|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
WashPost:
"On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in
Washington, trying to spur Congress to cut short what he considers a
feeble and dangerous deal in the works over Iran's nuclear program.
Simultaneously, as if on a split screen, Secretary of State John F. Kerry
will be in Montreaux, Switzerland, trying to nail down a historic accord
that could give the world a year to react if Iran were to stockpile
nuclear materials for a bomb and that could wean Iran away from
international pariah status. The tension between those two competing
worldviews on Iran - one judging the risks too great to take and the
other finding a greater risk in walking away from a deal - has persisted
for years. But it has reached an apex for a simple reason: Iran and the United
States, plus its five negotiating partners, appear closer to a deal than
at any time in more than a decade of talks... Gary Samore, a former State
Department official who is head of research at the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School, said
tolerance for a third extension is thin. 'Obama may be able to buy some
time by asking for negotiators to have a couple more weeks to finish the
political framework,' said Samore, who is president of a group called
United Against Nuclear Iran. 'But they've pretty much run out of time.'
... Still, if political pressure in both capitals causes the interim
agreement to collapse, the consequences could rapidly worsen. 'We'd
emphasize the resumption of sanctions and economic pressure,' said
Samore, predicting the United States would pressure Iran's main oil
customers - Japan, Korea, India and China - to reduce their purchases.
'The Iranians would resume nuclear activities. But they'd be very careful
about doing anything that would trigger an American or an Israeli attack.
Neither wants to get into a war right now.'" http://t.uani.com/1DviFEr
NYT:
"Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to
a joint meeting of Congress, the Obama administration sought on Friday to
refute the Israeli leader's expected critique, arguing that he has failed
to present a feasible alternative to American proposals for constraining
Iran's nuclear program. In a briefing for reporters, senior
administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that
kept Iran's nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable
to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran
unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium. 'The
alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections,' said one senior
official, who would not be quoted by name under conditions that the
administration set for the briefing, 'and an Iran ever closer to having
the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.' ... While the United
States has taken the lead in the nuclear talks with the Iranians, the
negotiating partners also include France, Britain, Germany, Russia and
China. European officials have suggested in recent days that an agreement
is closer than the '50-50' assessment by Obama administration officials.
'We have made a substantial amount of progress,' the senior
administration official acknowledged. 'Ultimately, Iran has to make a
very significant political decision to allow the flexibility to close
this deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1zSaCQM
AFP:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington on
Sunday for a 'historic' quest to stop a 'bad' international nuclear deal
with Iran sought by the United States. Netanyahu's controversial 48-hour
visit has stoked discord with US President Barack Obama and brought
bilateral relations to their lowest point in years. A speech before
lawmakers on Tuesday by the Israeli leader aims to drum up last-minute
support to halt a possible world deal with Iran over its nuclear
program... 'We know a great deal about the emerging agreement,' a member
of Netanyahu's entourage said on condition of anonymity. 'In our view, it
is a bad agreement.' ... For his part, Netanyahu, who will also speak at
the annual policy conference of the powerful pro-Israel AIPAC lobby, has
refused to back down. 'I'm going to Washington on a fateful, even
historic, mission,' he told reporters on the tarmac at Ben Gurion airport
near Tel Aviv shortly before his plane took off. 'I feel deep and sincere
concern for the security of Israel's citizens and for the fate of the
state and of all our people,' he added. 'I will do everything in my power
to ensure our future.'" http://t.uani.com/1zzkUV1
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
LAT:
"Nuclear negotiations with Iran have reached a 'far more advanced
stage' than ever before, a senior administration official said Friday,
expressing hope that negotiators may be able to conclude a partial
agreement by the end of March. While 'there are still gaps' between Iran,
the United States and the five other world powers involved in the
negotiations, the official said, 'obviously negotiations have advanced
substantially.' ... Kerry is traveling to Montreux, Switzerland, for a
Tuesday meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on the
nuclear issue. Kerry will again be accompanied by Energy Secretary Ernest
Moniz, a sign that the talks are delving deep into the details of a
possible agreement. The Energy Department oversees the U.S. nuclear
stockpile and employs the government's experts on nuclear fuel." http://t.uani.com/17KkbK5
WSJ:
"The Obama administration, seeking to strike a nuclear agreement
with Tehran by late March, is significantly playing down the utility of
using military force to deny Iran an atomic bomb. Recent comments by
senior U.S. officials suggest a shift in emphasis from President Barack
Obama's previous threats to use military force. Officials now are arguing
that any military action would only guarantee Iran's Islamist leaders
would move to develop nuclear weapons. 'With respect to military action,
[a] diplomatic resolution is the only verifiable way' to guarantee Iran
doesn't get a bomb, said a senior U.S. official at a briefing held Friday
to discuss international nuclear talks. 'The use of military action would
likely insure that Iran would break out and acquire nuclear weapons.' ...
