|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"With even a vague outline of an Iran nuclear deal eluding their
grasp, negotiators went into double overtime Wednesday night and Thursday
morning in a marathon attempt to find common ground for a more important
task - forging a final deal by the end of June. Iran and six world powers
had cited progress in abandoning their March 31 deadline for the basic
understanding that would prepare the ground for a new phase of
negotiations on a substantive deal. But as differences persisted into
late Wednesday, the State Department announced that Secretary of State
John Kerry was postponing his departure and would remain until at least
Thursday morning. At around 6 a.m. local time Thursday, State Department
spokeswoman Marie Harf tweeted that the talks had broken after an
all-night session and would resume in a few hours. The talks - the latest
in more than a decade of diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear
prowess - hit the weeklong mark on Thursday, with diplomats from the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany scrambling to
reach a framework accord with Iran. 'We continue to make progress but
have not reached a political understanding,' Harf said in announcing
Kerry's decision." http://t.uani.com/1yFLXii
NYT:
"If American negotiators are ultimately able to conclude a
'political understanding' with Iran on its nuclear program, as they said
they were striving to do Thursday morning, the seeds might have been
planted earlier in the week. With only hours to go on Tuesday night
before the end-of-the-month deadline that had been set by the White
House, Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz
stepped into a large tent erected in a luxury hotel here and dialed into
a video conference with President Obama. There was no way to meet the
deadline, Mr. Kerry said from the tent, which was designed to defeat
eavesdropping. The Iranians, he said, perhaps sensing that the deadline
meant a lot in Washington and little in Tehran, were intransigent. 'They
were turning our own deadline against us to see if we would give ground,'
just to be able to claim that the March 31 date had been met, said one
senior official, who would not be identified because of the secrecy
surrounding the talks. Mr. Obama, according to two people familiar with the
discussion, told Mr. Kerry and Mr. Moniz to ignore the deadline, make it
clear that the president was ready to walk away and leave all sanctions
on Iran in place, and see if that would change the dynamic. It is still
not clear if the last-minute change in tactics will succeed in convincing
the Iranians that the Obama administration does not want the accord more
than they do, or yield a different result." http://t.uani.com/1FhoZ5X
WashPost:
"The president's decision to keep negotiating reflects both the
importance he has placed on the talks and his particular view of how
American leadership, persistence and engagement with enemies can change
the world. Obama often talks about moments in which U.S. leadership can
'bend the arc of human history.' An Iran accord represents exactly such
an opportunity, but it is also one of the most risky foreign policy
gambles of his presidency... The Iran talks also reflect his abiding
belief that the best way to change the behavior of hostile governments
with spotty human rights records is not through isolation or the threat
of military force, but by persistent engagement. In recent years, Obama
has pushed to open up trade and diplomatic relations with countries such
as Cuba and Burma... Iran, a longtime enemy and sponsor of some of the
world's most potent militias and terrorist groups, is the biggest and
boldest test of Obama's theory. Some critics worry that the president's
eagerness to strike a deal has led the administration to minimize its
potential costs. 'They are captivated by the vision of an Iran as a
potential source of strategic stability in a region that's falling
apart,' said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor
who was a White House official in the George W. Bush administration.
'They would never be so naive to describe it that way, but you can tell
that's a hope.' ... 'There's a determination to prove the Republicans
wrong, and to prove the world wrong,' said Julianne Smith, a former
deputy national security adviser to Vice President Biden and senior
fellow at the Center for a New American Security." http://t.uani.com/1bQM1XJ
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
WashPost:
"Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammed Javad Zarif, was critical of his
counterparts when he was approached by reporters as he strolled along the
shores of Lake Geneva. 'I've always said that an agreement and pressure
do not go together; they are mutually exclusive,' he said. 'So our
friends need to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect
or whether they want to continue based on pressure. They have tested the
other one. It is high time to test this one.' Earlier, speaking to
Iranian reporters outside the Beau Rivage Palace, where talks are being
conducted, Zarif sounded weary with the approach taken by the multiple
negotiating teams on the other side of the table. 'The negotiations'
progress depends on political will,' he said, according to Iran's Mehr
News Agency. 'The other party's political will has always been
problematic.' ... [Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas] Araghchi also
offered some insight into Iran's position on two central issues - the
lifting of sanctions and the future of Iran's research on centrifuges to
enrich uranium. 'We insist on lifting of financial and oil and banking
sanctions immediately,' he told Iranian state television, adding that the
pace for lifting other sanctions was still being negotiated. 'We insist
on keeping research and development with advanced centrifuges,' he added,
referring to Iran's desire to eventually replace its outdated centrifuges
with more modern technology that enriches uranium more quickly." http://t.uani.com/1G6Z041
WSJ:
"The White House began discussing its options in case of failure to
reach a nuclear deal with Iran as faltering talks fueled criticism of
President Barack Obama's negotiating strategy. The White House said Mr.
