|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"The White House relented on Tuesday and said President Obama
would sign a compromise bill giving Congress a voice on the proposed
nuclear accord with Iran as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in
rare unanimous agreement, moved the legislation to the full Senate for
a vote. An unusual alliance of Republican opponents of the nuclear deal
and some of Mr. Obama's strongest Democratic supporters demanded a
congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this
month's nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. White House
officials insisted they extracted crucial last-minute concessions.
Republicans - and many Democrats - said the president simply got overrun...
Why Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute
of what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said
Mr. Obama was not 'particularly thrilled' with the bill, but had
decided that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes
to make it acceptable... Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee
and the committee's chairman, had a far different interpretation. As
late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry
was urging senators to oppose the bill. The 'change occurred when they
saw how many senators were going to vote for this, and only when that
occurred,' Mr. Corker said." http://t.uani.com/1HsFYVl
WSJ:
"Key senators on Tuesday forged a bipartisan compromise to give
Congress review power over a final nuclear deal with Iran, winning the
endorsement of a reluctant White House and easing a standoff over
lawmakers' role in the talks. The White House said President Barack
Obama would sign the legislation, which was approved unanimously by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday after lawmakers made
changes to the bill that administration officials said mitigated their
concerns. The measure sets up an expedited framework for Congress to
review and potentially vote on a final agreement with Iran this summer.
Accepting the Senate compromise could spare Mr. Obama from the
embarrassment of the Senate overriding a veto of the bill, which was
written by the panel's chairman, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.). Such an
override would have been the first of Mr. Obama's presidency. The
legislation, if enacted, would represent a rare assertion of
congressional power over a foreign-policy matter that the White House
would have preferred to handle alone... The White House had urged
Democrats to reject the bill, but started signaling it could soften its
opposition as the legislation won support from an increasing number of
Democrats. The legislation on Tuesday appeared to have more than the 67
votes needed in the Senate to override a presidential veto. 'The reason
the administration in the last two hours has chosen the path they're
now taking is the number of senators they realized were going to
support this legislation,' Mr. Corker said. 'This was not something the
administration favored, but Congress prevailed.'" http://t.uani.com/1avRbXC
Fars (Iran):
"Iran and China will partner in the construction of nuclear power
plants, Spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)
Behrouz Kamalvandi announced on Tuesday. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran
plans to produce at least 190,000 SWUs (Separative Work Units) of
nuclear fuel at the industrial scale, while we also think about
1,000,000 SWUs, which will be needed to fuel 5 power plants like
Bushehr (nuclear power plant),' Kamalvandi said, addressing a meeting
dubbed as 'an Analysis of Lausanne Statement' in Tehran on Tuesday.
'This is the reason why we have inked an agreement with the Russians to
construct two nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity
while the Chinese will also enter this arena soon,' he added... On
Saturday, Kamalvandi announced the country's plans to build small
nuclear power plants on the rims of the Persian Gulf to desalinate
water. 'The AEOI plans to build small power plants in the Southern
parts of the country for desalination purposes. Construction of such
power plants are on the agenda and will be materialized in the next few
years,' the spokesman said." http://t.uani.com/1avMzRg
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"Iran said on Wednesday it would only accept a deal over its
contested nuclear program if world powers simultaneously lifted all
sanctions imposed on it... 'If there is no end to sanctions, there will
not be an agreement,' Rouhani said in a televised speech in the
northern Iranian city of Rasht, echoing remarks made last week by
Iran's most powerful authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
'The end of these negotiations and a signed deal must include a
declaration of cancelling the oppressive sanctions on the great nation
of Iran,' said Rouhani." http://t.uani.com/1aURBaE
Bloomberg:
"President Barack Obama made a 'deal with the devil' in his
nuclear framework with Iran and there's no reason to think it can
verifiably prevent the Tehran regime from getting a nuclear weapon,
House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday. Returning from a long trip to
the Middle East that included stops in Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia, Boehner spoke to a small group of reporters about the war
against the Islamic State and the general situation in the region as
well as the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. He said
there was great skepticism among Iran's neighbors about the emerging
agreement between it and the P5+1 world powers, and he shared those concerns.
