call: "Iran is on
course to develop nuclear weapons. Few foreign policy challenges pose a
greater threat to the security of the United States and our allies. To
permanently and verifiably prevent Iranian nuclear weapons, America must
be united and resolute. History and common sense indicate this is more
likely if congressional approval is required of any final agreement
negotiated by the president. For half a century, Congress has reviewed,
amended and voted on treaties that have achieved lasting results with
nuclear disarmament. In fact, many of these agreements have enjoyed broad
bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Since 1955, the United States has
entered into roughly 25 Section 123 Agreements with various countries,
including Canada, Japan, China and more than 27 European nations. SALT I,
SALT II and START are other examples in which both Republican and
Democratic presidents have worked with congressional leaders of both
parties to achieve consensus on international nuclear agreements. Often
the affirmation was overwhelming. In the Iranian context, congressional
authorization would carry the added benefit of illustrating America's
commitment to long-term Iranian nuclear deterrence beyond the end of the
Obama administration in January 2017. Iran is more likely to make meaning
concessions when our government speaks with one voice and our commitments
and deterrents extend beyond 20 months. In addition, congressional
approval of an Iranian nuclear accord that included specific and
automatic consequences for listed violations would carry added weight.
Congressional authorization for the use of force in case of egregious
cheating by Tehran is particularly important. Iran may doubt our resolve
following Syria's use of chemical weapons in defiance of America's
warnings. There must be no doubt about the price they will pay for
non-compliance with any nuclear weapons limitations. The administration
will be tempted to act unilaterally and not seek congressional
concurrence. Previous presidents were similarly tempted, and engagement
with the legislative branch can take time, try one's patience and
necessitate refinements to any accord. But ultimately this is the course
most likely to result in a lasting, effective, resolution. To do
otherwise would leave large parts of Congress and the American people
hostile to the agreement, not a strong foundation for American security
or lasting arms control." http://t.uani.com/1AJCHuh
Zalmay Khalilzad
in TNI: "The nuclear negotiation with Iran is much
in the news and there is vigorous analysis and debate in Washington on
elements of a possible agreement and their implications for the United
States, for the region and for the non-proliferation regime. However,
Iran's recent geopolitical gains in the region, especially in Iraq, and
their implications, have received far less attention. This neglect is
both surprising and dangerous. The manner in which the United States and
the West have conducted the war against the Islamic State (IS)/Daesh
terrorists in Iraq has had many consequences-some unintended. One
result of the U.S. military approach-reliance on air power, a slow buildup
of the Iraqi national army and limited assistance to the Kurdish
Peshmarga-is a significantly increased Iranian presence in Iraq and
growing domination by Tehran over the Baghdad government. Although
Iranian influence started after the U.S. invasion in 2003, it has been on
the rise since the pullout of American troops from Iraq in 2011. Today,
Iran is the dominant influence in Iraqi national security decision making
in Baghdad, and controls the bulk of the effective fighting forces in
Iraq... The Iraqis have been surprised by Iran's willingness to risk
openly participating in the fight against IS. In the past, Iran would
deny and cover up its role in providing arms to militias or directing
militias it controlled to carry out specific operations in Iraq. Not this
time. Indeed, a number of high-ranking Iranian officers have fallen in
Iraq. Iran wants its own people, its regional rivals and the world to
know that it is in Iraq and is fighting there. This is a significant
development... Taking advantage of Ayatollah Sistani's appeal to the
Shiite masses to mobilize against IS, Iran's most effective strategy has
been beefing up of its proxies: militias that have largely replaced the
army on the frontlines. Those militias include Asa'ib Ahl Al-Haq (AAH),
which is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States,
Katai'b Hezbollah (KH), the Badr organization, and a plethora of
subsidiaries under new names. These groups have fought IS and have become
very powerful. Iran has trained and armed them and Iranian officers are
embedded with them... The geopolitical consequences of the above can
hardly be overstated. If Iran consolidates its control over Iraq - the
country with the second largest population in the Persian Gulf and rich
oil and gas resources-Tehran will be in a strong position to dominate the
entire region. Iran will want to eliminate the presence of external
regional powers. As a rising hegemon, Tehran would see the presence of
U.S. and other Western forces in the region as an obstacle to its goal of
being the dominant regional power. If the Shiite minority Houthis
consolidate their takeover of Yemen, Iran's ability to threaten Saudi
Arabia and the traffic in the Red Sea, an important strategic waterway
for commerce, will also increase. Iran is already in position to disrupt
another key chokepoint-the Strait of Hormuz. With domination of Iraq,
Iran will be in a strong position to intimidate the GCC states, and
continue to easily supply the Assad regime in Syria and Hizballah in
Lebanon. In Iraq itself, the Iran-backed militias are unlikely to disband
even if IS is defeated. Instead, they will continue to maximize power and
possibly take over the state. Iran will likely use them to keep
unfriendly Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis in check. Iran might also use them
