Eye on Iran: Iran Negotiators Face Late Obstacles to a Deal

Join UANI           Top Stories NYT: "The United States and Iran are closing in on a historic agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program, but are confronting serious last-minute obstacles, including when United Nations sanctions would be lifted and how inspections would be conducted, American and European officials said. Secretary of State John Kerry, who heads to Lausanne, Switzerland, on Sunday night for a critical round of talks, is still clashing with his Iranian counterpart over Tehran's demand that all United Nations sanctions be suspended as soon as there is a deal, as well as Washington's insistence that international inspectors be able to promptly visit any nuclear site, even those on Iranian military bases. There are also disagreements over Iran's research and development of advanced centrifuges, which would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly, as well as over how many years an agreement would last... In congressional testimony last week, Mr. Kerry acknowledged what 47 Republicans wrote in a letter to the Iranian leadership last week - that any 'executive agreement' like this one, made without a vote in Congress, would not be legally binding on future presidents... 'I think Kerry is probably right that a future president is likely to honor the agreement as long as Iran does, but the fact that the agreement is not legally binding gives a future president or Congress more flexibility to seek to modify or abrogate the agreement,' said Gary Samore, once Mr. Obama's chief adviser on weapons of mass destruction and now president of an advocacy group called United Against Nuclear Iran. 'The same is true of Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1NZy9cg Politico: "Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal. And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP's letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement. Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal. That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country... In a letter released Saturday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough implored Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) not to push for a vote on his bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve of any deal... 'Let a couple days go by. We think there's going to be really ignited momentum,' Corker, who did not sign the Cotton letter, said on Thursday. 'Nobody's dropping out. We've had reaffirmed commitment' from Democrats. Indeed, a day after the controversy over Cotton's letter erupted, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado co-sponsored Corker's congressional review bill, the 11th Democrat to signal support." http://t.uani.com/18wLbxe BBC: "A senior member of the Saudi royal family has warned that a deal on Iran's nuclear programme could prompt other regional states to develop atomic fuel. Prince Turki al-Faisal told the BBC that Saudi Arabia would then seek the same right, as would other nations. 'I've always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same,' said the prince, Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief. 'So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it's not just Saudi Arabia that's going to ask for that. 'The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition, and that's my main objection to this P5+1 [the six world powers] process.' ... With a late March deadline for an Iran deal approaching, Saudi Arabia last week signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with South Korea that included a plan to study the feasibility of building two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. Riyadh has also signed nuclear co-operation agreements with China, France and Argentina, and intends to construct 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years... 'Iran is already a disruptive player in various scenes in the Arab world, whether it's Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, or Bahrain,' said Prince Turki... 'Now it seems that Iran is expanding its occupation of Iraq and that is unacceptable,' said Prince Turki." http://t.uani.com/1bbCjyA     Nuclear Program & Negotiations Politico: "The White House is making a last-minute plea to Congress, warning lawmakers against voting on legislation that would allow them to reject any nuclear deal with Iran. In a sharply worded letter to Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that Corker's increasingly popular bill 'goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran.' 'The legislation would potentially prevent any deal from succeeding by suggesting that Congress must vote to 'approve any deal,'' McDonough said in the letter. 'We believe that that the legislation would likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations - emboldening Iranian hard-liners, inviting a counterproductive response from the Iranian majiles; differentiating the U.S. position from our allies in negotiations; and once again calling into question our ability to negotiate this deal.' 'Put simply,' McDonough wrote, 'it would potentially make it impossible to secure international cooperation for additional sanctions, while putting at risk the existing multilateral sanctions regime.' ... 