Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Eye on Iran: Obama Says Iran Must Halt Key Nuclear Work for At Least a Decade








Join UANI  
 Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our videos on YouTube
   
Top Stories

Reuters: "Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but the odds are still against sealing a final agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters on Monday. Interviewed at the White House, Obama moved to dial back tensions over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress on Tuesday opposing the Iran deal, saying it was a distraction that would not be 'permanently destructive' to U.S. Israeli ties. But he strongly criticized Netanyahu's stance and stressed there was a 'substantial disagreement' between them over how to achieve their shared goal of preventing Israel's arch foe from acquiring nuclear weapons... Obama's comment about the time frame for a freeze represents one of the U.S. government's strongest signals yet of its red line for a successful deal. 'If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we've got that, and we've got a way of verifying that, there's no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don't have a nuclear weapon,' he said... In the interview, Obama again criticized a plan by Republicans and some Democrats in the U.S. Senate to impose additional sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by June 30, saying it could undermine the delicate talks. 'I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minster Netanyahu's commentary than I'm with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they're completed.' Despite recent progress in the talks, Obama suggested there had been little change in his assessment that the negotiations have less than a 50 percent chance of success." http://t.uani.com/1DEoHmn

Reuters: "Iran on Tuesday rejected as 'unacceptable' U.S. President Barack Obama's demand that it freeze sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years, but said it would continue talks aimed at securing a deal, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported. 'Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,' Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Fars. 'Obama's stance ... is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases ... ,' he reportedly said, adding that negotiations underway in Switzerland would nonetheless carry on. Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sat down for a second day of meetings hours after Obama had told Reuters that Iran must commit to a verifiable halt of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear work for a landmark atomic deal to be reached." http://t.uani.com/18Jjbaf

NYT: "Over six years of bitter disagreements about how to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel kept running into one central problem: The two leaders never described their ultimate goal in quite the same way. Mr. Obama has repeated a seemingly simple vow: On his watch, the United States would do whatever it took to 'prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' Mr. Netanyahu has used a different set of stock phrases. Iran had to be stopped from getting the 'capability' to manufacture a weapon, he said, and Israel could never tolerate an Iran that was a 'threshold nuclear state.' That semantic difference has now widened into a strategic chasm that threatens to imperil the American-Israeli relationship for years to come, and to upend the most audacious diplomatic gamble by an American leader since President Richard M. Nixon's opening to China... In short, Israel would eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, and the United States would permit a limited one... Mr. Obama's approach is based in part on a bet that time remains on America's side. Eventually, the administration's thinking goes, the clerical government in Iran will fall or be eased from power, and a more progressive leadership will determine that Iran does not need a weapon. But the implicit gamble of the accord now under discussion is that the long-awaited change will occur within 15 years, when the deal would expire and Iran would be free to build 180,000 advanced centrifuges the supreme leader spoke about last summer. If Iran had that many machines to enrich uranium - a big if - it would have the capacity to make a bomb's worth of uranium every week or so." http://t.uani.com/1M4G8CX

   
Nuclear Program & Negotiations

AP: "Seeking to lower tensions, Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. officials cast their dispute over Iran as a family squabble on Monday, but the Israeli leader still claimed that President Barack Obama did not - and could not - understand his nation's vital security concerns... 'I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,' he told the cheering crowd of 16,000 at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. He said Israel had a unique understanding of the security concerns posed by any Iranian pursuit of a nuclear bomb because of its position in a 'dangerous neighborhood.' Obama spoke dismissively of Netanyahu's warnings about the risks of an Iran deal, saying the prime minister had previously contended Iran would not abide by an interim agreement signed in 2013 and would get $50 billion in sanctions relief, a figure the U.S. says is far too high. 'None of that has come true,' Obama said in an interview with Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1M4IqC1

WashPost: "National Security Adviser Susan Rice asserted the U.S. rationale for negotiating a deal on Iran's nuclear program, hours before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will tell Congress that such an agreement could threaten the future of Israel... Rice recalled going to Jerusalem with Obama, where he declared that Iran would not get a nuclear weapon. 'President Obama said it, he meant it, and those are his orders to us all,' she said. To achieve that, she said, a 'good deal is one that would verifiably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon.' But Rice cautioned against pursing outcomes that cannot be achieved. Some, she said, want Iran to 'forgo its domestic enrichment capacity entirely.' While it is desirable, 'it is neither realistic nor achievable,' she said, noting that close international partners in the negotiations don't support denying Iran 'the ability ever to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.'" http://t.uani.com/1GMxxlk

