Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Eye on Iran: Obama Says Iran Could Cut Nuke Time to Near Zero in 13 Years






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

AP: "Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years... 'What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,' Obama said. Breakout time refers to how long it would take to build a bomb if Iran decided to pursue one full-bore - in other words, how long the rest of the world would have to stop it. The framework deal expands Iran's breakout time - currently two to three months - to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out. Although Obama acknowledged that Iran's breakout time could shrink, he said at least the world would have better insight into Iran's capabilities because of extensive inspections in the earlier years. 'The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished,' Obama said." http://t.uani.com/1Ca8wNn

Politico: "Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of Capitol Hill's most influential voices in the Iran nuclear debate, is strongly endorsing passage of a law opposed by President Barack Obama that would give Congress an avenue to reject the White House-brokered framework unveiled last week. The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While there's no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran, there's an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at least have the ability to do so. 'This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur,' Schumer said in an emailed statement to POLITICO. Schumer had quietly signed on to a bill allowing congressional review of the Iran deal two weeks ago, but made little fanfare of his co-sponsorship. In a brief statement on Friday, he said only that he'd review the agreement. Now that the outlines of an agreement are known, Schumer's emphatic statement that Congress has an important role becomes more significant, signaling to fellow Democrats that it's safe to jump on board the review bill... 'The argument that the Corker bill somehow interferes with the negotiations is a complete red herring,' [Sen. Tim]  Kaine [(D-Va.)] said. 'I did not sign on to this bill because of an anti-diplomacy mind-set.'" http://t.uani.com/1DfCeoj

Times of Israel: "The terms delineated in the framework agreement will leave Iran as 'a threshold breakout nuclear state for the next 10 years,' and after that the remaining safeguards against a breakout to the bomb will begin to fall away, former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen warned Monday. In a lengthy interview, Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's former top official for monitoring nuclear proliferation, expressed a range of concerns about the deal taking shape, warned of Iran's history of deception, and also cautioned that the one-year framework for nuclear breakout pushed by the Obama administration might leave insufficient time for an international reaction to violations of the agreement. Heinonen said that the framework agreement, announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, last Thursday, leaves a number of key concerns unanswered. Although it appears to be more robust than previous nuclear agreements, he said missteps could result in a repeat of the outcome that the non-proliferation regime suffered when North Korea violated the terms of an agreement and rushed toward a nuclear bomb... 'I think that this whole exercise should begin with a full complete declaration from Iran about its nuclear program,' he said. 'Many things have changed since 2003 when Iran made its previous statement.'" http://t.uani.com/1yawX12

   
Nuclear Program & Negotiations

Times of Israel: "French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has not been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US official parameters, which make no such specific provision. The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the bomb. The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times the speed of Iran's current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American parameters are less specific. Differences between the texts issued by Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision of Iran's activities, with the French document indicating that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any suspect site in Iran - so-called 'anywhere, anytime' access - whereas the US document is less far-reaching." http://t.uani.com/1yS9DQr

AP: "In selling the Iran nuclear deal to Congress and other skeptics, President Barack Obama said it is built on 'unprecedented verification,' telling his radio audience over the weekend: 'If Iran cheats, the world will know it.' Only time will tell if Obama is right... More likely, [Iran] will push for every loophole any agreement provides but honor it, and wait out the 10 years of strict restrictions any deal will impose... But as negotiators try to turn a sketchy understanding into a comprehensive deal by June 30, Tehran's nuclear history cannot be ignored... That means that Iran again could turn to delaying tactics to blunt sleuthing attempts by the U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency - even though on paper at least, Iran appears to have little wiggle room... Iran may push back on any dispute. And - as in the past - that could give it plenty of potential cover-up time. Whether it's IAEA's 35-nation board or a specially created U.N. panel, any arbiter is bound to be composed of multiple countries, including some with more sympathy for Iran than harbored by the United States and its Western allies. That means that consultations leading to any ruling that special inspections are necessary could take, days, weeks, even months - with Tehran fighting it all the way. And while U.S. intelligence agencies will be on sharpened lookout for cheating, they're not infallible." http://t.uani.com/1N3scwP