'The Administration's request to the Congress is simple: let us complete the negotiations before the Congress acts on legislation,' McDonough wrote in Saturday's letter. Corker said in a response late Saturday that he still intended to move forward on his bill after March 24." http://t.uani.com/1EpYzyn AFP: "Iran nuclear talks entered a critical week Monday with US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart sitting down in Switzerland seeking an elusive breakthrough after 18 months of intense negotiations. Time is running out, however, with Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif aiming to agree the outlines of an agreement by the end of the month. A full accord is then due by July 1. Both men, who began meeting soon after 0700 GMT in a luxury hotel in the lakeside city of Lausanne, are also under intense pressure from domestic hardliners worried they will give too much away... As of late morning, Kerry and Zarif were still talking. Also present were Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi and Ernest Moniz, US energy secretary. Zarif was later Monday due in Brussels to meet his British, French, German and EU counterparts before returning to Lausanne. Negotiators from the other five powers involved in the talks -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- were to be involved from Tuesday, according to Iranian officials." http://t.uani.com/1Ave1p3 Reuters: "Western powers are hoping for concessions from Tehran that could help clinch a political agreement in nuclear talks this week after the United States and European powers voiced a willingness to compromise on suspending U.N. sanctions, officials said... Reuters reported last week that the United States and five other powers and Iran have begun talking about a possible draft resolution to endorse any future deal and address the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The U.N. penalties could be eased quickly in the event of an agreement, Western officials said. Officials close to the talks said this was a major new concession on the part of the United States, which had long insisted that U.N. sanctions would remain in place for years to come after a nuclear deal was signed, while unilateral U.S. and European measures might be lifted more swiftly. 'This was a quite a shift in the U.S. position and we hope the Iranians will follow with concessions on their end,' a Western official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. 'So far the concessions have been mostly one-sided, though there has been some limited progress recently.'" http://t.uani.com/1MEJr4a AFP: "The White House has confirmed that any nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers would be subject to a vote by the UN Security Council. The acknowledgement by President Barack Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough comes as the White House butts heads with Republicans over whether the US Congress should vote on any deal. 'Just as it is true that only Congress can terminate US statutory sanctions on Iran, only the Security Council can terminate the Security Council's sanctions on Iran,' McDonough said in a letter on Saturday to Bob Corker, the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'Because the principal negotiators of an arrangement with Iran are the five permanent members of the Security Council, we anticipate that the Security Council would pass a resolution to register its support for any deal and increase its international legitimacy,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1FpJka2 Reuters: "Even if Iran and six powers can reach a framework nuclear deal by the end of this month, further serious negotiations would be needed to achieve a full agreement by June 30, a senior European diplomat said on Friday... A political agreement would be a 'key understanding on where we are on the major issues -- the scope of enrichment, for example.' Asked if further serious negotiations would be needed beyond March 31, if a political framework agreement was reached by then, the diplomat said: 'Yes, yes, absolutely.' 'I still don't know if they (Iran) can take the final steps, frankly,' the diplomat added." http://t.uani.com/1FpIbiV LAT: "Inside a top-security building at a classified U.S. site, government experts intensely monitor rows of tall, cylindrical machines that may offer the Obama administration its best hope for persuading the public to back a nuclear deal with Iran. Using centrifuges acquired when Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003, as well as American-built equipment, the government has spent millions of dollars over more than a decade to build replicas of the enrichment facilities that are the pride of Iran's nuclear program. Since negotiations with Iran began in earnest, U.S. nuclear technicians have spent long hours tinkering with the machines to test different restrictions and see how much they would limit Iran's ability to convert uranium into bomb fuel. Soon, the administration may be using the results of that secret research to try to convince the public that negotiations produced a good deal... Gary Samore, Obama's top arms control advisor in the first term, said administration officials are 'in a very strong position to make technical arguments to defend their case that they've got a one-year breakout period.' But 'all these calculations are based on uncertainties and assumptions, so there is room for other well-informed people to challenge them,' said Samore, now executive director for research at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government." http://t.uani.com/18wM4Wz Fars (Iran): "Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi stressed that Iran's redlines for any final nuclear deal with the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) remain unchanged, reiterating that Tehran is resolved to keep its Arak heavy water reactor and Fordo Enrichment Plant. Salehi said on Saturday that 'the function and nature of the Arak Heavy-Water Reactor...will remain unchanged as a heavy water facility'. He also pointed to the Fordo Uranium Enrichment Plant near the city of Qom in Central Iran, and said, 'We are determined to make use of this site according to the guidelines of Iran's Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) and AEOI's technical needs.' He underlined that Iran and the G5+1 have not reached a final agreement yet, and said, 'Our long-term strategy is to materializing the macro-scale policies specified by the Supreme Leader.'" http://t.uani.com/18Sg5zQ Fox News: "The Venezuelan government's close ties to Cuba and Iran pose a real threat to its sovereignty, and to the security of the hemisphere, retired Brig. Gen. Antonio Rivero, a former insider in the government of Hugo Chávez, told Fox News Latino during a visit to Washington, D.C., this week... While still on active duty, Rivero was a first-hand witness to how Venezuela progressively established closer connections to Iran and Cuba, countries designated by the U.S. as sponsors of terrorism. About a decade ago, as the commander of a post in Bolívar state, 360 miles south of Caracas, Rivero saw Iranian military troops in the area. He believes they were involved with the extraction of uranium. His claim comes at a time when the U.S. and European nations are trying to work out a deal with Iran about its nuclear program." http://t.uani.com/1FpOeUD Sanctions Relief Press TV (Iran): "French automaker PSA Peugeot-Citroen has reached agreement with Iran's leading carmaker Iran Khodro for the establishment of a factory in Iran, Iran Khodro's CEO says. 'Peugeot will set up a joint factory with Iran Khodro, held 50% by Peugeot and 50% by Iran Khodro,' Mehr news agency quoted Hashem Yekkeh-Zare as saying. He said that the planned joint factory would export 30% of its manufactured vehicles. The official also said Iran Khodro would no longer assemble cars in Iran." http://t.uani.com/1BoYfLN Terrorism Times of Israel: "An annual report delivered recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports... According to one Israeli think tank, the removal of Iran and its proxy Hezbollah from the list of terror threats, where they featured in previous years, was directly linked to the campaign against the Islamic State. 'We believe that this results from a combination of diplomatic interests (the United States' talks with Iran about a nuclear deal) with the idea that Iran could assist in the battle against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and maybe even in the battle against jihadist terrorism in other countries,' the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center said in an analysis of the report. It also noted the Iran and Hezbollah were both listed as terrorism threats in the assessment of another American body, the Defense Intelligence Agency." http://t.uani.com/1GddYC6 Human Rights ICHRI: "More than 30 people have been targeted by the cyber crime unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) this month, including a dozen arrested for their 'immoral' activities on Facebook. In a surveillance operation code-named 'Ankaboot' (Spider) aimed at identifying and rooting out Facebook pages and activities that spread 'corruption' and western-inspired lifestyles, the IRGC claimed it had gathered data from Facebook to monitor eight million 'likes' by Iranian users. It warned that more arrests would be made following the completion of investigations into users on Instagram, Viber, and WhatsApp in the next two months. Mostafa Alizadeh, an IRGC cyber expert, told Iranian state TV on March 3 that in addition to the 12 Facebook-related arrests, 24 other Iranian citizens had been summoned for questioning for their online activities." http://t.uani.com/1Av9Rxr Domestic Politics NYT: "An Iranian court handed down a 15-year prison sentence to the son of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, after he was convicted of bribery and embezzlement, a judiciary official said on Sunday. The official, Gholam Hosein Mohseni Ezhei, referred to the defendant only by his initials, M.H., and the semiofficial Fars News Agency said the conviction involved an 'aghazadeh,' which is an Iranian term for a son of a high official. 'This person is sentenced to imprisonment for his security accusations,' Mr. Ezhei, a spokesman for Iran's judiciary, said, according to the Islamic Student News Agency. Those familiar with the inner workings of the Iranian government said the man was Mehdi Hashemi, 46, a businessman and politician who became a hated figure among Iranian hard-liners, partly because of his father, an advocate of changes that they opposed, but also because of accusations that he enriched himself during his father's years in office." http://t.uani.com/1BJbvyt Opinion & Analysis Jackson Diehl in WashPost: "There is a revealing contradiction in the Obama administration's pre-defense of a nuclear deal with Iran. The White House claims that Israeli and Republican critics have no alternative, other than war. But President Obama recently reiterated that he is ready to 'walk away' from a bad deal - and that the chances are no better than