Obama is prepared to walk away from the negotiations. Alternatives to
diplomacy include stiffer economic sanctions, military action or an
extension of the interim agreement with Iran that expires June 30, the
White House said-exactly the type of measures that the Obama
administration has said the talks were intended to avoid... Republican
senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said
in a joint statement that it was apparent the talks had failed. 'Any hope
that a nuclear deal will lead Iran to abandon its decades-old pursuit of
regional dominance through violence and terror is simply delusional,'
they said. 'The Obama administration's failure to recognize and counter
this threat has only served to expand Iranian influence.'" http://t.uani.com/1GP32gv
Tasnim (Iran):
Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan denounced the
comments made by US defense secretary who spoke in favor of military
force as a viable option in dealing with Iran, saying such 'worthless'
remarks have no bearing on Tehran's logical stand on nuclear talks.
'Such comments by the American officials, while the sensitive and
complicated nuclear negotiations are in progress... are meant to affect
the logical atmosphere of the talks,' Dehqan said. He made the comments
in reaction to US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter who referred to
military action as a viable option if a long-awaited nuclear deal cannot
be reached... Carter seems to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease,
Dehqan noted, adding, 'If Ashton Carter recalled America's previous and
recent defeats in the region and the world, he would refrain from making
such hollow comments.' http://t.uani.com/1FluSPs
Reuters:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday it was
not too late for world powers locked in nuclear negotiations with Iran to
demand a 'better deal'. He made the comments before meeting in Jerusalem
with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, a
leading Republican and strong critic of the White House's policy on Iran.
'Now is the time for the international community to insist on a better
deal,' Netanyahu said in a televised statement delivered in English. 'A
better deal would significantly roll back Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
A better deal would link the eventual lifting of the restrictions on
Iran's nuclear program to a change in Iran's behavior,' he said, citing
threats to annihilate Israel and accusing Tehran of fomenting regional
conflict." http://t.uani.com/19Jy6Rm
National Journal:
"John Kerry did not start the negotiations with Iran over its
nuclear program. But nobody has thrown himself more into the talks and
nobody's reputation has more riding on their outcome than the American
secretary of State currently trying to hammer out a deal in Switzerland...
'If these talks succeed, that is going to be his legacy,' says Kenneth M.
Pollack, a former Iran-Iraq analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency
and a senior staffer on President Clinton's National Security Council
overseeing policy toward Iraq and Iran. 'It would be an historic accord.'
... If a deal is reached and Iran's nuclear program is blocked, Pollack
added, 'I think Kerry will get an enormous amount of credit for pulling
it off. He will be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize. ... He could go down
in history books as being a monumentally important character, like Jimmy
Carter with Camp David.' ... But, Pollack stressed, there is a flip side:
'He could go down as Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Both are possible
here.' Aaron David Miller, who spent two decades at the State Department
working on the Middle East for presidents of both parties, thinks the
accolades for Kerry will be restrained despite his strenuous efforts...
The difficulty for Kerry, he said, is the nature of the Iran talks.
'Remember, it is not a peace treaty. This is not a transformation. This
is a transaction. This is a business deal,' he said. 'They want something
from us; we want something from them. And it is premised on the notion
that if you buy time to avoid a crisis with Iran ... that over time Iran
will evolve' and its behavior in the region will change." http://t.uani.com/1IU4UUw
Military
Matters
Daily Beast:
"New satellite imagery shows that Iran has quietly deployed drones
and submarines on its southern coast. It's a sign that the Islamic
Republic is expanding its naval power and looking to push American
warships farther off its shores. The satellite images, published this
week by Google Earth, indicate the presence of surveillance drones and
Ghadir midget submarines at Bandar-e Jask, an Iranian naval base just
southeast of the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz. The facility's
use as a drone and submarine base has not been previously reported...