Reuters: "The United States made clear on Monday that sanctions on Iran would have to be phased out gradually under a nuclear pact and President Barack Obama poured cold water on an Israeli demand that a deal be predicated on Tehran recognizing Israel. 'The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms,' Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR). 'That is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment... We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing,' he said. Meanwhile White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there was no ambiguity about the U.S. demand that sanctions on Tehran be lifted in phases under a final deal, but details still had to be negotiated. 'It has never been our position that all of the sanctions against Iran should be removed from Day One,' he told a briefing." http://t.uani.com/1N3lffl

Reuters: "President Barack Obama said in an interview released on Tuesday he is confident sanctions against Iran could be reimposed if Tehran violates an agreement to restrict its nuclear program. Obama told National Public Radio (NPR) that U.S. and European negotiators are trying to reach a deal with Iran in which sanctions could be reimposed without a U.N. Security Council vote, where Tehran-ally Russia would have a veto. 'We are absolutely convinced we can do it again,' Obama said of the international sanctions, which have crippled Iran's economy. He said a reimposition of sanctions would be triggered by a finding of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran had broken the agreement... Obama said a nuclear deal could help strengthen moderate elements in Iran. 'If they are shown to have delivered for their people, presumably it strengthens their hand vis-a-vis some of the hardliners inside of Iran,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1Fb5EGo

NYT: "Clearly unsatisfied with assurances from President Obama about the provisions of the Iran nuclear deal, Israel on Monday listed specific requirements that it declared were necessary in any final agreement. The list, produced by Yuval Steinitz, Israel's minister of intelligence and strategic affairs and one of the Israeli government's harshest critics of the negotiations, marked a change in direction for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now, Israel has argued, at least publicly, that the only good deal would halt all uranium enrichment by Iran, essentially rolling back the clock by 20 years. It has never before defined the 'better deal' that Mr. Netanyahu told Congress the world needed. But Mr. Steinitz's list of desired modifications for the final agreement, due to be concluded by June 30, appeared carefully designed to echo some of the more sophisticated critiques of the agreement that have circulated since the United States described critical elements of the deal on Thursday... Mr. Steinitz said that the suggestion that there was no alternative to the framework, or that Israel had not put forward an alternative, 'is wrong.' 'The alternative is not necessarily to declare war on Iran,' he said, briefing international reporters at a Jerusalem hotel. 'It is to increase pressure on Iran and stand firm and make Iran make serious concessions and have a much better deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1O3fECW

Politico: "The White House is getting a cheering section going for the Iran deal - thanks to a ramped-up series of briefings to allies who can make the case from the outside. Diplomats, scientists and other activists began making their own arguments Monday for the preliminary nuclear deal reached last week, releasing statements that praised the agreement and urged lawmakers to give negotiators a chance to pursue a comprehensive accord... The administration hasn't tried to give these groups talking points, the person said, and there haven't been any big secrets that have been revealed at the briefings, but they've served their purpose by getting the groups interested in speaking out. 'It's less about asking us to do anything and more that the discussion around the table turns to, We need to really hammer home on this point.'" http://t.uani.com/1Cui7xy

AP: "The chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard praised the work of the country's nuclear negotiators after they struck a deal with world powers, state television reported Tuesday, a major endorsement from the Islamic Republic's most powerful institution. The comments by Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari came as some 200 hard-liners protested in Tehran against the framework deal reached last week in Switzerland. Jafari's endorsement likely will isolate those still opposing the deal further amid the widespread support negotiators have received and may smooth any potential parliamentary vote over it. 'With God's grace, the revolutionary children of Islamic Iran have succeeded in defending the rights of the Iranian nation and the Iranian nation and the Guard appreciate their honest political efforts,' Jafari was quoted as saying on state TV's website." http://t.uani.com/1agbGrw

Al-Monitor: "After Iran and the six world powers announced a framework that would drastically reduce Iran's nuclear program, negotiators arrived home from the marathon talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, and immediately began selling the deal to their domestic critics. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif gave a two-hour interview with state TV to defend the deal. The stiffest opposition so far has come from parliament. According to a number of Iranian websites, Zarif's address to parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee about the nuclear talks and the framework deal turned into an 'unprecedented' argument between Zarif and conservative parliament member Javad Karimi-Ghodousi... According to witnesses, the argument in the session became so intense that security officers kicked out the reporters." http://t.uani.com/1c40v6t