even that Iran will accept his terms. So is war the only alternative for Obama? Evidently not. When deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes was recently asked how the United States would prevent Iran from racing to build nuclear weapons after a pact expires, he said: 'The fact of the matter is, the same type of options we have in place today to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will be available to the president of the United States in 10, 15 years.' It follows that those options also will be available in 10 to 15 weeks, if necessary. Sanctions, sabotage and the threat of military action, combined with good intelligence and international inspections, have prevented Iran from building a weapon for the last dozen years. Even though its nuclear infrastructure has expanded, inspectors and Western intelligence agencies have not detected a 'military dimension' to the program since 2003. While it's possible that Iran would respond to a collapse in the talks by building bombs, that wouldn't be in keeping with its previous practice. Nor would it be easy to carry off at a time when the economy is being hammered by plummeting oil revenue as well as sanctions. History suggests Tehran would make a show of installing more centrifuges while being careful not to cross any red lines drawn by Israel or the United States. The Obama administration will argue that its deal will provide more assurance that Iran will remain non-nuclear for the next decade, with less cost and risk to the United States. Depending on the fine print of the accord, that may be true. But this, then, becomes a discussion not of war or peace, but of risks and trade-offs. An Iran constrained by a deal would be unconstrained by economic sanctions; inspections would be more rigorous, but a determination that Iran was cheating might require the concurrence of Russia, China and the U.N. Security Council. The most important difference between deal and no-deal is one Obama has tried to obscure. That is the kind of relationship the United States will have with Iran in the coming years and what U.S. strategy will be for restoring order in a shattered, terrorist-infested Middle East.  In a new paper, Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution, a former Obama Mideast envoy, argues, as I have, that the United States must choose between forging a new regional order with or against Iran. That choice, in turn, depends on the nuclear deal. 'Without an agreement, it is impossible to imagine cooperation with Iran on regional issues,' writes Indyk. 'With an agreement, collaboration...becomes possible.' ... Thus, much depends on the hope that the nuclear pact 'could lead to a more moderated [Iranian] policy that would be good for the United States, for Israel, and for the whole region,' as Rhodes put it... The point is that Obama's negotiations with Iran are not just about whether it will obtain a nuclear weapon; they are about the future of the Middle East. Notwithstanding the White House spin, the outcome is unlikely to lead to war in the near future. But it may determine who wins the long-term contest for influence between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf." http://t.uani.com/1GUBK9D WSJ Editorial: "One unfortunate side effect of last week's letter from 47 GOP Senators to Iran is that it has helped the White House and its media friends obscure the far more important story-the degree to which President Obama is trying to prevent Congress from playing any meaningful role in assessing his one-man Iran deal. Administration officials are huffing about Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton's 'unconstitutional' letter, but it's only a letter and Congress has the right to free speech. If a mere letter from a minority of the Senate has the power to scuttle a deal with Iran, as Mr. Obama suggests it might, then maybe the deal is too fragile to be worth doing. The real constitutional outlier here is Mr. Obama's attempt to jam Congress so it's irrelevant. That's clear from a remarkable exchange of letters between Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Mr. Corker wrote March 12 asking the President to clarify comments by Vice President Joe Biden and others that an Iran deal could 'take effect without congressional approval.' He also asked about media reports that 'your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote,' while threatening to veto legislation that would require Congress to vote. Mr. McDonough replied for the President on the weekend in a letter that can only be described as an affront to Congress's constitutional prerogatives. The chief of staff asked Mr. Corker to further delay his bipartisan legislation that would require a Senate vote within 60 days on any Iran deal. 'The legislation would potentially prevent any deal from succeeding by suggesting that Congress must vote to 'approve' any deal, and by removing existing sanctions waiver authorities that have already been granted to the President,' he wrote. So Mr. McDonough says Congress has 'a role to play,' whatever that is, as long as it doesn't interfere with what Mr. Obama wants. And once Congress grants Mr. Obama a waiver, it can never take that away even if Congress concludes that the President is misusing it. The larger context here is that Mr. Obama is trying to make his Iran deal a fait accompli before Congress has any say." http://t.uani.com/1GdcTua          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.