AFP: "Top diplomats from Iran and the US began a new round of marathon talks on a nuclear deal late Monday... US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met in a Swiss lakeside hotel for a series of sessions which are scheduled to stretch into Wednesday afternoon. They were accompanied by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, who according to the Iranian news agency IRNA had first met earlier for about 90 minutes. Iranian negotiators Abbas Araghchi and Majid Takht Ravanchi had also held talks with US Under Secretary Wendy Sherman as well as the EU's deputy foreign policy chief Helga Schmid, IRNA added... 'We are all focused simultaneously on the need to elicit from Iran answers to questions about their nuclear programme -- not just answers for today, but answers that are capable of lasting well into the future,' Kerry told reporters in Geneva. He stressed global powers, grouped under the P5+1, were not seeking 'a deal at any cost' but to ensure that the 'four pathways to a nuclear bomb have been closed off.' 'We hope we can get there, but there is no guarantee,' Kerry added." http://t.uani.com/18Jkje9

Reuters: "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flies to Riyadh this week to reassure King Salman that any nuclear deal with Iran is in Saudi Arabia's interest, despite the country's fears it may boost its rival's support for Shi'ite Muslim interests in the region... 'The Saudis fear Obama will give the Iranians a deal whatever the cost because it is important for his legacy, and that Iran will get a certain regional status in exchange for an agreement,' said a diplomat in the Gulf... Saudi's anxiety about an agreement has fueled a flurry of diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among Sunni states in the Middle East in the face of shared threats including Iran, analysts say." http://t.uani.com/1zEo8Xr

NJ.com: "U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez tonight told the largest pro-Israel lobbying group that he would only support a negotiated agreement that dismantles Iran's nuclear program, not one that gives Tehran a 'pathway' to a bomb. Menendez (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would oppose any deal that allowed Iranian centrifuges to keep spinning and provide at best a year's warning before the country decided to develop nuclear weapons. 'As long as I have an ounce of fight left in me, as long as I have a vote and a say and a chance to protect the interests of Israel, the region, and the national security interests of the United States, Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon,' Menendez said, bringing the delegates to their feet. 'It will never threaten Israel or its neighbors, and it will never be in a position to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Not on my watch.'" http://t.uani.com/1aJTYNE

Iraq Crisis

WSJ: "Iran took a leading role in the Iraqi military's largest offensive yet to reclaim territory from Islamic State, throwing drones, heavy weaponry and ground forces into the battle while the U.S. remained on the sidelines. The operation that began Monday aims to retake Tikrit, best known as the hometown of Saddam Hussein, 80 miles north of the capital Baghdad. In addition to supplying drones, Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard force has fighters on the ground with Iraqi units, mostly operating artillery and rocket batteries, according to a U.S. military official. Iraqi Shiite militias closely allied with Iran are also heavily involved. Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency reported that Qasem Soleimani, head of the Revolutionary Guard's overseas unit Quds Force, was on the ground near Tikrit advising commanders... It has also thrown a new spotlight on Shiite Iran's role in assisting Shiite-dominated Iraq to regain control of large parts of the country taken by the Sunni radical group Islamic State. Tehran has wielded increasing influence over Iraq's military affairs after Iraqi security forces proved unable to contain the Islamic State onslaught that began in summer... U.S. officials said one of the key reasons the Iraqis didn't ask for U.S. help was because they were getting it from Iran... The Tikrit fight, according to U.S. officials, represents the most sizable Iranian support yet for an Iraqi offensive." http://t.uani.com/1B548B3

Human Rights

Reuters: "Iran had a 'deeply troubling' number of executions last year and did not keep a promise to protect ethnic and religious minorities, the United Nations said on Tuesday in its annual report on Tehran's human rights record. The report from the office of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the U.N. Human Rights Council cataloged U.N. concerns about rights violations in Iran against women, religious minorities, journalists and activists. The report was published as a deadline nears for Iran and major powers to agree a deal on its nuclear program, which Tehran says would end sanctions against it. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif complained to the Council on Monday about 'double standards' and an 'almost uncontrollable compulsion' to politicize issues. Iran was believed to have executed at least 500 people between January and November 2014 and possibly many more, the report said. Most victims did not get a fair trial and over 80 percent of those executed were drug offenders, it said. 'The Secretary-General remains deeply troubled by the continuing large number of executions, including of political prisoners and juveniles,' it said, repeating a U.N. call for a death penalty moratorium and a ban on executing youths. It said Iran had not kept President Hassan Rouhani's promise to 'extend protection to all religious groups and to amend legislation that discriminates against minority groups.'" http://t.uani.com/17NHyCE

IHR: "Six death row Kurdish Sunni prisoners have been transferred to an unknown location. Families of prisoners have been asked visit met their loved ones for the last time. Right groups believe the prisoners might be executed within the coming 24 hours. Iran Human Rights (IHR) calls for immediate reaction of the international community and urges the Western leaders meeting with the Iranian Foreign minister today, to put pressure on Iran to stop these unlawful executions." http://t.uani.com/1F51OKY

Reuters: "Iran monitored 8 million Facebook accounts with new software and will watch other social media sites for content that contravenes the Islamic Republic's moral codes, state television reported on Monday. The Center for Investigation of Organized Crime, a branch of the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), accused Facebook of spreading immoral content and said it had arrested several users. '[Facebook] is trying to push its users toward immoral content via its suggestion system, by making them choose harmful, decadent and obscene content over beneficial and educational subject matter,' the IRGC said in a statement cited by state TV and other Iranian media. Iran blocks access to social media sites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube but millions of Iranians easily get around that by using virtual private networks (VPNs)... The cyber security directorate will expand its 'Spider' program to monitor other social media including Instagram, Viber and WhatsApp, the IRGC said." http://t.uani.com/1zUR4v7