Congressional Action

NYT: "While negotiators toiled late into the night in Switzerland, scratching together a nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator Bob Corker was conducting his own tense talks back home. The new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was trying to marshal a bipartisan coalition for his bill to force President Obama to send any agreement with Iran to Congress for approval - a bill that could get enough votes to overcome a veto by Mr. Obama. 'I know that the diplomats in Switzerland, knowing that Congress was likely to weigh in on this deal, that was a positive thing,' Mr. Corker said in a telephone interview on Monday. 'Voting for this legislation will have a positive effect on the negotiations, not a negative effect.' There are few people on Capitol Hill more important to the White House right now than Mr. Corker, the silver-haired senator with the Southern drawl who sees himself as a bridge builder in a Senate known for polarization. At the White House, nobody likes his bill, which would give Congress a 60-day window to debate the Iran agreement before voting yes or no or taking no action, but Mr. Obama and his advisers see him as someone who might work with them to revise the legislation and ultimately make a deal... The White House now views its central challenge as either negotiating a compromise with Mr. Corker or stopping enough Democrats from joining him so that he is short of a veto-proof majority, at least through June 30, the deadline to translate last week's preliminary agreement with Iran onto paper. After that, officials said, Mr. Obama may be in a stronger position to argue the merits of the accord." http://t.uani.com/1DZii9G

NYT: "While negotiators toiled late into the night in Switzerland, scratching together a nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator Bob Corker was conducting his own tense talks back home. The new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was trying to marshal a bipartisan coalition for his bill to force President Obama to send any agreement with Iran to Congress for approval - a bill that could get enough votes to overcome a veto by Mr. Obama. 'I know that the diplomats in Switzerland, knowing that Congress was likely to weigh in on this deal, that was a positive thing,' Mr. Corker said in a telephone interview on Monday. 'Voting for this legislation will have a positive effect on the negotiations, not a negative effect.' There are few people on Capitol Hill more important to the White House right now than Mr. Corker, the silver-haired senator with the Southern drawl who sees himself as a bridge builder in a Senate known for polarization. At the White House, nobody likes his bill, which would give Congress a 60-day window to debate the Iran agreement before voting yes or no or taking no action, but Mr. Obama and his advisers see him as someone who might work with them to revise the legislation and ultimately make a deal... The White House now views its central challenge as either negotiating a compromise with Mr. Corker or stopping enough Democrats from joining him so that he is short of a veto-proof majority, at least through June 30, the deadline to translate last week's preliminary agreement with Iran onto paper. After that, officials said, Mr. Obama may be in a stronger position to argue the merits of the accord." http://t.uani.com/1DZii9G

Sanctions Relief

WSJ: "Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Iran on Tuesday seeking deeper economic ties and common ground on conflicts in the Middle East, even as the historic rivals compete to influence the outcome of wars in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The previously planned one-day state visit comes on the heels of Tehran's accord with six world powers on a framework for a deal on its nuclear program, and will mark Turkey's push to benefit from an anticipated trade windfall as the U.S., European Union and United Nations lift sanctions on its eastern neighbor. When Mr. Erdogan meets with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hasan Rouhani, the Turkish president will try to sideline sectarian tensions between the countries and capitalize on years of diplomatic and economic support to Tehran as it came under pressure because of its nuclear program... 'Turkey is the most prepared country for Iran to be free of sanctions, for Iran's economy to normalize,' Turkish Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci said on Monday." http://t.uani.com/1Pg0nzX

Reuters: "Brent crude oil fell below $58 a barrel on Tuesday on signs of growing oversupply as Iranian officials visited Beijing to seek more oil sales after a framework nuclear deal that could lead to the lifting of sanctions... Representatives of state-run National Iranian Oil Company will meet China's biggest crude buyers including Unipec, the trading arm of top Asian refiner Sinopec Corp, and state trader Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, officials told Reuters." http://t.uani.com/1O3j4Wg