Iran's deployment of drones and mini-subs likely has more to do with deterring
any future American attacks than launching offensives of their own. But
it illustrates how the Islamic Republic's armed forces are trying to
operate farther outside their historic comfort zones." http://t.uani.com/1BR8WHi
Congressional
Action
WSJ:
"Sen. Bob Menendez's indictment on corruption charges Wednesday
could alter the congressional approach to foreign-policy matters,
including Iran and Cuba, potentially sidelining an outspoken lawmaker who
has clashed frequently with the White House. Mr. Menendez (D., N.J.) said
Wednesday he would temporarily step down from his position as the top
Democrat on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a role he
has used to be a vocal critic of the Obama administration's approach to
nuclear negotiations with Tehran. While Mr. Menendez vowed Wednesday
evening to fight the charges against him, another Democrat on the panel
will fill in as ranking member until his legal issues are resolved. That
decision comes at a sensitive time, with Senate lawmakers poised to vote
soon on legislation giving Congress a vote on any deal with Iran, as well
as additional sanctions against Tehran." http://t.uani.com/1Drmtww
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Turkey and Iran have accused each other of trying to dominate the
Middle East as they back opposing sides in the crisis in Yemen, but the
war of words is unlikely to permanently damage a relationship driven by
deepening economic ties... Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan then accused
Iran of attempting to dominate the region. An Iranian lawmaker in turn
charged that Erdogan was seeking to rebuild the Ottoman empire and
demanded the cancellation of his planned April 7 visit. But diplomats and
analysts say the long-term impact will be minimal as Turkey needs Iranian
gas and sanctions-hit Tehran desperately needs export markets. Turkey's
imports from Iran were nearly $10 billion in 2014and its exports totaled
around $4 billion. 'This would be a huge financial disincentive for
Turkey joining a great anti-Iran bandwagon,' said one Ankara-based
diplomat, expressing surprise at the harshness of Erdogan's
criticism." http://t.uani.com/1IU2vJf
Human Rights
Reuters:
"An Iranian-British woman, jailed in Tehran last year for taking
part in a protest against a ban on women attending some men's sporting
events, has been pardoned, Britain's Foreign Office said on Thursday.
Ghoncheh Ghavami was arrested last June outside Tehran's Azadi Stadium
where she and others were demanding that women be allowed in to watch a
volleyball match between Iran and Italy. A Tehran court sentenced her to
a year in jail last November for spreading anti-state propaganda,
according to Iranian media, but she was freed on bail three weeks later
pending a decision by the Court of Appeal. 'We welcome the news that
Ghoncheh Ghavami has been pardoned by the Court of Appeal in Iran,
although we are concerned that she is still subject to a travel ban,' a
British Foreign Office spokeswoman said. 'We are following the case
closely and remain in touch with her family.'" http://t.uani.com/1F6ehfV
Opinion &
Analysis
Daniel Henninger
in WSJ: "By the nuclear compliance standards of
Barack Obama and John Kerry, North Korea was a model state-in 1992. In
1985, North Korea joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons. In 1992 it and South Korea jointly declared the
'denuclearization' of the Korean peninsula. North Korea next signed a
safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within
months, the IAEA reported 'inconsistencies' in North Korea's nuclear
program. What follows is a quarter-century summary of arms negotiations
with North Korea, based on the chronology assembled by the Arms Control
Association. What happens in Lausanne doesn't matter. No agreement is
going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North
Korea... Every member of the Senate should read the full 81-page
chronology. North Korea proves, irrefutably, that the 'talks' model,
absent credible measures of coercion or threat, won't work. Iran knows it
has nuclear negotiators' immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches
any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request-what else?-more talks.
Iran's nuclear-bomb and ballistic-missile programs will go forward, as
North Korea's obviously did, no matter what. The next U.S. president has
to find an alternative to the existing nuclear negotiations model." http://t.uani.com/1NDXyVU
Amos Yadlin &
Avner Golov in Foreign Affairs: "As the negotiations
between the P5+1 and Iran reach a crucial moment, it is worth recalling
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 speech to the U.S.