Earlier in his presidency, Mr. Obama stressed that neither Iranian nor
Israeli leaders should doubt his resolve to use military force. 'I think
that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United
States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go
around advertising exactly what our intentions are,' Mr. Obama had said
in a 2012 interview with the Atlantic magazine." http://t.uani.com/1E9k3Sv
NYT:
"As the deadline approaches for what could be one of the most
important and divisive international agreements in decades, Mr. Kerry has
become a driving force behind the complicated, seven-nation talks to limit
Iran's nuclear program. But with so much at stake, Mr. Kerry's relentless
negotiating style and determination to engage with Mr. Zarif have become
part of the debate. To proponents of the emerging accord, Mr. Kerry's
determination has made all the difference. 'He has made a huge investment
of his time and energy in the talks, and his personal, hands-on
involvement in recent months has been crucial to building momentum toward
a deal,' said Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution who served on the American negotiating team on the Iran talks
from 2009 to 2013. To critics, Mr. Kerry's eagerness is an open
invitation for the Iranians to press for concessions as the talks enter
the final stage. Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations and a former State Department expert on Iran, said that given
Mr. Kerry's 'inordinate attention to this issue, there is an impression
that he wants this agreement more so than the Iranians.' When Mr. Kerry
recently warned that the United States was prepared to walk away from the
talks if the Iranians refused to compromise, 'that was not a claim that
was taken with much seriousness in Tehran,' Mr. Takeyh said." http://t.uani.com/1zSb5T3
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday there had been
some progress in talks with Iran on its nuclear program but there was 'a
long way to go and the clock is ticking'. He also voiced concern about
the possibility of selective leaks about the talks, which he will resume
with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Montreux,
Switzerland. 'We are concerned by reports that suggest selective details
of the ongoing negotiations will be discussed publicly in the coming
days,' Kerry told reporters in Geneva, in what seemed an allusion to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Tuesday to the U.S.
Congress. 'I want to say clearly that doing so would make it more
difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they share in
order to get to a good deal,' Kerry said. 'Israel's security is
absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly so is the
security of all of the other countries in the region. So is our security
in the United States.'" http://t.uani.com/1vSYMtn
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed the case on Sunday for
completing nuclear diplomacy with Iran despite Israeli opposition, saying
the United States deserves the benefit of the doubt on getting a deal
that would prevent any need for military action to curb Tehran's atomic
ambitions... In an interview with the ABC program 'This Week,' Kerry said
of the Iran negotiations: 'It is better to do this by diplomacy than to
have to do a strategy militarily which you would have to repeat over and
over again and which everybody believes ought to be after you have
exhausted all the diplomatic remedies.' ... 'We have said again and
again, no deal is better than a bad deal. We're not going to make a bad
deal,' Kerry said... 'Our hope is diplomacy can work,' Kerry added. '...
