Eye on Iran: Iran and U.S. Differ on Optimism About Nuclear Talks

Join UANI           Top Stories NYT: "Iran and the United States issued contrasting assessments Tuesday on their progress toward an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program as Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz met here with his Iranian counterpart. In comments to the Iranian news media, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said that 90 percent of the technical issues had been worked out. Mr. Salehi said he hoped to resolve a remaining 'point of difference' in a meeting Tuesday afternoon with Mr. Moniz. A senior American official was far more cautious in comments to reporters Tuesday morning. 'We have definitely made progress in terms of identifying technical options for each of the major areas,' said the official, who declined to be identified by name under the protocol for briefing reporters. 'There is no way around it: We still have a ways to go,' the official added. 'Even within this space, we have some tough issues to address.' ... The clashing Iranian and American statements may be partly a matter of tactics. By describing the agreement as virtually at hand, the Iranians may be trying to build public pressure on the United States and its European partners to make concessions on remaining issues." http://t.uani.com/1EqJlGU The Hill: "Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) voiced optimism Tuesday on passage of a bill next week to give Congress the ability to weigh in on a nuclear deal with Iran. 'I hope we're going to have a successful markup next week, if people stay in the positions that they've been ... I don't see any indication that that's not the case,' he told reporters. Corker said he is planning to schedule a vote on the bill in the committee either Wednesday or Thursday -- days after a self-imposed March 24 deadline for international negotiators to reach a framework agreement with Iran to roll back its nuclear program. Democratic supporters of the bill, including ranking member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), promised the White House they would withhold their support until after March 24. There are 19 members on the committee - 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats. A majority vote would pass the bill out of committee, and Republicans are likely to be joined by at least four Democrats who have expressed support for the bill... Republicans believe they can override a presidential veto with 67 votes. Corker said he did not want to predict whether the bill, co-authored with Menendez, will receive a veto-proof majority, but said, 'We've got a lot of support.'" http://t.uani.com/1GobH7c Politico: "The White House is moving aggressively to limit Democratic defections on Capitol Hill that could undermine its negotiations with Iran, dispatching senior officials and President Barack Obama himself to lobby senators against taking action before a nuclear deal with the rogue regime is reached. Senior administration officials have asked Senate Democrats to notify the White House if they are considering signing onto a bill drafted by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that would give Congress the ability to accept or reject any nuclear deal. The push, several Senate sources said, is to prevent a veto-proof majority from building by heading off any fresh Democratic support for the plan and persuade supporters to keep their powder dry until the conclusion of multilateral negotiations with Iran. The lobbying effort has come from all quarters. Obama has spoken directly with Democratic senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, including Ben Cardin of Maryland. Other senators who are weighing whether to join the legislative effort, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have been briefed by the likes of Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have reached out directly to senators, according to sources on Capitol Hill... With their caucus divided, Senate Democratic leaders are letting the White House mount the lobbying push on its own." http://t.uani.com/1AEMUbc     Nuclear Program & Negotiations Reuters: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes his election win to Israeli security fears, notably about Iran's growing regional influence, said an official of a Gulf Arab government wary of Tehran's progress towards a nuclear deal with world powers. 'With Iran emerging again, it was highly expected that Netanyahu would win,' said the Gulf Arab official, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. 'He's a man who believes strongly in protecting his people, and this is what Israel wants now.' ... 'Without any sense of collusion with Israel, there is a feeling of affinity in the Gulf with Israel's stance on curbing the influence of Iran in the area.' He said the Iranian nuclear talks were 'really scary' for Gulf Arab states, which are unnerved by Iran's backing for Shi'ite forces in conflicts in Iraq and Syria and its alliances with Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and Yemen's Houthi militia." http://t.uani.com/1Go9glf Al-Monitor: "US and European lawmakers are circulating an unprecedented joint letter warning their respective heads of state that a bad deal with Iran will 'without fail' result in more sanctions, Al-Monitor has learned. Reps. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., and Randy Weber, R-Texas, began circulating the letter on March 17 to members of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs panels. They say the letter has already been signed by four parliamentarians from the so-called E3 nations of France, Britain and Germany that are involved in the multiparty talks over Iran's nuclear program. 'We believe that a nuclear Iran is an imminent threat not only to the U.S. but also to Europe, the Middle East and to the world at large,' the two US lawmakers write in a message inviting colleagues to sign on. 'With this in mind, we are partnering with members of various European Parliaments to address our concerns to President Obama and to the heads of the European states involved in the negotiations (France, England and Germany), and express our fear of a bad deal.' ... The letter has already been signed by David Burrowes of the United Kingdom, Meyer Habib of France, and Roderich Kiesewetter and Johann Wadephul of Germany, according to Lamborn and Weber. They are seeking signatures until March 23 and aim to send out the letter on March 24, which is the deadline for nuclear talks." http://t.uani.com/1FAk2qc Gatestone: "Laurent Fabius -- once François Mitterrand's youngest Prime Minister; today's François Hollande's seasoned Foreign Minister -- is 'fed up with Barack Obama's nuclear laxity' regarding Iran, a Quai senior diplomat told Le Canard Enchaîné's usually well-informed Claude Angéli, who can be relied on to give the unvarnished French view on matters foreign. 'Just as in 2013, France will oppose any agreement too favorable to Iran if this turns out to be necessary. Fabius made this very clear to John Kerry when they met on Saturday March 7th.' This, Angéli points out, is far from the 'soothing communiqué' issued at the end of the Kerry-Fabius meeting in which both men supposedly 'shared' the same view of the Iran negotiations." http://t.uani.com/1xep62i AP: "Several opposition lawmakers in Argentina have written a letter urging countries negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program to consider two terrorist attacks in the South American country allegedly orchestrated by Tehran. The letter was sent Tuesday to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts in Germany, China, France, Britain and Russia. No demands are made in the letter. However, the lawmakers urge negotiators to note the 'ardent support of terrorism in our country and beyond.' The letter cites the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center, both in Buenos Aires." http://t.uani.com/191lZPn  Sanctions Relief AFP: "Western sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme cannot prevent it from growing, President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday as he inaugurated part of the giant South Pars gas field in the Gulf. 'This inauguration means that when we say sanctions cannot stop us from growing, developing and moving forward, Phase 12 bears witness to that,' he said. Tuesday's ceremony comes with Iran and the major powers engaged in crunch talks in Switzerland as the clock ticks down on reaching an elusive deal on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme. 'We stand tall before the world powers and in the course of the talks, sooner or later, we will see results,' Rouhani said." http://t.uani.com/19ziGA6 Human Rights AP: "The sister of a former U.S. Marine imprisoned in Iran said Tuesday that her brother renounces his dual Iranian citizenship and vows to never return to Iran if he's allowed to leave after 3½ years behind bars. Sarah Hekmati's brother, Amir Hekmati, 31, made the comments in a letter he recently dictated to their mother by phone. Sarah Hekmati said she forwarded it to the office in Pakistan's Washington embassy that represents Iran's U.S. interests and originally granted his Iranian passport and visa before his 2011 trip to visit family. 'It has become very clear to me that those responsible view Iranian-Americans not as citizens or even human beings, but as bargaining chips and tools for propaganda,' he wrote in the letter sent to the Iranian Interest Section in Washington. 'Considering how little value the Ministry of Intelligence places on my Iranian citizenship and passport, I, too, place little value on them and inform you, effectively that I formally renounce my Iranian citizenship and passport.'" http://t.uani.com/1O5YfKH Foreign Affairs Reuters: "U.S. congressional Republicans who oppose President Barack Obama's pursuit of a nuclear deal with Tehran and are eager to portray Iran as untrustworthy will use a hearing in Congress on Wednesday to air complaints about Iran's actions in Latin America. A congressional aide said the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere would discuss what Republicans say are cases of Iran's involvement in Argentina, Venezuela and elsewhere. Issues to be raised include the fatal shooting of Alberto Nisman, an Argentine prosecutor who was investigating Iran's alleged role in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish group, and allegations of covert Iranian dealings in oil and missile technology with Argentina and Venezuela, the aide said. In announcing the hearing, subcommittee Chairman Jeff Duncan explicitly linked the themes to what he described as 'the impending deadline for ... negotiations over Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program.'" http://t.uani.com/1BPsAXu Opinion & Analysis UANI Advisory Board Member Joseph Lieberman in WSJ: "As the Obama administration moves closer to a diplomatic agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, a bipartisan group of senators-including Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and ranking Democrat Bob Menendez-has put forward legislation that would provide Congress with a mechanism to review such a deal. The White House has threatened a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a 'nonbinding' executive agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an inappropriate intrusion. Not so. The Constitution and history, not to mention common sense, argue that it is entirely proper for America's elected representatives in Congress to review a far-reaching agreement with a foreign government of such national-security significance. The