Congress. In it, he declared that Israel would be able to accept a deal
with Iran 'that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we
could live, literally.' This was the first and only time that the prime
minister walked back his demand that the Iranian nuclear program be
completely dismantled-a message that was soon overshadowed by endless
commentary on the personal rivalry between Netanyahu and U.S. President
Barack Obama. However, his words provided a productive way forward for
U.S. and Israeli cooperation on Iran's nuclear program, an opportunity
that should not be missed, as the negotiators set the principles of a
deal with Iran. Israel and the United States share the same strategic
goal: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The intelligence
services of both countries are also largely in agreement on the status of
the Iranian program. But they remain deeply divided on what to do about
it, a product of conceptual differences on five issues-the five 'Ts.' ...
So how can the United States and Israel bridge the gap? No matter what
the current talks produce, Israel should acknowledge that despite its
trauma, it would have to accept a well-inspected civilian Iranian nuclear
program. The United States, on the other hand, would have to understand
that although war is an alternative to an agreement, Iran does not wish
to go to war, particularly against the world's strongest superpower. The
United States would thereby improve its hand in the negotiations.
Meanwhile, the leaderships of both countries should immediately stop
their public bickering. Instead, the two countries should air their
grievances and discuss future strategy privately via existing channels
that enjoy the confidence of the leaders. If the current talks do yield a
set of general principles for a future agreement, the United States and
Israel should discuss a mutually agreeable deal that could form the basis
for talks with Iran in the next months. Here's what such a future deal
would look like in practice: First, and foremost, Iran would have to
agree to a drastic reduction in its current number of centrifuges-over
19,000-to 3,000 at most. Recent reports indicate an American proposal to
leave at least 6,500 centrifuges in Iran, which runs counter to these
principles. Iran must also agree to limit its stock of enriched uranium
to less than the minimum required for a single nuclear bomb: from the
almost 8,000 kg the country has now (which is sufficient for at least six
bombs) to several hundred. These constraints would remain in place for
two decades, a sufficient period to assess Iran's intentions. Second,
Iran must agree to the close monitoring of all aspects of its nuclear
program, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional
Protocol, and a satisfactory Iranian response to the international
community's open files on its military nuclear activities. Any agreement
with Iran should make it clear that international inspections are not
voluntary, but mandatory. Third, Tehran must agree to the conversion of
the Fordow enrichment facility and the heavy-water reactor in Arak so
that they cannot be used for military purposes. Recent reports that the
United States may be willing to allow Iran to keep hundreds of centrifuges
in Fordow contradicts this principle. Finally, the sanctions relief
should be gradual and implemented in response to Iranian progress in
rolling back its nuclear program. As a result of all these steps, even if
Iran decided to break out or inch toward a bomb, it would need more than
a year to do so. According to some reports, the P5+1 negotiators may set
parameters for future agreements that contradict these principals. That
would be a bad development, but not a game-ender." http://t.uani.com/1IrS3Il
Michael McBride in
TNI: "Amid optimism that negotiators can hammer out
an acceptable deal over Iran's nuclear program, many see this as an
opportunity for a possible rapprochement with Iran. This optimism is
tempting, but a candid review of Iran's recent behavior exposes this to
be an unfortunate misjudgment. While the headlines are consumed with the
atrocities and seeming success of the Islamic State, it is not an
existential threat to the United States. The Islamic State has not
only not launched a successful attack in the United States, the only
American citizens it has killed to date have been in Syria or Iraq.
However, the enduring threat to American interests, allies, and stability
in the region, as David Petraeus recently pointed out is Iran, whose
proxies have killed hundreds of Americans in numerous countries across
the region for decades. While Iran has never overtly supported al-Qaeda,
there is evidence that they have cooperated in areas of mutual interest.
Indeed despite the fact that al-Qaeda believes that the Shia faith
practiced by the vast majority of Iranians is heretical, al-Qaeda has
perhaps curiously never conducted an attack inside of Iran... But even
without nuclear weapons denied either by coercion or compromise, Iran
will continue to pose the greatest threat to our interests, allies, and
influence in the region. Decision makers would do well to remember this
when charting the course of policy in combating the Islamic State, ending
the Syrian Civil War, and preventing Yemen's collapse. In this case it
seems certain that the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy." http://t.uani.com/1CeB6Mk
|
|
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