Given our success on the interim agreement, I believe we deserve the
benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly
good agreement with respect to the future.'" http://t.uani.com/1B1wGLA
WSJ:
"The leadership of the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.
publicly broke Sunday from the White House over the issue of Iran policy
during the first of a three-day policy conference in Washington attended
by 16,000 of its members. Leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, or Aipac, outlined a strategy moving forward of working
through Congress to disrupt any nuclear agreement with Tehran that is
deemed too weak in denying the country a nuclear weapons capability. This
would be achieved, they said, both by seeking to impose new sanctions on
Iran and to block the White House's ability to lift standing U.S.
sanctions, which would be required as part of any comprehensive
agreement. 'Congress has a critical role' in determining this deal,
Howard Kohr, Aipac's executive director, said in opening remarks aimed at
rallying the group's membership. 'Congress's role doesn't end when there
is a deal. Congress must review this deal.' ... 'Congress, time and time
again, has led the effort to bring pressure on Iran,' said Mr. Kohr. 'The
administration took ownership of this.' ... Aipac's leadership on Sunday
was already challenging the White House's position. 'We shouldn't be
afraid of Iran leaving the table,' Mr. Kohr said. He also aggressively
pushed back against the White House's argument in recent months that no
deal with Iran would lead to war. 'That's a false choice...that's meant
to silence the critics,' Mr. Kohr said. 'And we won't be silenced.'"
http://t.uani.com/1CiyF1p
Reuters:
"A deal on Iran's nuclear program could be concluded this week if the
United States and other Western countries have sufficient political will
and agree to remove sanctions on Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday. 'Our negotiating partners,
particularly the Western countries and particularly the United States,
must once and for all come to the understanding that sanctions and
agreement don't go together,' he said in Geneva. 'If they want an
agreement, sanctions must go... We believe all sanctions must be lifted.'
He told reporters that Iran, whose disagreement with six world powers
over how fast sanctions should be dropped is one of the main obstacles to
a final nuclear accord, had demonstrated its political will by bringing
its highest authorities to the talks and leaving 'no stone unturned.'"
http://t.uani.com/1AvMGlt
Reuters:
"Iran's foreign minister has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu of trying to undermine Iran's negotiations towards a nuclear
deal with world powers in order to distract from the Palestinian
question... 'It is regrettable that a certain group sees benefits in
tension and crises... Netanyahu is opposed to any sort of solution,'
Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a joint news conference with his Italian
counterpart Paolo Gentiloni, on Saturday... 'This shows an attempt to
take advantage of a fabricated crisis to cover up the realities of the
region which include the occupation and repression of the people of
Palestine and the violation of their rights,' Zarif said." http://t.uani.com/1DvuBGk
Reuters:
"The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said on Monday
Iran had still not handed over key information to his staff, and his
body's investigation into Tehran's atomic program could not continue
indefinitely. 'Iran has yet to provide explanations that enable the
agency to clarify two outstanding practical measures,' chief Yukiya Amano
told the body's Board of Governors in Vienna, echoing a report seen by
Reuters last month. The two measures relating to alleged explosives tests
and other measures that might have been used for bomb research should
have been addressed by Iran by last August. 'The Agency is not in a
position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared
nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that
all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities,' Amano said...
The Agency remains ready to accelerate the resolution of all outstanding
issues, he added, but 'this process cannot continue indefinitely.'" http://t.uani.com/1vSL2yX
Gallup:
"As the United States and several other nations continue to
negotiate what would be a landmark agreement to limit Iran's production
of nuclear weapons, more than eight in 10 Americans view Iran unfavorably
(84%). Only 11% have a favorable view of the country. Despite this
potential thaw in Iranian-U.S. relations, Americans' views on its
long-time foe have remained unchanged for 26 years... The vast majority
of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a
'critical threat,' perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks.
Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a
preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear
weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared
with other possible threats facing the U.S." http://t.uani.com/1M3E0v6
Congressional
Sanctions
Reuters:
"President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the
U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States
and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear
capabilities, the White House said on Saturday. 'The president has been
clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional
legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will
veto it,' said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's
National Security Council... The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would
require to submit to Congress the text of any agreement within five days
of concluding a final deal with Iran. The bill would also prohibit Obama
from suspending or waiving sanctions on Iran passed by Congress for 60
days after a deal. Meehan said United States 'should give our negotiators
the best chance of success, rather than complicating their efforts.' ...