president as commander in chief deserves deference in devising national-security strategy, but Congress has clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process. Each of the Constitution's grants of foreign-policy authority to the president is checked and balanced by a grant of foreign-policy authority to Congress. For example, the two most explicit foreign-policy powers the Constitution gives to the president-selecting ambassadors and making international treaties-both require Senate consent. The legislation now before the Senate, which may be taken up as early as next week, would allow Congress to assume its rightful role in a responsible, measured way. Rather than treating an Iran agreement as a treaty-which would require formal ratification by two-thirds of the Senate-the bill would adopt a less stringent standard. Each chamber of Congress would have the opportunity to hold a vote of approval or disapproval of a deal under expedited rules of procedure; in the absence of a joint resolution of disapproval by both the House and Senate, the deal would automatically take effect. This would ensure there is a structured process for deliberation and debate. The Obama administration instead intends to treat an Iran deal like a status of forces agreement, known as a SOFA, which spells out rules for U.S. soldiers deployed in a foreign country. These are typically nonbinding executive agreements that do not involve a congressional vote.But the analogy is flawed. Unlike SOFAs, which tend to be administrative and technical in nature, a nuclear deal with Iran would represent a historic and highly controversial strategic commitment-precisely the kind of national decision in which congressional involvement is most warranted. Congress should also review an Iran agreement because of the unusually extensive and direct role it has already played in formulating exactly those policies that a nuclear deal would alter and undo. Congress in 2010 designed and passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which sought to punish companies and individuals that did business with Iran's petroleum sector. Legislation in 2012 added further restrictions." http://t.uani.com/1FBRwEk Ilan Goldenberg in Politico: "Has the Iran deal become too big to fail? Last October, right-wing opponents of President Obama seized on comments by his advisor, Ben Rhodes, who suggested that the administration saw a nuclear agreement with Iran as comparable in magnitude to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in Obama's first term. The comparison is more apt than Rhodes perhaps intended-and not just because the Iran nuclear debate has achieved levels of bitterness and partisanship reminiscent of the Obamacare fallout. Like the Affordable Care Act, if the negotiators are able to forge an initial political framework agreement in the next two weeks in Switzerland, the deal will be extraordinarily difficult to reverse. In fact, both opponents and supporters of the deal should take a lesson from the Obamacare experience. If there is an agreement, rather than trying to fruitlessly weaken the deal as Republicans have done since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress should look for a more constructive role. Among other things, they could seek to address perceived weaknesses in the deal-such as the 'sunset clause' under which many limits on the Iranian program are eventually lifted-by enacting future-sanctions legislation that will deter Iran from ever choosing to pursue a bomb, even in the distant future. Meanwhile, the White House should find ways to more effectively engage Congress in the process. Together, the president and Congress can use the powers of the legislative branch to convert an adequate nuclear agreement into a stronger one... Obamacare and the potential Iran deal are also alike in that, once an agreement is reached, it will be very difficult for opponents to overturn the pact since the president will hold most of the cards. Any agreement with Iran will not require congressional action for years because Congress does not have to approve a deal and will not be asked to permanently lift sanctions until much later in the process, and initially the president will be able to waive the relevant sanctions that are part of a sanctions relief package. Also, much of the early lifting of sanctions will come from Europe. All indications are that congressional removal will constitute the very last step of sanctions relief coming after Iran has a years long demonstrated track record of following through on its commitments... Just as was the case with Obamacare, whether one supported the legislation or not, once an agreement is reached trying to unwind it could cause the equivalent of a death spiral. In the case of the Affordable Care Act this would involve massive and unpredictable chaos in the health insurance markets. In the case of an Iran agreement the consequences could be even graver. The question would no longer be whether a deal is a good deal or a bad deal, but what happens if after the president signs an agreement it is then overturned by a veto-proof majority in Congress with the whole world watching. In that scenario, the day after the Senate rejects an agreement or levies new sanctions, Iran would remove the constraints on its nuclear program, which has been essentially frozen since the interim agreement was implemented in January 2014. Key Iranian trading partners such as China and India, which have abided by sanctions due both to American pressure and to recognition that it was Iranian bad faith that had created the nuclear crisis, would likely blame the United States. The sanctions regime would begin to unravel and Iran would find itself unconstrained and able to go even further." http://t.uani.com/1EvFefl          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.