Reuters: "A British asset manager is teaming up with a Tehran-based firm to establish funds that will invest in the Iranian securities markets, in a sign that flows of foreign money into Iran may not wait for economic sanctions to be lifted. London-based Charlemagne Capital, an emerging market asset management group with about $2.5 billion under management, said on Tuesday it would set up and promote the funds jointly with Turquoise Partners. The interest of foreign investors in Iran has been ignited by last week's preliminary agreement between Tehran and world powers on curbing its nuclear programme." http://t.uani.com/1yarK9x

AFP: "Iran has been approved as a founding member of the Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), China's finance ministry said Tuesday, just days after Tehran sealed a historic framework agreement on its nuclear programme. Tehran's application was backed by other founding members on Friday, China's Ministry of Finance said in a statement on its website. The United Arab Emirates' bid was also approved. More than 50 countries, plus Taiwan, have now applied to join the bank in a diplomatic coup for Beijing after Washington initially opposed its allies becoming members." http://t.uani.com/1CQKJVm

Terrorism

Reuters: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Barack Obama's administration to weigh in on an appeal over whether Iran's central bank must pay $1.75 billion to relatives of American troops killed in the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing in Lebanon. The court said it wants the U.S. Justice Department's views on whether the nine justices should hear the appeal filed by Bank Markazi. If the justices ultimately decline to hear Bank Markazi's appeal, the money, currently held in a trust account, would have to be turned over to families of the victims. It would go toward paying off a $2.65 billion U.S. court judgment the families won against Iran in 2007. The families accused Iran of providing material support to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shi'ite militant group responsible for the October 1983 truck bomb attack at the Marine compound in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. servicemen. The high court's action comes at a delicate time for American-Iranian relations, with the United States and other world powers last week reaching a framework agreement intended to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1DZn47f

Yemen Crisis

WSJ: "Saudi Arabia believes military advisers from Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards, have been embedded in the Houthi militia that has taken control of large swathes of Yemen in recent months. Riyadh and Tehran, embroiled in regional competition, have backed opposing proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia has launched a series of airstrikes on Houthi positions over the past two weeks that are aimed at driving them from the Yemeni capital, San'a, and forcing them to cede power back to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi's government. Houthi rebels forced him to flee on March 25. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, has said Iran is providing substantial military support, financing and intelligence to the Houthis, who share Tehran's Shiite faith. On Monday, he also charged that members of the Revolutionary Guards are on the ground in Yemen helping to direct Houthi military operations. 'If that's not support for the Houthis, I don't know what is,' he told a roundtable of reporters in Washington." http://t.uani.com/1FhRCxq

Extremism

JPost: "Individuals from fifty countries are scheduled to participate in the Second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest to be held in Iran in early May, according to multiple Iranian media outlets. On Monday, the Islamic Republic's FARS news agency reported that some 839 pieces of 'artwork'  making light of the Holocaust had been sent to contest officials, many of which will be displayed in the 12 day exhibition held in the Iranian capital beginning on May 9. A total of 312 'artists' will be involved in the event, most of whom hail from Iran itself, but many will also come from France, Indonesia and Turkey, Iran's state IRNA news service reported." http://t.uani.com/1yaxzUo