Republican Senator Bob Corker, one of the bipartisan group of sponsors of
the bill, said it was 'disappointing that the president feels he is the
only one who speaks for the citizens of our country.'" http://t.uani.com/1DvKsVm
Sanctions
Relief
AFP:
"Iran could allow Internet giants such as Google to operate in the
Islamic republic if they respect its 'cultural' rules, Fars news agency
said Sunday quoting a senior official. 'We are not opposed to any of the
entities operating in global markets who want to offer services in Iran,'
Deputy Telecommunications and Information Technology Minister Nasrollah
Jahangard told Fars. 'We are ready to negotiate with them and if they
accept our cultural rules and policies they can offer their services in
Iran,' he said... Jahangard told Fars that sanctions imposed by the
international community on Iran over its nuclear programme could 'create
problems for American companies.' 'They are waiting for the international
legal conditions to be cleared before they can operate conveniently (in
Iran) but other companies outside the US have come forward and started
negotiations,' he said. He did not name any of these companies but said
that 'some have accepted the conditions' laid out by Iran adding that
'technical preparations are underway for them to enter the Iranian
market.'" http://t.uani.com/1BxHoeI
Human Rights
WashPost:
"A Washington Post reporter imprisoned in Iran has been granted
access to an attorney - but not the one of his choosing. Jason Rezaian,
who has been the paper's Tehran correspondent since 2012 and holds U.S.
and Iranian citizenship, has spent 222 days in Tehran's Evin Prison.
Family members say that their preferred attorney was blocked by the
country's Revolutionary Court, which last week had given them a deadline
of March 2 to present one that was 'acceptable.' 'For nearly a month our
family's chosen attorney Masoud Shafii has worked tirelessly under
pressure from the judiciary to be assigned as Jason's attorney,' the
family said in a statement. 'It is clear that despite his best efforts he
will not be permitted to represent Jason.' ... Martin Baron, executive
editor of The Post, expressed anger over Rezaian's treatment. 'At every
turn, Iran's handling of Jason's case has served to reinforce an
impression of state-sponsored injustice, as demonstrated by seven months
of harsh incarceration without counsel or consular access,' Baron said in
a statement." http://t.uani.com/1zSgs4K
IHR:
"Four prisoners have been hanged publicly in the past two days in
Iran. The state-run Iranian news agency Fars reported about public
execution of two prisoners at two different spots of Kermanshah (West of
Iran)... Iranian state media reported about two other public executions
in the Karaj area (west of Tehran) Thursday morning February 26." http://t.uani.com/1zSi6mU
AFP:
"Iran has blocked two news websites after they published reports
about former reformist president Mohammad Khatami and pictures of him,
state-run IRNA news agency said Friday. The agency, quoting a judicial
source, said the Tehran prosecutor's office 'demanded the filtering' of
Baharnews.ir and Jamaran.ir because of the posts. Newspapers have said
judicial authorities told media they were banned from publishing
information, including pictures, about 'heads of sedition', a reference to
protests claiming that the 2009 re-election of hardline president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was fraudulent." http://t.uani.com/1M3Do8X
Domestic
Politics
LAT:
"Enraged at unremitting flight delays, frustrated Iranian airline
passengers have adopted a novel form of protest: spontaneous sit-ins
staged inside idle aircraft. Iranian news media have cited several recent
incidents in which passengers enduring prolonged delays have refused to
leave aircraft once their planes belatedly arrived at their destinations,
sometimes as much as 22 hours late. In some cases, the on-board sit-ins
have lasted for several hours, according to media reports here... Many
Iranians have now come to accept two or three-hour delays as the norm on
domestic routes. But sometimes the wait is much longer-and many flights
are postponed, though officials could provide no precise figures." http://t.uani.com/1Ea62lT
Foreign Affairs
Daily Mail:
"A senior Iranian cleric made a vow to 'raise the flag of Islam over
the White House' in retaliation for an attack that did not involved
American troops. Ali Shirazi, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
nation's supreme leader, reportedly made the threat in comments published
by the nation's feared Revolutionary Guard. He said the takeover of Washington
would be part of a 'resistance front' led by Iranians in revenge for the
deaths of its soldiers, and members of the militant group Hezbollah... He
said: 'The resistance front led by Iran would retaliate from the global
arrogance of killing [Iranians] and Hezbollah men... we will raise the
flag of Islam over the White House.'" http://t.uani.com/1Cj0TZQ
Reuters:
"President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi accused his predecessor on Sunday
of conspiring with Iran to scuttle a 2011 deal backed by Gulf states to
transfer power to him in cooperation with the Shi'ite Muslim Houthi
group. Hadi, who assumed office in 2012 after Ali Abdullah Saleh resigned
following months of protests against his 33-year rule, fled to the
southern port city of Aden last month after the Houthis battled their way
to the presidential palace. He told tribal leaders, heads of political
parties and other figures at a meeting in Aden that Saleh, who heads the
General People's Congress party, the biggest bloc in parliament, had sent
a parliamentary delegation to Iran to coordinate efforts to undermine the
power transfer deal. 'Hadi said that this alliance between Saleh and the
Houthis, in coordination with Iran, was behind the fall of Sanaa on Sept.
21 to the Houthi militias,' a source at the meeting told Reuters. 'No,
the historic city (Sanaa) has become an occupied capital,' he
added." http://t.uani.com/1GGXouZ
AP:
"An Iranian airplane delivered supplies to Yemen's Shiite rebel-held
capital on Sunday, while the president gained support from influential
tribal and provincial leaders in signs that the rival camps seeking to
rule the rapidly unravelling country are entrenching their positions. The
first direct flight from Shiite powerhouse Iran to Sanaa was carrying 12
tons of medical supplies as well as tents and Red Crescent aid workers,
Iran's deputy ambassador Rasai Ebadi told The Associated Press. It came a
day after rebel Houthi representatives signed an agreement in Tehran to
set up 14 direct weekly flights between the two countries... 'The Houthis
want to show they're not disconnected from the world, that they are not
desperate, so they're reviving relations with Iran,' said Yemen analyst
Hisham al-Omeisy. 'The flights are a bit peculiar and people are
surprised. Yemenis don't usually fly to Iran, for tourism or work or
medical treatment, so 14 weekly flights seems like a bit too much. The
point of the medical supplies was to kill the rumor that more weapons
will be coming in to support the Houthis,' he added." http://t.uani.com/1B1C3uj
AP:
"Iran's foreign minister has accused the West of fueling Islamic
extremism by failing to protect the rights of Muslim immigrants. Mohammad
Javad Zarif told the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday
that 'a sizeable number' of those joining the Islamic State group and
others were second-generation immigrants in western democracies. He noted
that some of those 'beheading innocent civilians speak European languages
with native accents' - a veiled reference to 'Jihadi John,' who appeared
in several IS propaganda videos showing the execution of the group's
prisoners." http://t.uani.com/1aICi4Z
Opinion &
Analysis
WSJ Editorial
Board: "Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress
this week that no one should pre-judge a nuclear deal with Iran because
only the negotiators know what's in it. But the truth is that the
framework of an accord has been emerging thanks to Administration leaks
to friendly journalists. The leaks suggest the U.S. has already given
away so much that any deal on current terms will put Iran on the cusp of
nuclear-power status. The latest startling detail is Monday's leak that
the U.S. has conceded to Iran's demand that an agreement would last as
little as a decade, perhaps with an additional five-year phase-out. After
that Iran would be allowed to build its uranium enrichment capabilities
to whatever size it wants. In theory it would be forbidden from building
nuclear weapons, but by then all sanctions would have long ago been
lifted and Iran would have the capability to enrich on an industrial
scale. On Wednesday Mr. Kerry denied that a deal would include the
10-year sunset, though he offered no details. We would have more sympathy
for his desire for secrecy if the Administration were not simultaneously
leaking to its media Boswells while insisting that Congress should have
no say over whatever agreement emerges. The sunset clause fits the larger
story of how far the U.S. and its allies have come to satisfy Iran's
demands. The Administration originally insisted that Iran should not be able
to enrich uranium at all. Later it mooted a symbolic enrichment capacity
of perhaps 500 centrifuges. Last July people close to the White House
began talking about 3,000. By October the Los Angeles Times reported that
Mr. Kerry had raised the ceiling to 4,000. Now it's 6,000, and the
Administration line is that the number doesn't matter; only advanced
centrifuges count. While quality does matter, quantity can have a quality
all its own. The point is that Iran will be allowed to retain what
amounts to a nuclear-weapons industrial capacity rather than dismantle
all of it as the U.S. first demanded. Mr. Kerry also says that any deal
will have intrusive inspections, yet he has a habit of ignoring Iran's
noncompliance with agreements it has already signed. Last November he
insisted that 'Iran has lived up' to its commitments under the 2013
interim nuclear agreement. Yet even then Iran was testing advanced
centrifuge models in violation of the agreement, according to a report
from the nonpartisan Institute for Science and International Security. In
December the U.N. Security Council noted that Iran continued to purchase
illicit materials for its reactor in Arak, a heavy-water facility that
gives Tehran a path to a plutonium-based bomb. The International Atomic Energy
Agency reported last week that Iran was continuing to stonewall the U.N.
nuclear watchdog about the 'possible military dimensions' of its nuclear
program. On Tuesday an exiled Iranian opposition group that first
disclosed the existence of Tehran's illicit nuclear sites in 2002 claimed
it had uncovered another illicit enrichment site near Tehran called
'Lavizan-3.' ... The Administration's emerging justification for these
concessions, also coming in leaks, is that a nuclear accord will become
the basis for a broader rapprochement with Iran that will stabilize the
Middle East. As President Obama said in December, Iran can be 'a very
successful regional power.' That is some gamble on a regime that
continues to sponsor terrorist groups around the world, prop up the Assad
regime in Syria, use proxies to overthrow the Yemen government, jail U.S.
reporter Jason Rezaian on trumped-up espionage charges, and this week
blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier in naval exercises near the Strait
of Hormuz." http://t.uani.com/1BxzstS
Ray Takeyh in
WashPost: "On the surface, there is not much that
commends Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. An anti-Semite, he
has frequently questioned the Holocaust and defamed Israel in despicable
terms. As a conspiracy theorist, he endlessly weaves strange tales about
the United States and its intentions. As a national leader, he has
ruthlessly repressed Iran's once-vibrant civil society while
impoverishing its economy. And yet Khamenei is also a first-rate
strategic genius who is patiently negotiating his way to a bomb. After
years of defiance, Khamenei seems to appreciate that his most
advantageous path to nuclear arms is through an agreement. To continue to
build up his atomic infrastructure without the protective umbrella of an
agreement exposes Iran to economic sanctions and the possibility of
military retribution. While in the past Khamenei may have been willing to
cross successive U.S. 'red lines,' the price of such truculence was
financial stress that he feared could provoke unrest. Unlike many of his
Western interlocutors, Khamenei appreciates that his regime rests on
shaky foundations and that the legitimacy of the Islamic revolution has
long been forfeited. The task at hand was to find a way to forge ahead
with a nuclear program while safeguarding the regime and its ideological
verities. In many ways, a nuclear agreement is the answer to Khamenei's
multiplicity of dilemmas. A good agreement for the supreme leader,
however, has to be technologically permissive and of a limited duration.
Since the exposure of Iran's illicit nuclear program in 2002, its
disciplined diplomats have insisted that any accord must be predicated on
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which, in their telling,
grants Iran the right to construct a vast nuclear infrastructure. In
exchange for such a 'right,' they would be willing to concede to an
inspection regime within the leaky confines of the NPT. And for much of
that time, the great powers rebuffed such presumptions from a state that
has been censured by numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions and
denies the International Atomic Energy Agency reliable access to its
facilities and scientists. As Khamenei held firm, however, the great
powers grew wobbly. With the advent of the Joint Plan of Action in
November 2013, Iran's fortunes began to change. Washington conceded to
Iran's enrichment at home and agreed that eventually that enrichment
capacity could be industrialized. The marathon negotiations since have
seen Iran attempt to whittle down the remaining restrictions, while the
United States tries to reclaim its battered red lines. For Khamenei, the
most important concession that his negotiators have won is the idea of a
sunset clause. Upon the expiration of that clause, there would be no legal
limits on Iran's nuclear ambitions. If the Islamic Republic wants to
construct hundreds of thousands of sophisticated centrifuges, build
numerous heavy-water reactors and sprinkle its mountains with enrichment
installations, the Western powers will have no recourse. And once Iran
achieves that threshold nuclear status, there is no verification regime
that is guaranteed to detect a sprint to a bomb. An industrial-size
nuclear state has too many atomic resources, too many plants and too many
scientists to be reliably restrained. As Khamenei presses toward an
accord that will place him in an enviable nuclear position, he can also
be assured that technical violations of his commitments would not be
firmly opposed. Once a deal is transacted, the most essential sanctions
against Iran will evaporate. It is unlikely that Europeans, much less
China or Russia, would agree to their reconstitution should Iran be
caught cheating. And as far as the use of force is concerned, the United
States has negotiated arms-control compacts for at least five decades and
has never used force to punish a state that has incrementally violated
its treaty obligations. As the reaction to North Korea's atomic
provocations shows, the international community typically deals with such
infractions through endless mediation. Once an agreement is signed, too
many nations become invested in its perpetuation to risk a rupture.