'I don't know how you cut a deal with the devil and think the devil is
going to keep his end of the deal,' Boehner said of Obama and his
advisers. 'All they've done this far is talk about a delay of their
development of a nuclear weapons for a few months or a year, in
exchange for the rehabilitation of their entire economy? I think they
are desperate for a deal at any cost and I think this is a prescription
for disaster.'" http://t.uani.com/1yuTndN
AFP:
"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani downplayed Wednesday the threat
of US congressional action against an eventual nuclear deal, saying
Tehran is not negotiating with the lawmakers but with world powers...
'We do not negotiate with the US Senate; we do not negotiate with the
US House of Representatives,' Rouhani said in a speech in the northern
city of Rasht. 'We are negotiating with a group called the P5+1.' ...
'What the American Senate says, what the US House of Representatives
wants, what the hardliners in the US are after, what US mercenaries say
in the region, has got nothing to do with our nation or our
government,' he added... 'Everyone should know... there will be no
agreement if there's no end to sanctions,' Rouhani said." http://t.uani.com/1IdCmVd
AFP:
"Possible skeletons in Iran's closet -- the subject of talks in
Tehran on Wednesday -- could yet spook the historic Iran nuclear deal,
experts say... The International Atomic Energy Agency also wants Iran
to answer allegations that prior to 2003, and possibly since, Iran's
nuclear programme had 'possible military dimensions' -- 'PMD' for
short. This means alleged research by Iran into how to make a nuclear
bomb such as high-explosives tests and looking into how to explode
fissile material in a missile's warhead." http://t.uani.com/1FRyTOQ
AFP:
"Iran's foreign minister could meet counterparts from the major
powers in New York later this month to press efforts for a
comprehensive nuclear agreement, his ministry said on Wednesday.
Mohammad Javad Zarif and the top diplomats from the six powers will be
in New York to address the five-yearly review conference of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty which opens on April 27. 'It could be possible
that negotiations take place on the sidelines,' foreign ministry
spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham told a news conference." http://t.uani.com/1H7dVtZ
Reuters:
"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier spoke out on
Tuesday against Russia's decision to prepare to deliver missile systems
to Iran, and his Italian counterpart suggested it was too soon to
reestablish economic ties with Iran... 'We're in the middle of a
process,' Steinmeier told reporters, referring to Iran. 'I've told some
U.S. senators that they should not now try to unnecessarily impede
further negotiations. But I'll also say that it is also too early to
talk about rewards at this stage.'" http://t.uani.com/1zgzi5G
Press TV (Iran):
"A delegation of experts from the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has arrived in the Iranian capital, Tehran, to hold
technical talks with Iranian officials. The five-strong delegation, led
by Tero Varjoranta, the IAEA deputy director general and head of the
department of safeguards, arrived in Tehran on Wednesday morning. The
IAEA team is scheduled to hold one-day technical negotiations with the
relevant Iranian officials within the framework of the implementation
of the Framework for Cooperation... Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman
for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said on Tuesday that
the negotiations between Iranian officials and the IAEA team will end
on Wednesday night, adding that the day-long talks between Iran and the
UN nuclear agency will focus on the two issues of alleged explosives
testing at a site in the western city of Marivan and neutron
calculations." http://t.uani.com/1avP3iD
Reuters:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Wednesday he was
confident Barack Obama would be able to get Congress to approve a
nuclear deal with Iran after the U.S. president acknowledged lawmakers
would have the power to review an accord with Tehran. 'Looming large is
the challenge of finishing the negotiation with Iran over the course of
the next two and a half months,' Kerry said after arriving in Germany
for a Group of Seven foreign ministers' meeting in the northern city of
Luebeck. 'Yesterday there was a compromise reached in Washington
regarding congressional input. We are confident about our ability for
the president to negotiate an agreement and to do so with the ability
to make the world safer,' he added." http://t.uani.com/1b370q6
JTA:
"Iran and the world powers will reach a comprehensive final
agreement on curbing Iran's nuclear program by the June 30 deadline,
the top U.S. negotiator in the talks told Israeli journalists. A
diplomatic negotiated solution is the best option to slow Iran's
nuclear program, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman said during a
briefing Monday with Israel's diplomatic reporters. She said a military
strike by Israel or the United States would only set back Iran's
nuclear program by two years. 'You can't bomb their nuclear know-how,
and they will rebuild everything,' Sherman said in the conference call.
'We think we are headed for a good deal. Is it a perfect deal? No.
There is no such thing as a perfect deal.' The briefing is part of the
Obama administration's efforts to garner support in Israel and among
Jewish-Americans for the framework agreement signed earlier this month
with Iran." http://t.uani.com/1E2djXu
Reuters:
"Turkey on Tuesday launched construction of its first nuclear
power plant which Ankara hopes will open a new era of greater energy
self-sufficiency, but the ceremony was marred by angry protests against
the controversial $20 billion project... The power station -- which
will have four power units with a capacity of 1200 MW each -- is being
built like Iran's first nuclear power plant by Russia's nuclear agency
Rosatom." http://t.uani.com/1DirN1X
Congressional
Action
Politico:
"Days after Sen. Robert Menendez was indicted on federal
corruption charges, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was on the phone
with the man who would replace him as the ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee: Ben Cardin of Maryland. The delicate
negotiations in Congress over how to respond to the Iran nuclear
framework were coming to a head - and Democrats were all over the map.
Liberals were pushing Democrats to stand behind the White House, and
Israel hawks like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were prepared to break
from President Barack Obama... The low-key Cardin engaged in a furious
round of negotiations with gregarious Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Bob Corker, prompting something that was once viewed
as almost unthinkable: a bipartisan deal for Congress to review an Iran
nuclear deal - with the blessing of President Barack Obama and House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi." http://t.uani.com/1avLVDA
Sanctions
Relief
RFE/RL:
"Russian oil company LUKoil has reopened its office in Iran, part
of a push into the Middle Eastern country amid expectations for the
removal of sanctions if a deal to curb its nuclear program is reached.
LUKoil first vice president Ravil Maganov made the announcement on
April 15, saying: 'We look forward to participation in projects in Iran
after the sanctions are fully removed.' Maganov said the Anaran project
would be LUKoil's primary focus in Iran but added, 'We are studying
geological data from other projects as well.' LUKoil and Norway's
Statoil started developing the Anaran oil field in 2003 but were forced
to pull out in 2011 due to economic sanctions imposed on Iran. The
field near the Iraqi border contains an estimated 2 billion barrels of
oil." http://t.uani.com/1FKoIGn
Reuters:
"Russian and Iranian companies are discussing terms for a barter
deal which will not include oil deliveries, Russian Energy Minister
Alexander Novak said on Wednesday, trying to end confusion over the
status of a long-heralded agreement. Russian officials said on Monday
Russia was sending grain, equipment and construction materials to Iran
in an oil-for-goods exchange, the first step in securing a foothold in
a new market since the West imposed sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.
But the announcement caused confusion in the oil and grain markets,
with traders saying no oil deliveries and no grain supplies had been
registered... Novak told reporters the deal did not envisage any oil
supplies to Russia, or Russia shipping cargoes on to other markets.
'There are negotiations between companies, they are working on the
terms. We do not foresee oil deliveries,' he said. 'We are not
discussing the delivery of Iranian oil (to global markets) ... They can
freely supply the market themselves it they lift sanctions.'" http://t.uani.com/1J2F9AC
Reuters:
"South Korea's imports of Iranian crude doubled in March from a
year earlier but the country's oil shipments from the OPEC country in
the first quarter of this year fell 16 percent year- on-year to meet
international sanction requirements. Seoul imported 570,338 tonnes of
crude oil from Tehran last month, or 134,857 barrels per day (bpd),
compared with 274,808 tonnes a year ago, preliminary customs data from
the world's fifth-largest crude oil importer showed on Wednesday.
Asia's fourth-largest economy brought 1.4 million tonnes or 114,115 bpd
of crude from the Middle Eastern country in the first three months of
this year, below 136,281 bpd in the same period of last year and last
year's average of 125,000 bpd. Iranian crude shipments in 2014 were 6.2
million tonnes, or 124,497 bpd, down 7.1 percent from the 2013 average
of 134,000 bpd, according to the data and Reuters calculations in
January." http://t.uani.com/1FTtkfY
Press TV (Iran):
"A group of European investors will be visiting Tehran in a few
weeks to assess opportunities in the Middle East's second largest
economy. They are being represented by London-based boutique
investment bank First Frontier on their first visit to Iran following
'a year's worth of laying the groundwork for investment into Iran'.