Opinion & Analysis

UANI President Gary Samore in Foreign Affairs: "The parties have a lot more work ahead of them if they are to complete a comprehensive agreement by their self-imposed deadline of June 30, 2015. Comparing the U.S. and Iran fact sheets (as translated by the Belfer Center's Payam Mohseni), here are some of the remaining disputes. First, what happens to Iran's existing stockpile of low-enriched uranium? During the course of earlier negotiations, the United States agreed that Iran could retain 6,000-7,000 IR-1 centrifuges on the understanding that most of Iran's low-enriched uranium would be shipped abroad for fabrication into fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, leaving only 300-500 kilograms on Iran's soil at any time. This formula was necessary to preserve a one-year breakout period-the time required for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb (27 kilograms of 90 percent enriched uranium) at its Natanz enrichment facility. In the final days of negotiations, however, Iran pulled back and declared that it had no plans to export its low-enriched uranium. The issue apparently remains unresolved. According to the U.S. fact sheet, Iran will retain 6,104 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz, 5,060 of which will continue enriching. The sheet also notes that 'Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.' Iran's fact sheet states that 'Iran will be able to use the existing enriched stockpile for producing a nuclear fuel center and/or its export to international market in exchange for uranium.' The United States has suggested that any surplus low-enriched uranium in Iran beyond the permitted 300 kilograms should be 'diluted'-that is, mixed with depleted uranium and returned to natural uranium. Iran prefers to 'convert' the surplus from UF6 (a gas that can be used for further enrichment) to a solid oxide form to supply its efforts to develop an indigenous fuel fabrication facility. Resolving this issue is important because, in theory, Iran could re-convert any remaining low-enriched uranium oxide to UF6 and use it for enrichment, potentially reducing its breakout time below a year. The second question is what the limits are on enrichment in years 10-15 of the agreement. According to the U.S. fact sheet, the limits on enrichment to ensure a one-year breakout time will be enforced for ten years. These physical limits include caps on the number of installed and operating IR-1 centrifuges and the stockpile of low-enriched uranium, as well as prohibitions on the construction of additional enrichment facilities, enrichment above 3.67 percent, and enrichment with more advanced centrifuges. After 15 years, all of these physical limits will be removed. Between ten and 15 years, the U.S. fact sheet suggests that some limits will be eased, such as the ban on using advanced centrifuges for enrichment, based on an 'enrichment and enrichment R&D plan' specified in the comprehensive agreement. The Iranian fact sheet, however, simply states that 'the timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran's enrichment program will be 10 years,' suggesting that all limits are removed after that point. The final agreement will need to specify constraints on the number and type of centrifuges that can be deployed at Natanz between year ten and year 15, which will determine how much Iran could reduce the breakout timeline below a year after year ten of the agreement. Third, how will Fordow be converted? Both sides have agreed that the Fordow enrichment facility will be converted to a research facility, but several details remain to be determined. According to the U.S. fact sheet, Fordow will not be used for enrichment or enrichment research and development for 15 years. In addition, almost two-thirds of Fordow's existing 3,000 centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed, with the remaining centrifuges not to be used enriching uranium. According to Iran's fact sheet, 'More than 1,000 centrifuges and all related infrastructure in Fordow will be preserved and maintained, out of which two centrifuge cascades will be in operation.' Two cascades equal slightly more than 300 centrifuges. Presumably, Iran intends to keep the remaining nearly 700 centrifuges at Fordow on standby to resume uranium enrichment if the comprehensive agreement fails. It is not clear that the United States has agreed to this arrangement. Both sides do seem to be in agreement that the operating centrifuges at Fordow will be used to produce stable isotopes for industrial or medical uses, but the United States may seek to further specify those isotopes (such as Zinc and Molybdenum) that render the centrifuges unusable for uranium enrichment, while Iran may wish to produce isotopes (such an Xenon) that allow the centrifuges to be reused for uranium in the future. The fourth question is how enhanced inspections and monitoring will be implemented... Finally, the two sides must nail down the timing of sanctions relief. The U.S. fact sheet states that 'the U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps' and that 'all past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneously with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).' Iran's fact sheet is less clear. In one section, it states that 'after implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US including financial, banking, insurance, investment, and all related services, including oil, gas, petrochemicals, and automobile industries will be immediately revoked.' Elsewhere, the Iranian fact sheet is more specific: 'At the same time as the start of Iran's nuclear-related implementation work, all of the sanctions will be automatically annulled on a single specified day.' Clearly, there is a major issue. The United States wants sanctions relief to be dependent on performance, whereas Iran wants immediate relief. Also worth noting is an underlying dispute on the content of the UN Security Council resolution required to implement the comprehensive agreement. The U.S. fact sheet emphasizes that the new resolution will 'endorse' the comprehensive agreement and 'urge' its implementation, while retaining 'important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles.' In Iran's version, the resolution should be 'binding and executable for all UN member states.' This suggests that Iran will seek to codify sanctions relief in international law, which the United States will oppose for political and constitutional reasons." http://t.uani.com/1DFpZTZ