Iran's achievements today are a tribute to the genius of an unassuming
midlevel cleric. In a region where many dictatorial regimes have
collapsed, the Islamic Republic goes on. Khamenei is in command of the
most consequential state from the Persian Gulf to the banks of the
Mediterranean. He has routinely entered negotiations with the weakest
hand and emerged in the strongest position. God is indeed great." http://t.uani.com/1DK34ne
Josh Rogin in
Bloomberg: "A bipartisan group of senators
introduced new legislation Friday afternoon to mandate Congressional
review of any nuclear deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran.
It's the latest effort by Congress to assert some kind of oversight of
the administration's efforts. According to the text, which I obtained,
the 'Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015' would require President
Barack Obama to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for a
60-day review period, during which the administration would have to wait
on implementing most parts of the deal. During that time, Congress would
have the opportunity to vote on the deal, although there is no explicit
requirement that it do so. The new bill was finalized after three weeks
of intense negotiations between Senate Foreign Relations Committee chiefs
Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Robert Menendez. Five other senators
in each party have signed on, giving the bill's authors what they feel is
a good case for the legislation to move through the committee in March,
to be ready to go to the Senate floor after March 24, if and only if Iran
and the so-called P5+1 countries reach at least political agreement
toward a comprehensive deal. 'Before sanctions begin to be unraveled,
this gives us our rightful role to weigh in and keeps us involved as
things move along -- if a deal is reached,' Corker told me in an
interview Friday. Unlike a previous version introduced by Corker
and fellow Republican Lindsey Graham, this bill does not actually mandate
a vote on any nuclear deal; that decision would be made at the
appropriate time by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. This bit of
flexibility is designed to attract Senate Democrats, in hopes of building
a veto-proof majority. 'If a nuclear deal is reached, Congress will have
an opportunity to review the agreement and, more importantly, ensure its
compliance after it goes into effect. This legislation establishes that
vital review and oversight process,' Menendez told me in a statement.
Importantly, the new Corker-Menendez bill would require the
administration share with Congress all the details of any nuclear deal
with Iran and report on its verification. If Congress does vote to reject
the nuclear deal during the 60-day review period, the bill would prevent
lawmakers from supporting its implementation, for example by restricting
the lifting of any sanctions on Iran that originated from Congressional
legislation. Corker said that if the White House doesn't reach at least a
political agreement before the March 24 deadline, Congress would then
probably move forward on alternate legislation, a new Iran sanctions bill
written by Republican Mark Kirk and Menendez that would mandate new
sanctions if no final pact is reached this summer. But he said that
Congress has to be ready to respond in case a deal is actually announced,
hence Friday's action. 'If a deal is reached, this is a very important
piece of legislation and needs to be passed. If they don't reach a deal,
Kirk-Menendez becomes operable at that time,' he said. The new bill would
also require the administration to notify Congress if Iran is in material
breach of any final deal, require the administration to report to
Congress twice a year about Iran's compliance, and give Congress
strengthened tools to reinstate sanctions on Iran if it is caught
cheating." http://t.uani.com/18EHfLo
|
|
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