to destabilize the Gulf states. Tempting though it might be for some to
believe that the U.S. can wash its hands of all the headaches in that
neighborhood by coming to an arrangement with Iran and letting it take
over the job of policing and stabilizing that troublesome region, this is
not an option. The U.S. cannot bandwagon with Iran and accept its
hegemony over Iraq and its primacy in a new regional equilibrium in the
Gulf. Accommodating Iranian hegemony would mean U.S. abandonment of the
Gulf. This would give Iran control over the vast resources of the region,
which it will use to pose a still bigger threat to the rest of the region
and beyond." http://t.uani.com/1FILVfE
Mohammed Salih in
Al-Monitor: "While the United States has invested
trillions of dollars and thousands of lives since 2003 to bring Iraq into
its orbit, today it is Iran that appears to have achieved that goal,
albeit with far less costs in terms of money and lives, observers and
analysts of Iraqi affairs agree. There appears to be no better
demonstration of Iran's success in having firmly established its hegemony
across Iraq than in the current operation to retake the Sunni-dominated
province of Salahuddin in central Iraq. The operation to push out Islamic
State (IS) militants from Tikrit and its surrounding areas in Salahuddin
is being carried out by a ragtag force of Shiite Popular Mobilization
Units (PMUs), the Iraqi army and some local Sunni tribes. The largest
military campaign so far against IS, the Salahuddin operation has been
noted for the heavy involvement of Iranian military advisers and the
conspicuous absence of the US military. While the United States has in
the past aided similar operations by the Iraqi military and PMUs in areas
such as Amerli and Baiji, no US warplanes are now dropping bombs in
Salahuddin. 'The Iranians have checkmated the Americans, and I think the
Americans now understand this,' Hayder al-Khoei, an Iraq expert at the
London-based Chatham House, told Al-Monitor. 'What's interesting about
the Salahuddin operation is that the Iraqis and the Iranians are proving
to Americans: We don't need your airstrikes.' ... 'The Iranians and their
Iraqi proxies wanted to demonstrate their power and that they can fight
in any battlefield, whether it is in the ... mixed sectarian areas or in
Sunni-only areas such as the Tigris River Valley [in Salahuddin],'
Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy specialized in the military affairs of Iraq and Iran, told
Al-Monitor... '[Iran and Shiite forces] are the most significant partners
to the Iraqi state. They planned this operation to ensure they would get
[to Tikrit] first, before the Americans,' Knights added. 'It's a big
propaganda victory for the PMUs.' ... If the operation succeeds, most of the
credit will go to PMU leaders such as Hadi al-Ameri and Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis and Quds Force Cmdr. Soleimani, Knights said. The emergence
of IS appears to have further consolidated Iranian clout in Iraq, as
Iran's generals and sponsored militias have taken the lead in fighting
off IS in areas the jihadist group seized from the Iraqi army last
summer." http://t.uani.com/1BZVBkC
Daniel Henninger
in WSJ: "The Iran nuclear deal is going to be the
ObamaCare of arms-control agreements-a substantive mess undermined by a
failure to build adequate political support. Next Tuesday is the deadline
for completing the 'political' terms of an agreement with Iran.
'Technical' details arrive in June. From news reporting on the
negotiations, it appears the agreement is turning into a virtual Rube
Goldberg machine, a patchwork of fixes that its creators will claim
somehow limits Iran's nuclear breakout period to 'a year.' Which is to
say, it's going to be another ObamaCare, a poorly designed mega-project
others will have to clean up later. Just as ObamaCare was a massive
entitlement program enacted with no Republican support (unlike Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid), the administration's major arms-control
agreement is bypassing a traditional vote in the Senate. Instead, it will
get rubber-stamp approval by, of all things, the U.N. Security Council.
Can anyone feign surprise that this has produced a political reaction in
the Senate? The heavily bipartisan Corker-Menendez bill, which would
require the deal to be submitted to Congress and which the White House
has denounced, is a few votes away from a veto-proof majority. Political
legitimacy is the coin of the realm in the American system. It is why
every U.S. president in the postwar era, except this one, has worked so
hard to assemble opposition support for his projects. Without it, any
initiative will remain politically vulnerable. In a letter last weekend
to Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, White
House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough doubled down on Barack Obama's
general theory of American politics-my way or the highway. He wrote that
other arms agreements haven't gone through the Senate and that Mr. Corker
and his Senate colleagues should step away from the Iran deal. In fact,
Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan all submitted major arms-control
treaties and agreements for Senate approval. They did so to give their
work political credibility with the American people and indeed the world.
But somehow Mr. Obama believes he has an exemption from the basics of
U.S. politics. So we wake up one day to find he is substituting the
judgment of the Security Council, with such famous allies as Russia and
China, for consent from the U.S. Senate. Result: an arms deal as
politically flaccid as ObamaCare. After the Affordable Care Act became a
one-party law, many governors refused to participate. A mirror-image
opt-out from the Iran deal is emerging now among the most significant
nations of the Middle East." http://t.uani.com/1FEBwBJ
|
|
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