Nicholas Banszky, chairman of First Frontier, says Iran represents
tremendous investment potential, hoping the trip will result in a long
and fruitful involvement. 'This is something we're very committed to
and we see it as a huge opportunity,' he said... First Frontier has
tied up with an Iranian investment banking firm, The Agah Group, to
provide research on the country's leading companies, its CEO Banszky
said." http://t.uani.com/1IL427j
Iraq Crisis
WSJ:
"President Barack Obama on Tuesday warned Iran to end its
unilateral military role in Iraq, part of a broader U.S. effort to
weaken Tehran's influence in the fight against Islamist extremists in
the Middle East. With Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi sitting by
his side in their first official Oval Office meeting, Mr. Obama said
Iran had to 'respect Iraqi sovereignty' by channeling any military support
through Baghdad. Now, Tehran backs Shiite militias fighting Sunni
militants from Islamic State... The two leaders discussed Iran's role
extensively, Mr. Obama said, and both men agreed that Iran shouldn't be
independently aiding and advising its Shiite allies on Iraq's
front-lines. 'We do not accept any intervention in Iraq, or any
transgression on Iraqi sovereignty,' Mr. Abadi said. 'This is a war
that is fought with Iraqi blood, with help from the coalition forces
and regional countries.'" http://t.uani.com/1D1yK4k
Yemen Crisis
AP:
"The U.N. Security Council stepped up efforts Tuesday to thwart a
Houthi rebel takeover of Yemen, imposing an arms embargo on the leaders
of the Shiite group, along with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and
his son. Yemen, the Arab world's poorest country, has been pushed to
the brink of collapse by ground fighting and Saudi-led airstrikes in
support of current President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who was forced to
flee to Saudi Arabia. Observers say the fighting in the strategic
Mideast nation is taking on the appearance of a proxy war between Iran,
the Shiite powerhouse backing the Houthis, and Sunni-dominated Saudi
Arabia. The Security Council resolution was approved in a 14-0 vote,
with Russia abstaining... Saudi Arabia's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah
Al-Moualimi said the resolution is 'a very clear endorsement' of the
airstrikes and a rejection of the Houthi offensive and Iran's
'meddling' in Yemen." http://t.uani.com/1NIUU6J
AFP:
"The United States on Tuesday called on Iran to abide by the terms
of a new U.N. embargo imposed on Shiite militias in Yemen. 'Obviously
Iran plays a role here given their support for the Houthi,' State
Department acting spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters. 'And I think
what would be most helpful from the Iranian side at this point is to
respect this newly imposed U.N. arms embargo that was just passed today
and stop supporting the Houthi,' she said. Harf added Washington saw
the resolution adopted by the U.N. Security Council as 'important' as
world powers demanded the rebels should relinquish territory seized in
a sweeping offensive that forced U.N.-backed President Abedrabbo
Mansour Hadi to flee overseas... The spokeswoman reiterated that Iran
has been 'incredibly destabilizing in places in the region' and said
the aim was to try to get all sides back to the negotiations on Yemen's
future." http://t.uani.com/1FKpmnd
Press TV (Iran):
"Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says that Israeli and other intelligence
agencies have attempted to move ISIL Takfiri terrorists into Yemen,
Press TV reports. 'The intelligence at hand all indicated that over the
past two months, certain intelligence services inside and outside the
region, of course with the links they had with the Zionist regime, were
seeking to move ISIL forces from Syria, Iraq and some other parts in
the region to southern Yemen... and this happened ,' Amir-Abdollahian
told Press TV in an exclusive interview. Boko Haram and al-Shabab
militants were also moved from Nigeria and Somalia, he added." http://t.uani.com/1CNpS1Q
Human Rights
AFP:
"Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tuesday that a
Washington Post reporter who has been detained in Iran for the past
nine months faced 'very serious' charges. Speaking during a visit to
Madrid, Iran's top diplomat denied that journalist Jason Rezaian, who
reportedly faces espionage charges, was being mistreated as alleged by
his employers. Iranian authorities have provided him with 'humanitarian'
assistance, including the right to receive visits from his mother and
other relatives, Zarif said in response to a question about the case at
a press conference. 'On the legal issue, this is a judicial matter,' he
went on. The Iranian judiciary 'believe that the charges against him
are very serious', Zarif said, without giving details." http://t.uani.com/1IL0rWI
WashPost:
"Jason Rezaian, a reporter for The Washington Post imprisoned in
Iran for almost nine months, has had only one brief, cursory visit with
his lawyer in advance of his upcoming trial, according to information
provided by his family on Tuesday. Leila Ahsan, the attorney, told his
family she and Rezaian met once several weeks ago in the judge's
chambers and were prohibited from discussing his case or the charges he
faces, said The Post's executive editor, Martin Baron, who called the
restrictions 'Kafkaesque.' ... 'The idea that Jason - or anyone - could
be allowed only one hour with a lawyer before standing trial on serious
charges is simply appalling,' Baron said." http://t.uani.com/1avGgNP
Opinion &
Analysis
WSJ Editorial:
"President Obama says he wants Congress to play a role in
approving a nuclear deal with Iran, but his every action suggests the
opposite. After months of resistance, the White House said Tuesday the
President would finally sign a bill requiring a Senate vote on any
deal-and why not since it still gives him nearly a free hand. Modern
Presidents have typically sought a Congressional majority vote, and
usually a two-thirds majority, to ratify a major nuclear agreement. Mr.
Obama has maneuvered to make Congress irrelevant, though bipartisan
majorities passed the economic sanctions that even he now concedes
drove Iran to the negotiating table... Mr. Obama can still do whatever
he wants on Iran as long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority
could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered
by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats
could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama's
desk-and 34 could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that
Congress had its say and 'approved' the Iran deal even if a majority in
the House and Senate voted to oppose it. Foreign Relations Chairman Bob
Corker deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to
Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to
override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote
in deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after
the negotiations are over... Our own view of all this is closer to that
of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who spoke for (but didn't offer) an
amendment in committee Tuesday to require that Mr. Obama submit the
Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under the Constitution, ratification
would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.
Committing the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude-concerning
proliferation of the world's most destructive weapons-should require
treaty ratification. Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan
and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr.
Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty. The
Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted
major national commitments overseas to have a national political
consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.
But instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to
the United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an
executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a
filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he's turning
the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make
it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the
GOP candidates are already promising. The case for the Corker bill is
that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress on an
Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the
Iranians are on notice that the United States isn't run by a single
Supreme Leader." http://t.uani.com/1PNna6x
Michael Mukasey
& Kevin Carroll in WSJ: "Many of CIA Director
John Brennan's gaffes over the years have raised eyebrows, but none has
suggested the need for a legislative remedy-until the one he launched
at Harvard last week... In an interview last week at Harvard's
Institute for Politics, Mr. Brennan said that anyone who both knew the
facts surrounding the Obama administration's 'framework' agreement
regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and said that it 'provides a
pathway for Iran to a bomb,' was being 'wholly disingenuous.' That was
foolish, insofar as it applied to many serious-minded people in and out
of government, but it was also dangerous. Picture CIA analysts and
other officers charged with weighing and interpreting Iran's nuclear
program in relation to the recently concluded negotiations in Lausanne,
Switzerland; that is, CIA analysts who have families and mortgages.
Their solemn charge is to report and analyze facts straight-on-the
good, the bad and the ugly. Evidence of cheating by Iran necessarily
would be fragmentary-dual-use technology paid for through opaque
transactions; unexplained flight patterns and port calls by aircraft
and vessels of dubious registration; intercepted conversations using
possibly coded terms; a smattering of human intelligence from sources
with questionable access and their own mixed motivations and
vulnerabilities. But the boss has already said that purported concerns
about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon are dishonest. Human nature being
what it is at Langley as elsewhere, how likely is it that an evaluation
suggesting that Iran is up to something would make it beyond
operational channels, through reports officers, analysts and CIA
managers, up to policy makers? Not very, unless Congress acts promptly
to put in place an alternative team of analysts, much as George H.W.
Bush did when he was CIA director in 1976 under President Ford. That
was an election year, and détente with the Soviet Union was the
overriding administration policy... Why is a Team B needed today? Even
standing alone, the taint of Mr. Brennan's statement at Harvard would
infect all future CIA evaluations of the Iranian nuclear program. But
it doesn't stand alone. It stands alongside the remainder of the Obama
administration's record in intelligence matters, including false
statements about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi; misleading the public about the military record of Army Sgt.
Bowe Bergdahl; concealment of documents seized from Osama bin Laden's
compound in Pakistan that reportedly portray al Qaeda's durable relationships
with Iran and Pakistan; minimizing terrorist threats that were
inconsistent with the 2012 presidential-campaign theme of terrorism
defeated; and mistaken portrayals of the rise of Islamic State and al
Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa." http://t.uani.com/1DiHypy
Yishai Schwartz
in Lawfare: "Today, just hours before Senator
Corker's slightly amended 'Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act' sailed
through committee on a unanimous vote, the Obama administration began
walking back its longstanding opposition. White House spokesman Josh
Earnest even told reporters 'it's now in the form of a compromise that
the president is willing to sign.' There are two ways to interpret the
Obama administration's apparent about-face. The dominant narrative is
that the White House was simply outflanked. The president opposed any
robust Congressional review of the Iran deal and genuinely fought the
legislation in order to preserve complete leeway to waive sanctions at
his discretion. However, allowing the President a free hand to
dismantle the sanctions regime all on his own proved to be simply too
much for many Democrats. As a matter of principle, these senators
wanted Congress to have its say before sanctions collapsed under the
weight of presidential waiver and a deal became a fait accompli. The
White House saw which way the wind was blowing, recognized it was
facing a rare veto-proof bipartisan consensus, and decided to get out
of the way. As Senator Corker said shortly after the vote, 'The simple
fact is that the White House dropped its veto threat because they
weren't going to have the votes to sustain a veto.' But there is a
second reading, one in which the White House's dance with Corker
actually defanged the opposition and produced a result with which the
President is quite pleased. On this interpretation, the debate over the
bill distracted Congress from pursuing other actions that may have been
more damaging; its ultimate form legitimates presidential
unilateralism; and by conceding, the president even gets to appear
magnanimous... The White House gained the high ground in any
confrontation over the Iran deal the moment its lawyers discovered the
sanctions regime could be dismantled by executive action. From then on,
Congress and the potential deal's critics have been playing defense.
The delay period imposed by the revised Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act at least offers some check on the executive. But a check of some
sort was likely inevitable-and this one is rather minimal. In the
long-term, the appearance of this check may simply offer the president
a bit more legitimacy as he unilaterally carries a deal across the
finish line." http://t.uani.com/1zgLVh8
Eli Lake &
Josh Rogin in Bloomberg: "Demands from Congress
that it should get to review President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with
Iran have received a boost from an unlikely source: Vladimir Putin. On
Tuesday, just 24 hours after Russia's president said he was going to
send S-300 air-defense missiles to Iran, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Bob Corker announced he had strong bipartisan
support for a bill giving Congress that sort of oversight role on a
deal -- if, indeed, a final pact based on the framework reached in
Switzerland this month is ever reached... In short: Putin inadvertently
made a strong case for the Corker bill when he effectively went back on
Russia's word not to sell Iran the powerful air defense system, and now
the White House has backed down from its veto threat. That's not the
only ripple effect of Putin's decision. Senator Robert Menendez,
Corker's co-sponsor of the review legislation, told us Tuesday that the
announcement of the S-300 sale raised questions about what that final
Iran deal will actually contain. He said it 'creates a pressing issue
about the verification and enforcement mechanisms because if Iran is
strengthened in its defense capability against a possible need for a
military action at some future date you are undermined.' Menendez, a
Democrat who wrote a bill containing new Iran sanctions that was
stymied when the White House warned that it would scuttle the
negotiations, didn't stop there. He also indirectly challenged the line
from the White House that there was unity among the six global powers
negotiating with Iran, a group that includes China and Russia. 'When we
keep hearing the Russians and the Chinese are with us on these issues,
if they really are of the same mindset as we were, they wouldn't be
giving the Iranians the S-300,' he told us... But the Putin problem
cuts to a deeper dilemma for the White House. To understand, it's worth
remembering Obama's Iran diplomacy in his first term. Back in 2010, the
Obama team worked closely with Russia to pass a U.N. Security Council
resolution to impose an arms embargo on Iran and tighten international
sanctions on the regime as it expanded its nuclear program in violation
of international law. It seemed like a major coup by the White
House, yet the final resolution, U.N. Security Council 1929, contained
a loophole in the fine print. The clause technically allowed Russia to
sell Iran the S-300 air-defense system, which it had threatened to
deliver only a year before. It turns out, the Obama administration
accepted the loophole in exchange for a promise from Putin's understudy
Dmitri Medvedev, then the Russian president and now prime minister,
that it would not ship the system to Tehran. 'Putin has now reversed
the earlier decision by Medvedev to ban export of S-300 to Iran under
UNSCR 1929,' Gary Samore, who was the White House coordinator on arms
control in 2010, told us Monday." http://t.uani.com/1b38hNY
|
|
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