UANI Advisory Board Member Michael Singh in WSJ: "Whether one views the 'key parameters' of the Iran nuclear deal announced Thursday as good or bad, it is hard to deny that they hew more closely to Iran's long-held demands than to those of the United States. So why is this particular deal, and not a different one, what was reached? A 'zone of possible agreement' is key to any negotiation. That is, all parties must find the range of outcomes preferable to no deal. If such a zone is present, then which of the possible agreements is reached depends on negotiating tactics. Much of the debate in the U.S. during the talks focused on alternatives: What are they, and are they better or worse than whatever deal comes of the negotiations? How U.S. allies, Congress, and the public answer these questions determines the reception of any final agreement, which is why the administration and its critics have clashed so fiercely to frame those answers. When it comes to the no-deal options, a clear difference has emerged between Iran and the United States. Whatever the reality, Iran has consistently asserted that it can live without a deal. And it didn't stop at rhetoric: Tehran has worked to improve its no-deal options and worsen those of the United States, such as by pursuing deals to circumvent sanctions and pressing its campaign for influence in the Middle East as the talks proceeded. Meanwhile, the U.S. has done the opposite: playing down the likelihood or likely efficacy of new sanctions and emphasizing the dangers of conflict while doing little to counter Iranian regional activities. The Obama administration's negative view-aired publicly-of military conflict and its other alternatives to a deal appear to have driven its willingness to make concessions, and Iran's willingness to stand fast, more than any other factor. In negotiations, once potential outcomes are identified they must be compared to each other and not only to the no-deal options. Which of the possible deals is achieved comes down to tactics at the table. On this score, the Iranians lived up to their reputation as savvy negotiators... As the negotiations progressed, Iran worked to improve its options in the event of no deal and to worsen those of the other side, while employing audacious tactics to secure the best possible agreement among the range of feasible outcomes. The U.S. and its allies should take note and seek to counter the Iranian approach, lest the nuclear negotiations be remembered not as a signature foreign policy accomplishment but as a case study of a powerful country playing a strong hand poorly." http://t.uani.com/1HM0SwB

Josh Rogin in Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama finally got his framework nuclear deal with Iran, and now has to convince Congress to back off its demand for an up-or-down vote on the final package. Its going to be a tough sell: As of now, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't even agree with Obama on what the deal will mean for the region and the world. In an interview with me last week, before the Obama administration announced the breakthrough between Iran and six major world powers, Republican Senator Bob Corker said he had figured out the overarching objectives of the president's various moves in the Middle East, including not just Obama's drive to get a deal with Iran but also his reluctance to get involved in Syria and his treatment of Arab allies and Israel. Corker said Obama just wants to get out of the region. 'It's become very evident as to what the administration is doing relative to the Middle East,' Corker said. 'The administration's view is that in order to extract ourselves in the Middle East, we need to move away from our relationship from Israel and we need to more fully align ourselves with Iran, so we create this balance in the Middle East between Iran and its influence and the Arab Sunni influence in the region.' He added: 'That seems to be our strategy. And that's what's creating all of this turmoil in the region.'  According to Corker, the Iran deal is the lynchpin of Obama's drive to change the balance of power in Iran's favor and then remove America's role from the region. But he said Obama's plan was fatally flawed because Iran has no intention of reforming.  'The P5+1 discussions are central to that,' Corker said. 'The problem with that today, the fact is, Iran hasn't changed its behavior. That's why you see so much of what's happening in the Middle East.' ... But Corker and Obama fundamentally disagree on the impact a nuclear Iran deal will have on the region; Obama thinks it will be helpful, Corker thinks it could be catastrophic. Before Obama will be able to convince Congress to trust him on a deal he says will prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb, he will have to convince the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that their views of how the deal will affect the world can mesh." http://t.uani.com/1c3ZSdi

Eli Lake in Bloomberg: "In the aftermath of the Iran nuclear agreement reached last week, President Barack Obama has had a lot to say about sanctions. On the one hand, the president doesn't think they really work. Obama now concedes -- as does Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif -- that while Iran was facing crippling sanctions it continued to install thousands of centrifuges at its illicit facilities. In his weekly address on Saturday, Obama said there were three options for Iran's nuclear program: aerial bombardment, his deal, and sanctions. Not surprisingly, Obama warned that sanctions 'always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program.' Here's the catch: Two days earlier, at the announcement of the framework agreement, Obama praised the efficacy of renewing sanctions in case Iran cheats. 'If Iran violates the deal,' he said. 'Sanctions can be snapped back into place.' All of this presents a major problem for Obama and his team as they try to sell their deal to a skeptical Congress. If Obama doesn't think the sanctions that have cut off Iran's banks from the international finance system and blocked the Tehran government from legally selling its oil will halt the regime's nuclear program, why does he think snapping them back would deter Iran from cheating? I put that question to Darryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association and a supporter of the deal. He acknowledged that Iran built up nearly 20,000 centrifuges at the facility at Natanz since 2006, when the first United Nations Security Council sanctions were passed against the regime. And he acknowledged that the snap-back provision was designed to increase the cost of cheating. But he said the influx of trade and foreign investment may change the Iranians' sanctions calculations. 'They will have access to trade, foreign investment, oil sales to other countries, that will have a strong effect on their behavior too,' Kimball told me. 'As the foreign trade and investment increases over time, Iran's incentives to comply will become stronger than they are today.' This is possible. But another scenario is that Iran's leadership was never all that interested in the overall health of the country's economy, and instead wanted to avoid an economic meltdown that would cut into the personal wealth amassed by the regime elites. As a 2013 Reuters investigation found, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, personally controls a charitable fund with holdings worth $95 billion. Khamenei and his cronies have enough money to ride out the devastating sanctions their defiance has brought down on their people... It took a dozen years to put in place the crippling sanctions that Obama said this weekend didn't deter Iran from building up its illicit nuclear program. Now he is on the brink of signing an agreement that recognizes in the broadest terms the legitimacy of the facilities (albeit with important modifications) Iran built up as those sanctions escalated. Obama says snapping them back into place will deter Iran from cheating again. If he's going to sell this deal to Congress and the American public, he'll need to explain that contradiction." http://t.uani.com/1CijAXT

Aaron David Miller in FP: "Nowhere is the faith in diplomacy and the U.S. capacity to fix things being tested more than in the current and seemingly hopeful turn of events in Washington's long-standing effort to reach an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue. Enter the recently rolled out Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an oddly technical term for a putative agreement on the nuclear issue that U.S. President Barack Obama described as a 'historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' Perhaps. But as Joni Mitchell and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young reminded us: Life is for learning. And what I've learned - the hard way - is that really good deals are few and far between, that real transformations are rarer still, and that most of diplomacy - and life for that matter - is transactional, more a series of flawed and imperfect enterprises. If you're smart and lucky and circumstances cooperate, these ventures might actually make things better. But rarely do they offer up comprehensive solutions. And right now that's precisely how we ought to look at the U.S. and Iranian effort on the nuclear issue. For the moment, historic though it may be, the Iran enterprise is a transaction - in short a business deal devoid of much sentimentality in which both sides need stuff from the other and are still not sure they can get it, and it's an imperfect and incomplete transaction at that. Indeed, points of no return have not yet been crossed. Whether the deal holds the promise of more fundamental change or transformation - in the U.S.-Iran relationship, Iran's behavior in the region, or even Iran's ultimate intentions toward gaining a nuclear weapon - is far from certain. Indeed, anyone who wants to crow recklessly about the accomplishment should be very circumspect and careful in doing so. And certainly this administration has no cause to be either defensive or impatient with those who have doubts about the deal. And here's why... This may well prove to be the best the Obama administration could have done with Iran. But let's not kid ourselves. The train for any really good accord left the station long ago, if it ever came through town at all. At this stage, there are only deals with varying degrees of risk, particularly given the fact that Iran now has the capacity and the right to enrich uranium and will likely be left with a large nuclear infrastructure a decade from now... It would be great if we could actually get a good deal. And maybe that's still possible. But in squaring off against a wily and formidable counterpart with a lot to gain and little to lose I'm thinking that we're going to have our hands full just avoiding a bad deal." http://t.uani.com/1O3xNQR
        

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