Foreign Affairs

AFP: "Western democracies should ask themselves some tough questions about why they have produced some of the extremists wreaking havoc in the world today, Iran's foreign minister said Monday. In a speech before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the West of 'selectivity and double standards' in its dealings with the Muslim world, suggesting a bit of 'soul-searching' would be in order. Western democracies, he said, should ponder 'why quite a sizable number of individuals and groups espousing extremist ideologies and engaged in acts of brutal terror and heinous violence... happen to be second generation citizens of Western democracies.' 'It is frightening that Daesh terrorists, beheading innocent civilians, speak European languages with a native accent,' he said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State (IS) group... In a veiled swipe at the United States and its allies, he charged that countries had used human rights as a 'disguise for broad social, political and strategic engineering to transform the region and undermine governments deemed to be unfriendly.'" http://t.uani.com/1EcV0y0

Opinion & Analysis

Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic: "I'm fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition. The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me-or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis-with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran's right to enrich uranium (a 'right' that doesn't actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I'm more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.) This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them-if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world's most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In an interview with me three years ago, President Obama said he was motivated to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in part because he worried that a nuclear Iran would cause its many Middle East rivals to pursue their own nuclear programs. 'It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon,' he said. 'Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.' He went on, 'The only analogous situation is North Korea. We have applied a lot of pressure on North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable of shaping the environment (around it) than Iran is. And so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.' If Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey respond to an Iran nuclear agreement by ramping up their own nuclear programs, we may be able to judge the deal a provisional failure... One of Netanyahu's most strident critics, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, said recently, 'A nuclear Iran is a reality that Israel won't be able to come to terms with.' He went on to say, 'Two issues in particular concern me with respect to the talks between the world powers and Iran: What happens if and when the Iranians violate the agreement, and what happens when the period of the agreement comes to an end and they decide to pursue nuclear weapons?' In the coming weeks, President Obama must provide compelling answers to these questions." http://t.uani.com/1Eebmoz

Mike Rogers & Michael Doran in Politico: "Netanyahu's speech is the act of a true and courageous friend. All of America's traditional allies in the Middle East are deeply distrustful of Obama's outreach to Iran. Allies in Europe and Asia are similarly fearful regarding what they consider to be flagging American resolve in the face of threats from Russia and China. Few allied leaders, however, will express their concerns to the president plainly - even in private - for fear of retribution. When they see the White House treating Netanyahu to a level of hostility usually reserved for adversaries, their trepidation only increases. Even worse, Obama's apparent reluctance to stand up to adversaries gives allies incentive to hedge. The case of France is instructive. As our colleague Benjamin Haddad recently argued, elements of the French elite are now saying that the French government would be foolish to take a hard line against Russia and Iran. If Washington is going to fold in the face of pressure from Moscow and Tehran, how can France alone hold the line? ... Netanyahu's appearance will also spark a vital debate about more than just the nuclear deal, which is only one aspect of a broader policy of outreach to Iran. Evidence mounts by the day that Obama sees Iran as an attractive partner of the United States in defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and stabilizing the Middle East more broadly and that he sees the nuclear deal as the key step to realizing that partnership. These apparent intentions are deeply troubling to the Israeli government, which is watching today as Iran leads Syria and Hezbollah in a combined offensive on the Golan Heights against the rebels who threaten to topple the Assad regime. If Iran wins, Israel and Jordan will find Iranian troops ensconced on their border. While this prospect alarms them, it also vexes the traditional allies of the United States in the Persian Gulf. They fear that a nuclear deal will strengthen the defensive umbrella that Iran already provides to the Quds force as it builds a network of Shiite militias from Baghdad to Beirut. Netanyahu's visit will thus raise public awareness of the connection between the nuclear issue and the destabilizing activities of Iran in the region - an issue that deserves much more attention than it has received. The Israeli prime minister's views are reasonable, if not judicious. His opinions about the proposed Iran deal are not idiosyncratic; they are not exclusively Israeli; nor are they extreme. American observers with substantial reputations and with no ax to grind have themselves begun to express similar doubts about the proposed deal. Citing Henry Kissinger and others, The Washington Post editorial board recently wrote that 'a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran's potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.' If the president follows through with such a plan without first subjecting its terms to a rigorous debate in Congress, he will be concluding an agreement that is entirely personal in nature. The legitimacy of such a deal would be hotly contested, rendering it inherently unstable, if not dangerous. By helping to force a more thorough examination of the matter, Netanyahu is therefore performing a service to us all. When a president turns a deaf ear to a good friend bearing an inconvenient message, he works against his own interests, whether he realizes it or not." http://t.uani.com/1M4JBS4
        

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment